{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've been asked \"will you stay in this country for good?\" At that time I didn't know \"for good\" mean forever. I wonder why it could be forever.","question":"I've been asked \"will you stay in this country for good?\" At that time I didn't know \"for good\" mean forever. I wonder why it could be forever.","answer":"Since the 1300s, among the meanings of good, when used of things that could be counted or measured (like time) has been \"quite long, large, many\" and then \"all\" or \"the entirety\" or \"completely\". The idiom \"for good\" (meaning \"for a very long time\" or \"for all time\") ultimately came to mean \"forever\" or \"for the rest of your days\". So, today, when we say \"He's here for good\" we mean \"He's here to stay. He is not going to leave\".","output":"Since the 1300s, among the meanings of good, when used of things that could be counted or measured (like time) has been \"quite long, large, many\" and then \"all\" or \"the entirety\" or \"completely\". The idiom \"for good\" (meaning \"for a very long time\" or \"for all time\") ultimately came to mean \"forever\" or \"for the rest of your days\". So, today, when we say \"He's here for good\" we mean \"He's here to stay. He is not going to leave\"."}
{"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\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"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\nA question about prepositions: link Gilberto Francisco's mother said Tuesday she begged him not set out on the dangerous journey from their modest cinder block- and sheet-metal home high in the northern Guatemalan mountains. How is \"in the mountains\" different from \"on the mountains\"?","question":"A question about prepositions: link Gilberto Francisco's mother said Tuesday she begged him not set out on the dangerous journey from their modest cinder block- and sheet-metal home high in the northern Guatemalan mountains. How is \"in the mountains\" different from \"on the mountains\"?","answer":"'On the mountain' and 'on the mountains' means 'on top of' [EDIT: better explanation, 'on the surface of' - see comments below], like goats or trees or snow. One house can also be 'on a mountain' but not 'on the mountains' (unless it's a really big house!) 'In the mountains' means 'among\/in between the mountains'. Here, the home is somewhere in the middle of mountains. (Goats and trees and snow can also be 'in the mountains'.) 'In the mountain' means 'inside it', like a cave or mine.","output":"'On the mountain' and 'on the mountains' means 'on top of' [EDIT: better explanation, 'on the surface of' - see comments below], like goats or trees or snow. One house can also be 'on a mountain' but not 'on the mountains' (unless it's a really big house!) 'In the mountains' means 'among\/in between the mountains'. Here, the home is somewhere in the middle of mountains. (Goats and trees and snow can also be 'in the mountains'.) 'In the mountain' means 'inside it', like a cave or mine."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn our law essays we are often required to quote different judges. It becomes really monotonous to use the word \"stated\" all the time. I have also used \"advocated\" and \"declared\". Are there any other words which could suffice in the place of these words? Example: In the GCHQ case Lord Diplock stated \/ advocated\/ declared that illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety are the three heads of judicial review in the English law.","question":"In our law essays we are often required to quote different judges. It becomes really monotonous to use the word \"stated\" all the time. I have also used \"advocated\" and \"declared\". Are there any other words which could suffice in the place of these words? Example: In the GCHQ case Lord Diplock stated \/ advocated\/ declared that illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety are the three heads of judicial review in the English law.","answer":"Some literatures (French and Farsi have been instanced on this site) applaud and even demand such employment of synonyms; but in English this is deprecated and mocked as 'elegant variation'. Moreover, in some disciplines it is regarded as a grave vice to stray from the most neutral term available in introducing a quotation. Any more colorful term, such as declare, insist, assert, improperly imposes your own subjective interpretation on the original, which should be allowed to speak for itself. Advocate in particular should be avoided: a jurist is called upon to pronounce the meaning of law, not to urge a personal opinion. You may use rule or find if the jurist's utterance constitutes a binding interpretation of a matter of law or fact in the circumstances at hand, and affirm if the jurist upholds a previous ruling; but I advise you to restrict yourself otherwise to say or state or write.","output":"Some literatures (French and Farsi have been instanced on this site) applaud and even demand such employment of synonyms; but in English this is deprecated and mocked as 'elegant variation'. Moreover, in some disciplines it is regarded as a grave vice to stray from the most neutral term available in introducing a quotation. Any more colorful term, such as declare, insist, assert, improperly imposes your own subjective interpretation on the original, which should be allowed to speak for itself. Advocate in particular should be avoided: a jurist is called upon to pronounce the meaning of law, not to urge a personal opinion. You may use rule or find if the jurist's utterance constitutes a binding interpretation of a matter of law or fact in the circumstances at hand, and affirm if the jurist upholds a previous ruling; but I advise you to restrict yourself otherwise to say or state or write."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm looking for a word or phrase that means something along the lines of \"the exhilaration of taboo\". Here's the context for what I'm looking for: \"It was strange and [blank] to walk around and see everyone's age so blatantly public.\"","question":"I'm looking for a word or phrase that means something along the lines of \"the exhilaration of taboo\". Here's the context for what I'm looking for: \"It was strange and [blank] to walk around and see everyone's age so blatantly public.\"","answer":"Collins defines titillating as of or relating to something that arouses, teases, interests, or excites someone pleasurably and often superficially He writes deliberately titillating lyrics. Merriam-Websters offers pleasantly stimulating or exciting , such as titillating reading; also: erotic","output":"Collins defines titillating as of or relating to something that arouses, teases, interests, or excites someone pleasurably and often superficially He writes deliberately titillating lyrics. Merriam-Websters offers pleasantly stimulating or exciting , such as titillating reading; also: erotic"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have heard that starting a sentence with however is wrong. What are the grounds for this view and is it still held by a majority of pedants? They would suggest changing However, some people are beginning to doubt this. to Some people, however, are \u2026 or Some people are, however, beginning \u2026","question":"I have heard that starting a sentence with however is wrong. What are the grounds for this view and is it still held by a majority of pedants? They would suggest changing However, some people are beginning to doubt this. to Some people, however, are \u2026 or Some people are, however, beginning \u2026","answer":"The Grammar Girl has a good article on this topic, basically: It is fine to use however at the beginning of a sentence; you just need to know when to use a comma. If it means \"to whatever extent\", don't use a comma: However wrong it is, I will say it loud and clearly. If it means \"nevertheless\", use a comma: However, I don't give a damn.","output":"The Grammar Girl has a good article on this topic, basically: It is fine to use however at the beginning of a sentence; you just need to know when to use a comma. If it means \"to whatever extent\", don't use a comma: However wrong it is, I will say it loud and clearly. If it means \"nevertheless\", use a comma: However, I don't give a damn."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhich one is grammatical? Note that we have previously discussed about this. or Noted that we have previously discussed about this. Note to Myself: First one is correct (by StoneyB)","question":"Which one is grammatical? Note that we have previously discussed about this. or Noted that we have previously discussed about this. Note to Myself: First one is correct (by StoneyB)","answer":"Note that we have previously discussed this. Here note is a finite verb in the imperative: the subject is always understood to be you. You call upon the reader to observe that the matter has already been discussed. Noted that we have previously discussed this. Noted may be understood as either a finite past-tense form or a non-finite past participle. In both cases, the sentence is defective: If noted is a finite verb, the sentence is missing its subject\u2014who observed that we have already discussed this? If noted is a non-finite past participle there is neither a subject nor the finite verb which a sentence requires. This can only be treated as some sort of subordinate clause. But the clause cannot be employed as an adjectival past participle modifying some other sentence consituent, because such a constituent has to be the object of the non-finite verb, and you have already supplied that object: that we have previously discussed this. In fact, this usage can only be construed as a fragmentary comment (perhaps written in the margin?), not as either a sentence or a part of a sentence. It is not something which can properly appear in formal discourse.","output":"Note that we have previously discussed this. Here note is a finite verb in the imperative: the subject is always understood to be you. You call upon the reader to observe that the matter has already been discussed. Noted that we have previously discussed this. Noted may be understood as either a finite past-tense form or a non-finite past participle. In both cases, the sentence is defective: If noted is a finite verb, the sentence is missing its subject\u2014who observed that we have already discussed this? If noted is a non-finite past participle there is neither a subject nor the finite verb which a sentence requires. This can only be treated as some sort of subordinate clause. But the clause cannot be employed as an adjectival past participle modifying some other sentence consituent, because such a constituent has to be the object of the non-finite verb, and you have already supplied that object: that we have previously discussed this. In fact, this usage can only be construed as a fragmentary comment (perhaps written in the margin?), not as either a sentence or a part of a sentence. It is not something which can properly appear in formal discourse."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nA moment in a movie went like this: A woman was sitting on a man\u2019s lap and about to kiss him in her room which has extremely thin walls. Her neighbor shouted suddenly, \"Just kiss already! Get a damn room!\". Does he mean \"I wanna hear the sequel. But get another nice room for the sake of your own privacy.\" or \"Get any another room! I don't wanna hear anything romantic from your room.\"? I'm wondering if the neighbor is willing to hear the woman's privacy or not, for he said \"Just kiss already!\" which sounds he wants her to kiss the man.","question":"A moment in a movie went like this: A woman was sitting on a man\u2019s lap and about to kiss him in her room which has extremely thin walls. Her neighbor shouted suddenly, \"Just kiss already! Get a damn room!\". Does he mean \"I wanna hear the sequel. But get another nice room for the sake of your own privacy.\" or \"Get any another room! I don't wanna hear anything romantic from your room.\"? I'm wondering if the neighbor is willing to hear the woman's privacy or not, for he said \"Just kiss already!\" which sounds he wants her to kiss the man.","answer":"This expression usually means: Go somewhere more private if you are going to be so affectionate. It's typically used as an admonition when a couple is making other people feel uncomfortable because they are being overly affectionate in a public setting. I've never heard of the expression being used when the person saying the phrase couldn't see the couple. I'm assuming you saw this in a movie somewhere, and the neighbor could hear the couple talking just before they kissed. If so, it sounds like a somewhat humorous use of the phrase. The neighbor is essentially informing the couple, \"Even though I can't see you, I can still hear you.\"","output":"This expression usually means: Go somewhere more private if you are going to be so affectionate. It's typically used as an admonition when a couple is making other people feel uncomfortable because they are being overly affectionate in a public setting. I've never heard of the expression being used when the person saying the phrase couldn't see the couple. I'm assuming you saw this in a movie somewhere, and the neighbor could hear the couple talking just before they kissed. If so, it sounds like a somewhat humorous use of the phrase. The neighbor is essentially informing the couple, \"Even though I can't see you, I can still hear you.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI want to express that I constrained something too much such that it is contradictory now. At first sight, over-constrained seems to fit, but I am not sure whether it is fine to use in a scientific publication. Can you help me?","question":"I want to express that I constrained something too much such that it is contradictory now. At first sight, over-constrained seems to fit, but I am not sure whether it is fine to use in a scientific publication. Can you help me?","answer":"I have never used this word, but I think that \u201coverconstrained\u201d (for a system of equations) is used in two slightly different meanings: There are more constraints than the degree of freedom. There are more constraints than the degree of freedom and there are no solutions because of that. For example, we can call a system of linear equations with 10 variables and 11 equations \u201coverconstrained\u201d in the sense 1, but it may have a solution if some of the equations are redundant. If you need a precise meaning, I think that you should define the meaning which you intend.","output":"I have never used this word, but I think that \u201coverconstrained\u201d (for a system of equations) is used in two slightly different meanings: There are more constraints than the degree of freedom. There are more constraints than the degree of freedom and there are no solutions because of that. For example, we can call a system of linear equations with 10 variables and 11 equations \u201coverconstrained\u201d in the sense 1, but it may have a solution if some of the equations are redundant. If you need a precise meaning, I think that you should define the meaning which you intend."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCaesar and caesura are two similar-sounding Latin words which have made their way into English unsullied in terms of their orthography. The same can however not be said of their pronunciations. The original Latin pronunciations of \/kaisar\/ and \/kaisu\u02d0ra\/ have evolved into \/si\u02d0z\u0259r\/ and \/sizj\u028ar\u0259\/ respectively. Why\/how did this come to pass? Furthermore, why does Caesar have the long \/si:\/ while caesura doesn't?","question":"Caesar and caesura are two similar-sounding Latin words which have made their way into English unsullied in terms of their orthography. The same can however not be said of their pronunciations. The original Latin pronunciations of \/kaisar\/ and \/kaisu\u02d0ra\/ have evolved into \/si\u02d0z\u0259r\/ and \/sizj\u028ar\u0259\/ respectively. Why\/how did this come to pass? Furthermore, why does Caesar have the long \/si:\/ while caesura doesn't?","answer":"For a complete answer, take a look at the Wikipedia article on the traditional English pronunciation of Latin or at Appendix B (\"The pronunciation of Latin in England\") of Sidney Allen's Vox Latina: The Pronunciation of Classical Latin. The rough story seems to be that the traditional English pronunciation of Latin consists of the (Norman?) French pronunciation of Latin at the time of the Norman Conquest, filtered through the sound changes undergone by English (including the Great Vowel Shift), but with some peculiarities of its own. If I'm reading things correctly, it would seem that the differing pronunciations of ae in Caesar and caesura essentially stem from the fact that the ae in Caesar is accented, whilst the ae in caesura is unaccented (and followed by a single consonant), and was thus \"reduced\" (i.e., shortened and opened?) in the English pronunciation.","output":"For a complete answer, take a look at the Wikipedia article on the traditional English pronunciation of Latin or at Appendix B (\"The pronunciation of Latin in England\") of Sidney Allen's Vox Latina: The Pronunciation of Classical Latin. The rough story seems to be that the traditional English pronunciation of Latin consists of the (Norman?) French pronunciation of Latin at the time of the Norman Conquest, filtered through the sound changes undergone by English (including the Great Vowel Shift), but with some peculiarities of its own. If I'm reading things correctly, it would seem that the differing pronunciations of ae in Caesar and caesura essentially stem from the fact that the ae in Caesar is accented, whilst the ae in caesura is unaccented (and followed by a single consonant), and was thus \"reduced\" (i.e., shortened and opened?) in the English pronunciation."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have found multiple questions touching on this but not a single one that has a comprehensive answer. The information is all there but in little bits. \"Do you not\" vs. \"Don't you\" Why does \"Why doesn't it work?\" become \"Why does it not work?\" etc. Exactly why is \"Do not you sleep?\" ungrammatical (except in poetry\/with artistic license)? I understand that not can't contract after you: \"Do you not sleep?\" because not can only contract after a verb, and that it always does after do: \"Don't you sleep?\" but why does it (why must it) contract if it's placed after the verb in a question? Don't you sleep? (common form) Do not you sleep? (ungrammatical) Do you not sleep? (less common form)","question":"I have found multiple questions touching on this but not a single one that has a comprehensive answer. The information is all there but in little bits. \"Do you not\" vs. \"Don't you\" Why does \"Why doesn't it work?\" become \"Why does it not work?\" etc. Exactly why is \"Do not you sleep?\" ungrammatical (except in poetry\/with artistic license)? I understand that not can't contract after you: \"Do you not sleep?\" because not can only contract after a verb, and that it always does after do: \"Don't you sleep?\" but why does it (why must it) contract if it's placed after the verb in a question? Don't you sleep? (common form) Do not you sleep? (ungrammatical) Do you not sleep? (less common form)","answer":"This is an interesting question. I haven't an authoritative answer, but I can sketch the historical development and make some suggestions for how it came to be. The first thing is that not is an anomaly in English: it is a kind of modifier that follows the word it modifies. This is normal in some languages, but unusual in English, where modifiers (such as adjectives and quantifiers) usually precede. Historical forms like I go not with not post-modifying go actually arose from older I ne go nought (Old English, but with modern spelling for simplicity) where nought was optionally used for emphasis, and gradually became compulsory and ne disappeared. An exactly similar process can be seen in French Je ne sais pas. (\"I don't know\"), where the originally empatic pas is now normally required, and in everyday speech the ne pretty well disappears. This cross-linguistic process is known as Jespersen's cycle. So in early modern English, the anomalous I go not was the norm. The optional use of do with a verb goes back at least to Shakespeare's day: I do go is grammatical now as it was then (though today it has a special meaning, either I go habitually, or a contrastive or emphatic sense). This meant that in the negative I do not go was available as an alternative to I go not. For some reason this form ousted the older form except for auxiliaries: we still say I will not, I cannot etc., but for full verbs, only He does not see it is available. My own theory is that the \"do\" form gained ground precisely because it restores the usual modifier-modified order: I do not go can be seen as having the pre-modifer do not before the main verb go. When the contraction don't is used, this is even stronger. But I've not seen this idea discussed anywhere. In negative questions there is a further complication. The early modern English form was Go they not? which appears frequently in the King James Bible. With the rise of do support in the negative (and interrogative), it appears too in the negative interrogative: Do not they go? and as A E says, this was still common in 1800, as can be seen in Jane Austen and other writers. But there was another form which also appeared, I believe from a reanalysis of They do not go as They do (not go) rather than They (do not) go: when this was inverted as a question, the simple auxiliary do was inverted with the subject, and the not go stayed together, giving Do they not go? When do not was contracted to the single word don't, on the other hand, this reanalysis was not possible, and the compound don't was what inverted with the subject, giving Don't they go? As I said, this is a descriptive account, not really an explanatory one. But I suspect it is the best answer available.","output":"This is an interesting question. I haven't an authoritative answer, but I can sketch the historical development and make some suggestions for how it came to be. The first thing is that not is an anomaly in English: it is a kind of modifier that follows the word it modifies. This is normal in some languages, but unusual in English, where modifiers (such as adjectives and quantifiers) usually precede. Historical forms like I go not with not post-modifying go actually arose from older I ne go nought (Old English, but with modern spelling for simplicity) where nought was optionally used for emphasis, and gradually became compulsory and ne disappeared. An exactly similar process can be seen in French Je ne sais pas. (\"I don't know\"), where the originally empatic pas is now normally required, and in everyday speech the ne pretty well disappears. This cross-linguistic process is known as Jespersen's cycle. So in early modern English, the anomalous I go not was the norm. The optional use of do with a verb goes back at least to Shakespeare's day: I do go is grammatical now as it was then (though today it has a special meaning, either I go habitually, or a contrastive or emphatic sense). This meant that in the negative I do not go was available as an alternative to I go not. For some reason this form ousted the older form except for auxiliaries: we still say I will not, I cannot etc., but for full verbs, only He does not see it is available. My own theory is that the \"do\" form gained ground precisely because it restores the usual modifier-modified order: I do not go can be seen as having the pre-modifer do not before the main verb go. When the contraction don't is used, this is even stronger. But I've not seen this idea discussed anywhere. In negative questions there is a further complication. The early modern English form was Go they not? which appears frequently in the King James Bible. With the rise of do support in the negative (and interrogative), it appears too in the negative interrogative: Do not they go? and as A E says, this was still common in 1800, as can be seen in Jane Austen and other writers. But there was another form which also appeared, I believe from a reanalysis of They do not go as They do (not go) rather than They (do not) go: when this was inverted as a question, the simple auxiliary do was inverted with the subject, and the not go stayed together, giving Do they not go? When do not was contracted to the single word don't, on the other hand, this reanalysis was not possible, and the compound don't was what inverted with the subject, giving Don't they go? As I said, this is a descriptive account, not really an explanatory one. But I suspect it is the best answer available."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWith a name that ends in -s, such as Travis or Lewis, where and when should you use -es, -'s, -s or just leave it alone to both pluralise, and to infer belonging to? E.g., if the ball belongs to Travis, which suffix would be used in The ball is Travis[es\/'s\/s\/]. And, referring to a group of people all named Travis, which is correct: Here come the Travis[es\/'s\/s\/].","question":"With a name that ends in -s, such as Travis or Lewis, where and when should you use -es, -'s, -s or just leave it alone to both pluralise, and to infer belonging to? E.g., if the ball belongs to Travis, which suffix would be used in The ball is Travis[es\/'s\/s\/]. And, referring to a group of people all named Travis, which is correct: Here come the Travis[es\/'s\/s\/].","answer":"There is no special rule here: you simple use the same rule as you do for other words. That means that the specific answers to your two sentences are: The ball is Travis\u2019s. Here come the Travises. Those last words are of course pronounced the same. There are imported -is words that go to -es, like crisis > crises, but Travis is not one of them. You may wish to study this answer to \u201cWhich singular names ending in \u201cs\u201d form possessives with only a bare apostrophe?\u201d.","output":"There is no special rule here: you simple use the same rule as you do for other words. That means that the specific answers to your two sentences are: The ball is Travis\u2019s. Here come the Travises. Those last words are of course pronounced the same. There are imported -is words that go to -es, like crisis > crises, but Travis is not one of them. You may wish to study this answer to \u201cWhich singular names ending in \u201cs\u201d form possessives with only a bare apostrophe?\u201d."}
{"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\nMost of the uses of the word everloving I can think of involve either vulgar or violent contexts, so you must excuse the following example: He'd finally crossed my last nerve, so yesterday, me and my buddies caught him out and beat the everloving snot out of him. When I look up the definition of everloving at Wiktionary, it gives me the following three definitions: Which loves unceasingly or unconditionally Of or related to one who is everloving (1), or to everlasting love Which is loved unceasingly And the fourth states, \"generic intensifier.\" So I have to two questions: First, is the premise of my question wrong? Is there a phrase where everloving is used as an intensifier, and still manages to add a meaning more than making the phrase stronger? Secondly, how did everloving assume this role? How is the fourth definition of everloving connected to its first three definitions? Can anyone find or draw a plausible path?","question":"Most of the uses of the word everloving I can think of involve either vulgar or violent contexts, so you must excuse the following example: He'd finally crossed my last nerve, so yesterday, me and my buddies caught him out and beat the everloving snot out of him. When I look up the definition of everloving at Wiktionary, it gives me the following three definitions: Which loves unceasingly or unconditionally Of or related to one who is everloving (1), or to everlasting love Which is loved unceasingly And the fourth states, \"generic intensifier.\" So I have to two questions: First, is the premise of my question wrong? Is there a phrase where everloving is used as an intensifier, and still manages to add a meaning more than making the phrase stronger? Secondly, how did everloving assume this role? How is the fourth definition of everloving connected to its first three definitions? Can anyone find or draw a plausible path?","answer":"I believe it's a euphemism for \"motherf***ing\", with a similar sound and a meaning close enough to be understood but not actually obscene.","output":"I believe it's a euphemism for \"motherf***ing\", with a similar sound and a meaning close enough to be understood but not actually obscene."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm pretty sure there's a word for that. Unfortunately, searching for the antonym of patronage didn't yield any results. Example sentence: Since I became a __ I haven't had to worry about money anymore.","question":"I'm pretty sure there's a word for that. Unfortunately, searching for the antonym of patronage didn't yield any results. Example sentence: Since I became a __ I haven't had to worry about money anymore.","answer":"I wholeheartedly recommend the Reverse Dictionary at onelook.com. Searching for recipient of patronage gives, among other less relevant suggestions, all of the following. prot\u00e9g\u00e9 [probably the best word] client concern dependant favourite almsman beneficiary","output":"I wholeheartedly recommend the Reverse Dictionary at onelook.com. Searching for recipient of patronage gives, among other less relevant suggestions, all of the following. prot\u00e9g\u00e9 [probably the best word] client concern dependant favourite almsman beneficiary"}
{"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\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've written the following sentence but after reading it, it sounds to me like it's wrong. The skill-set for iOS and Android development is not common in the current team. Is it correct to say \"common in the current team\"? Or should I use \"common on\"?","question":"I've written the following sentence but after reading it, it sounds to me like it's wrong. The skill-set for iOS and Android development is not common in the current team. Is it correct to say \"common in the current team\"? Or should I use \"common on\"?","answer":"It\u2019s in. However, you may want to consider re-writing the whole thing. Something like this might be clearer, depending on how polite you want to be: Most of those working on the project are not familiar with iOS and Android development.","output":"It\u2019s in. However, you may want to consider re-writing the whole thing. Something like this might be clearer, depending on how polite you want to be: Most of those working on the project are not familiar with iOS and Android development."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAccording to Wikipedia, a roe deer is a small, nimble Eurasian deer with no visible tail, a white rump patch, and a reddish summer coat that turns grey in winter, the male having short three-pointed antlers (source) Why are such deers called \"roe\" deers? I found that \"roe\" only means the eggs of fish, the sperm of certain fish or the ovaries of certain crustaceans.","question":"According to Wikipedia, a roe deer is a small, nimble Eurasian deer with no visible tail, a white rump patch, and a reddish summer coat that turns grey in winter, the male having short three-pointed antlers (source) Why are such deers called \"roe\" deers? I found that \"roe\" only means the eggs of fish, the sperm of certain fish or the ovaries of certain crustaceans.","answer":"There are two words written \"roe\" - they are homonyms (words of different origin that look and sound the same). So, \"roe\" meaning \"fish eggs\" is one word, and \"roe\" meaning roe deer is another, unrelated word. Both are of Germanic origin, but they have different roots. For the name of the deer, the terms \"roe\" and \"roe deer\" have coexisted since the Old English period. (\"Old English\" with a capital \"O\" is the name for the English language as spoken pre-1066, also known as \"Anglo-Saxon\".) \"Roe\" and the \"roe\" of \"roe deer\" have the same Germanic root, but it is unclear whether \"roe deer\" was coined in Old English (by combining \"roe\" with \"deer\") or borrowed from Norse (the ancestor language of Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Faroese and Icelandic; Norse was spoken by Danish settlers in some parts of early medieval England). The reason for the continued existence of the term \"roe deer\" alongside the simpler term \"roe\" is probably that it's much clearer, given that \"roe\" is a monosyllable with other meanings (and also sounds identical to the word \"row\" in some of its meanings), and given that most people don't discuss deer that often. (Note: In both Old English and Old Norse, \"deer\" just meant an animal, not necessarily a deer. \"Roe\" was the name of the specific animal. In origin, though, \"roe\" was probably a colour reference, possibly meaning \"swarthy\", \"dusky\" or \"brownish\".)","output":"There are two words written \"roe\" - they are homonyms (words of different origin that look and sound the same). So, \"roe\" meaning \"fish eggs\" is one word, and \"roe\" meaning roe deer is another, unrelated word. Both are of Germanic origin, but they have different roots. For the name of the deer, the terms \"roe\" and \"roe deer\" have coexisted since the Old English period. (\"Old English\" with a capital \"O\" is the name for the English language as spoken pre-1066, also known as \"Anglo-Saxon\".) \"Roe\" and the \"roe\" of \"roe deer\" have the same Germanic root, but it is unclear whether \"roe deer\" was coined in Old English (by combining \"roe\" with \"deer\") or borrowed from Norse (the ancestor language of Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Faroese and Icelandic; Norse was spoken by Danish settlers in some parts of early medieval England). The reason for the continued existence of the term \"roe deer\" alongside the simpler term \"roe\" is probably that it's much clearer, given that \"roe\" is a monosyllable with other meanings (and also sounds identical to the word \"row\" in some of its meanings), and given that most people don't discuss deer that often. (Note: In both Old English and Old Norse, \"deer\" just meant an animal, not necessarily a deer. \"Roe\" was the name of the specific animal. In origin, though, \"roe\" was probably a colour reference, possibly meaning \"swarthy\", \"dusky\" or \"brownish\".)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\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\nA poem from A Canterbury Tale (1944): Six hundred years have passed. What would they see, Dan Chaucer and his goodly company? Today the hills and valleys are the same. Gone are the forests since the enclosures came. Hedgerows have sprung. The land is under plow, And orchards bloom with blossom on the bough. Sussex and Kent are like a garden fair, But sheep still graze upon the ridges there. The Pilgrims\u2019 Way still winds above the weald, Through wood and break and many a fertile field. What could be the meaning of break here? Could it be windbreak?","question":"A poem from A Canterbury Tale (1944): Six hundred years have passed. What would they see, Dan Chaucer and his goodly company? Today the hills and valleys are the same. Gone are the forests since the enclosures came. Hedgerows have sprung. The land is under plow, And orchards bloom with blossom on the bough. Sussex and Kent are like a garden fair, But sheep still graze upon the ridges there. The Pilgrims\u2019 Way still winds above the weald, Through wood and break and many a fertile field. What could be the meaning of break here? Could it be windbreak?","answer":"I think the word is misspelled here. (Was this text taken from the original script or transcribed from the dialog?) It should be brake. Brake - a clump of brushes, brushwood, or briars. See also thicket. (link)","output":"I think the word is misspelled here. (Was this text taken from the original script or transcribed from the dialog?) It should be brake. Brake - a clump of brushes, brushwood, or briars. See also thicket. (link)"}
{"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\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI saw this on twitter and I'd like to know what he meant with that, because it seems that \"Do you\" is a question but he is using it as an answer. Question: Is it ok if I spent $55 on pokecoins? Answer: Do you, bruh.","question":"I saw this on twitter and I'd like to know what he meant with that, because it seems that \"Do you\" is a question but he is using it as an answer. Question: Is it ok if I spent $55 on pokecoins? Answer: Do you, bruh.","answer":"From Urban Dictionary do you Do what you feel is best for you, in short, do you. acting in a way that satisfies you, not caring at all about what others think nor about your actions and\/or consequences following your heart I suppose it's slang (I don't know the right terminology). In this instance, do you basically means something like do whatever you like or do what your heart desires. In other words, the respondent is suggesting that the inquirer go for it.","output":"From Urban Dictionary do you Do what you feel is best for you, in short, do you. acting in a way that satisfies you, not caring at all about what others think nor about your actions and\/or consequences following your heart I suppose it's slang (I don't know the right terminology). In this instance, do you basically means something like do whatever you like or do what your heart desires. In other words, the respondent is suggesting that the inquirer go for it."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat goes in the blank? Commerce \u2192 Commercial Finance \u2192 Financial Trade \u2192 __________","question":"What goes in the blank? Commerce \u2192 Commercial Finance \u2192 Financial Trade \u2192 __________","answer":"One word is mercantile: Related to trade [ODO]","output":"One word is mercantile: Related to trade [ODO]"}
{"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\nWhen writing out a company name, which would you use: Company Name: Strapline Company Name - Strapline Company Name \u2013 Strapline Company Name, Strapline Or is the correct one missing from this list entirely?","question":"When writing out a company name, which would you use: Company Name: Strapline Company Name - Strapline Company Name \u2013 Strapline Company Name, Strapline Or is the correct one missing from this list entirely?","answer":"Colon (:) or dash (\u2014) is fine. Personally I find dashes easier to read in search engine result pages. I recommend Jakob Nielsen's Tagline Blues: What's the Site About? for advice on writing good strap lines.","output":"Colon (:) or dash (\u2014) is fine. Personally I find dashes easier to read in search engine result pages. I recommend Jakob Nielsen's Tagline Blues: What's the Site About? for advice on writing good strap lines."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was watching a breakfast show the other day and a reporter was at a museum where they had an exhibition that the lady said was: Exactly like what the scientists think the surface of Mars is probably like Is this possible? Can something be exactly like something that's probable?","question":"I was watching a breakfast show the other day and a reporter was at a museum where they had an exhibition that the lady said was: Exactly like what the scientists think the surface of Mars is probably like Is this possible? Can something be exactly like something that's probable?","answer":"The exhibition is an explicit demonstration of an idea. It can be exactly like the physical expression of the idea. Since scientists have good data about the martian surface, it can also be \"probably\" correct. As Hilaire Belloc once wrote about microbes, \"Oh! let us never, never doubt What nobody is sure about!\".","output":"The exhibition is an explicit demonstration of an idea. It can be exactly like the physical expression of the idea. Since scientists have good data about the martian surface, it can also be \"probably\" correct. As Hilaire Belloc once wrote about microbes, \"Oh! let us never, never doubt What nobody is sure about!\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn my native language, if today is 1st and Sunday and we want to refer to the next Sunday (on 8th) then we may say the \"today's eighth day\" or just \"8th day\". For example if you're asking when does the festival begin? Someone may reply: 8th day. Obviously the count 8 includes today. On the other hand if we excluded today then it'd have been the 7th day from today. Does English have an expression like that? If so today is Sunday and one wants to refer to Tuesday, is it called 2nd day from today or 3rd day from today?","question":"In my native language, if today is 1st and Sunday and we want to refer to the next Sunday (on 8th) then we may say the \"today's eighth day\" or just \"8th day\". For example if you're asking when does the festival begin? Someone may reply: 8th day. Obviously the count 8 includes today. On the other hand if we excluded today then it'd have been the 7th day from today. Does English have an expression like that? If so today is Sunday and one wants to refer to Tuesday, is it called 2nd day from today or 3rd day from today?","answer":"The comments have given you all the details of using numbers in precise ways. My answer is going to give you the natural ways of talking about time (in terms of days) in English. I wasn't sure if you are also interested in that, but in case you are, here goes. Mostly we use the name of the day of the week, but we can also say tomorrow, day after tomorrow, yesterday and day before yesterday; and we can also use the date, e.g. We decided to meet on the 11th or on August 11th. The most common chunks of time are a week, 10 days, two weeks, and month. If you don't mind being a little vague, a couple of days or a few days -- I would interpret those as being two or three, possibly four. The rhythm of the work week and then the weekend give us very strong signposts -- this must be different from a farming village. So you'll hear early next week, the beginning of the week, the middle of the week, the end of the week, close to the weekend, etc. Your bookclub might meet on the second Tuesday of the month.","output":"The comments have given you all the details of using numbers in precise ways. My answer is going to give you the natural ways of talking about time (in terms of days) in English. I wasn't sure if you are also interested in that, but in case you are, here goes. Mostly we use the name of the day of the week, but we can also say tomorrow, day after tomorrow, yesterday and day before yesterday; and we can also use the date, e.g. We decided to meet on the 11th or on August 11th. The most common chunks of time are a week, 10 days, two weeks, and month. If you don't mind being a little vague, a couple of days or a few days -- I would interpret those as being two or three, possibly four. The rhythm of the work week and then the weekend give us very strong signposts -- this must be different from a farming village. So you'll hear early next week, the beginning of the week, the middle of the week, the end of the week, close to the weekend, etc. Your bookclub might meet on the second Tuesday of the month."}
{"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 am coding a program and want to raise a signal whenever the data of a form is in a state that allows it to be committed to a storage. signal committabilityChanged(); However, I don't find the word committability in the dictionaries I checked. Is committability a word? Else, what is the noun form of \u201ccommittable\u201d?","question":"I am coding a program and want to raise a signal whenever the data of a form is in a state that allows it to be committed to a storage. signal committabilityChanged(); However, I don't find the word committability in the dictionaries I checked. Is committability a word? Else, what is the noun form of \u201ccommittable\u201d?","answer":"This Google ngram suggests that both committability and commitability are used, with the former being preferred over the latter. Their usage appears to be quite rare and specialised. Initially, committability seems to have been used primarily in the field of psychiatry. Later years show its increasing usage in computer books as evidenced here.","output":"This Google ngram suggests that both committability and commitability are used, with the former being preferred over the latter. Their usage appears to be quite rare and specialised. Initially, committability seems to have been used primarily in the field of psychiatry. Later years show its increasing usage in computer books as evidenced here."}
{"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\n\u2018I want to meet your enemy\u2019 can mean?: You are not an enemy You are an enemy (like \u2018your majesty\u2019 means you are a majesty)","question":"\u2018I want to meet your enemy\u2019 can mean?: You are not an enemy You are an enemy (like \u2018your majesty\u2019 means you are a majesty)","answer":"'I want to meet your enemy' is not ambiguous, and means only one thing: I want to meet the person who is your enemy. 'Your' denotes possession or association. It is like saying 'I want to meet your wife, brother, son, boss, neighbour, etc' The word 'your' in formal or respectful forms of address used when speaking to people, such as 'your Majesty' (to the British monarch), 'your Honour' (to a judge in court), 'your Excellency' (certain senior officials or politicians of foreign states) does not mean 'you are'. It is possessive and conveys the idea that majesty, honour, excellency, etc, belong to that person. When talking about (rather than to) such people formally we would say 'her (or his) Majesty, Honour, Excellency'.","output":"'I want to meet your enemy' is not ambiguous, and means only one thing: I want to meet the person who is your enemy. 'Your' denotes possession or association. It is like saying 'I want to meet your wife, brother, son, boss, neighbour, etc' The word 'your' in formal or respectful forms of address used when speaking to people, such as 'your Majesty' (to the British monarch), 'your Honour' (to a judge in court), 'your Excellency' (certain senior officials or politicians of foreign states) does not mean 'you are'. It is possessive and conveys the idea that majesty, honour, excellency, etc, belong to that person. When talking about (rather than to) such people formally we would say 'her (or his) Majesty, Honour, Excellency'."}
{"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 writing exercise I sent to my English teacher, she wrote some comments evaluating my writing. Some comments were about what I did, and others were about what I should do. In the sentences about what I should do she used the Imperative form. But, one of the sentences was this one: Put a touch of personal feeling in your conclusion. The problem is that the word \"Put\" can be Preterit, Past Participle or Present Participle. So, how can I know if \"Put\" was used as a Preterit or to build an Imperative clause?","question":"In a writing exercise I sent to my English teacher, she wrote some comments evaluating my writing. Some comments were about what I did, and others were about what I should do. In the sentences about what I should do she used the Imperative form. But, one of the sentences was this one: Put a touch of personal feeling in your conclusion. The problem is that the word \"Put\" can be Preterit, Past Participle or Present Participle. So, how can I know if \"Put\" was used as a Preterit or to build an Imperative clause?","answer":"It has to be an imperative; if it were preterit, it would have a subject (\u201cYou put a touch of \u2026\u201d).","output":"It has to be an imperative; if it were preterit, it would have a subject (\u201cYou put a touch of \u2026\u201d)."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it old-fashioned to say \"It's raining cats and dogs\"? If yes, what is the substitution idiom for expressing heavy rain?","question":"Is it old-fashioned to say \"It's raining cats and dogs\"? If yes, what is the substitution idiom for expressing heavy rain?","answer":"It's raining cats and dogs is used to describe very heavy rain and is still in use these days. Alternative phrasing might be It's pouring It's bucketing It's a deluge It's pissing down (BrE) It's really coming down (can be used for any precipitation )","output":"It's raining cats and dogs is used to describe very heavy rain and is still in use these days. Alternative phrasing might be It's pouring It's bucketing It's a deluge It's pissing down (BrE) It's really coming down (can be used for any precipitation )"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\"What Do You Care What Other People Think?\" is the title of a book by Richard Feynman. The use of the first \"what\" sounds very unusual to me (a non-native speaker of English) since I've never seen the word \"care\" taking both a direct object (\"what\") and an indirect one (\"what other people think\"). Does the sentence has about the same meaning with \"Why Do You Care What Other People Think?\", which seems to be more common (e.g. 1, 2)? Is the usage here really unusual?","question":"\"What Do You Care What Other People Think?\" is the title of a book by Richard Feynman. The use of the first \"what\" sounds very unusual to me (a non-native speaker of English) since I've never seen the word \"care\" taking both a direct object (\"what\") and an indirect one (\"what other people think\"). Does the sentence has about the same meaning with \"Why Do You Care What Other People Think?\", which seems to be more common (e.g. 1, 2)? Is the usage here really unusual?","answer":"There was a similar question five years ago: https:\/\/ell.stackexchange.com\/questions\/11611\/what-do-you-care The answer from that question pointed out that \"Why Do You Care?\" is a genuine question while \"What Do You Care?\" is more of a dismissive way to talk to someone, saying they don't or shouldn't care about something. In the case of the Feynman book, I think it is not fair to characterize it as dismissive. I could imagine those eight words being spoken in a positive way. Here's an example of a friendly usage of that phrase: \/\/ \"I'm worried that my classmates think I'm a loser,\" said Jim. Bob gave Jim a friendly look. \"Why worry? What do you care what they think?\" \/\/ I agree it is a very unusual usage. I don't hear it often.","output":"There was a similar question five years ago: https:\/\/ell.stackexchange.com\/questions\/11611\/what-do-you-care The answer from that question pointed out that \"Why Do You Care?\" is a genuine question while \"What Do You Care?\" is more of a dismissive way to talk to someone, saying they don't or shouldn't care about something. In the case of the Feynman book, I think it is not fair to characterize it as dismissive. I could imagine those eight words being spoken in a positive way. Here's an example of a friendly usage of that phrase: \/\/ \"I'm worried that my classmates think I'm a loser,\" said Jim. Bob gave Jim a friendly look. \"Why worry? What do you care what they think?\" \/\/ I agree it is a very unusual usage. I don't hear it often."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI thought to terms below and found them inappropriate: Ignorant = A person who doesn't know generally = incorrect Talkative = A person who may know a lot too! = incorrect Awkward = A person who may know a lot but cannot express his\/her knowledge appropriately = incorrect Liar = A person who lies but may know a lot! = incorrect Shallow = A person with shallow knowledge but may not try to force his\/her ideas to the others = incorrect Windbag = A person who talks a lot but may know a lot too = incorrect Facile = Easygoing = incorrect Can you suggest a better word or phrase?","question":"I thought to terms below and found them inappropriate: Ignorant = A person who doesn't know generally = incorrect Talkative = A person who may know a lot too! = incorrect Awkward = A person who may know a lot but cannot express his\/her knowledge appropriately = incorrect Liar = A person who lies but may know a lot! = incorrect Shallow = A person with shallow knowledge but may not try to force his\/her ideas to the others = incorrect Windbag = A person who talks a lot but may know a lot too = incorrect Facile = Easygoing = incorrect Can you suggest a better word or phrase?","answer":"Know-it-all (\u201cSomeone who obnoxiously claims to be knowledgeable on a subject\u201d) has already been mentioned. Synonyms include smart aleck, wiseguy, and clever dick. However, wiseacre (\u201cOne who feigns knowledge or cleverness; an insolent upstart\u201d) may be a better choice than any of those. For adjectives, consider facile and shallow. For related words that might apply, consider blowhard (\u201cA person who talks too much or too loudly, especially in a boastful or self-important manner\u201d) and instant expert. Note, per tvtropes, the latter also has meanings that don't apply \u2013 specifically, how some superheroes almost instantly pick up new skills.","output":"Know-it-all (\u201cSomeone who obnoxiously claims to be knowledgeable on a subject\u201d) has already been mentioned. Synonyms include smart aleck, wiseguy, and clever dick. However, wiseacre (\u201cOne who feigns knowledge or cleverness; an insolent upstart\u201d) may be a better choice than any of those. For adjectives, consider facile and shallow. For related words that might apply, consider blowhard (\u201cA person who talks too much or too loudly, especially in a boastful or self-important manner\u201d) and instant expert. Note, per tvtropes, the latter also has meanings that don't apply \u2013 specifically, how some superheroes almost instantly pick up new skills."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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":"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\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"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'm trying to figure out what the correct past tense form of \"he bears the weight\" would be. Wiktionary says that \"bear\" has a simple past \"bore\" and a past participle \"borne\", but I don't understand when one is used instead of the other. So, would the correct form be He has bore the weight or He has borne the weight ? It would also be helpful if I could see example sentences for \"borne\" and \"bore\" to illuminate the distinction.","question":"I'm trying to figure out what the correct past tense form of \"he bears the weight\" would be. Wiktionary says that \"bear\" has a simple past \"bore\" and a past participle \"borne\", but I don't understand when one is used instead of the other. So, would the correct form be He has bore the weight or He has borne the weight ? It would also be helpful if I could see example sentences for \"borne\" and \"bore\" to illuminate the distinction.","answer":"Bore is the past tense, borne is the past participle. The past participle is used in the present perfect construction He has borne.","output":"Bore is the past tense, borne is the past participle. The past participle is used in the present perfect construction He has borne."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is a more colourful way of saying someone who wants to gain weight, increase their muscle size by going to the gym? He has been regularly visiting the gym in hopes of ___ Can I say \u2018packing some guns\u2019 here?","question":"What is a more colourful way of saying someone who wants to gain weight, increase their muscle size by going to the gym? He has been regularly visiting the gym in hopes of ___ Can I say \u2018packing some guns\u2019 here?","answer":"Getting ripped. Which means getting Well defined muscles It also doubles up as getting drunk.","output":"Getting ripped. Which means getting Well defined muscles It also doubles up as getting drunk."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAs mentioned, which is the correct one? \"I'm going to finally start\" or \"I'm going to start finally\"? It's not only this particular sentence\/phrase I'm worried about. I want to know, just like the question asked, which word should come before\/after another word. Are there any grammar rules which dictate the correct way to place certain words\/verbs before\/after other words?","question":"As mentioned, which is the correct one? \"I'm going to finally start\" or \"I'm going to start finally\"? It's not only this particular sentence\/phrase I'm worried about. I want to know, just like the question asked, which word should come before\/after another word. Are there any grammar rules which dictate the correct way to place certain words\/verbs before\/after other words?","answer":"Your second example \"I'm going to start finally\" sounds odd, because \"start\" and \"finally\", near-opposites, are juxtaposed. (One almost always starts at the beginning, no matter how late one starts.) I suggest I'm finally going to start. (this way, \"finally\" modifies \"going\") or \"Finally, I'm going to start. (this way, \"finally\" modifies the whole sentence; it's a sentence adverb.)","output":"Your second example \"I'm going to start finally\" sounds odd, because \"start\" and \"finally\", near-opposites, are juxtaposed. (One almost always starts at the beginning, no matter how late one starts.) I suggest I'm finally going to start. (this way, \"finally\" modifies \"going\") or \"Finally, I'm going to start. (this way, \"finally\" modifies the whole sentence; it's a sentence adverb.)"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"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\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was reading a pamphlet from the year 1592, published in London, and came across a rather obsolete and bewitching phrase: \"The Foxe on a time came to visit the Gray, partly for kindered cheefly for craft, and finding the hole emptie of all other company, sauing onely one Badger enquiring the cause of his solitarinesse: hee described the sodaine death of his dam and sire with the rest of his consortes. The Foxe made a Friday face, counterfeiting sorrow: but concludinge that deaths stroke was vneuitable perswaded him to seeke som fit mate wherwith to match. The badger soone agreed, so forth they went, and in their way met with a wa[n]ton ewe stragling from the fold...\" Does anyone have an idea what \"Friday face\" would have meant in Elizabethan London's context, since today it certainly has borne a context most different?","question":"I was reading a pamphlet from the year 1592, published in London, and came across a rather obsolete and bewitching phrase: \"The Foxe on a time came to visit the Gray, partly for kindered cheefly for craft, and finding the hole emptie of all other company, sauing onely one Badger enquiring the cause of his solitarinesse: hee described the sodaine death of his dam and sire with the rest of his consortes. The Foxe made a Friday face, counterfeiting sorrow: but concludinge that deaths stroke was vneuitable perswaded him to seeke som fit mate wherwith to match. The badger soone agreed, so forth they went, and in their way met with a wa[n]ton ewe stragling from the fold...\" Does anyone have an idea what \"Friday face\" would have meant in Elizabethan London's context, since today it certainly has borne a context most different?","answer":"A dictionary from 1793 gives the answer: Friday face, a dismal countenance, before and even long after the reformation. Friday was a day of abstinence or jour maigre. Blackguardiana (Note that your source clarifies that it is only \u201ccounterfeiting sorrow\u201d.) For some more context, certain Christian groups (eg Catholics) were prohibited from eating meat on Fridays. Some Christians still observe this (even if only during Lent). See Are Meatless Fridays Still a Thing? Does it Matter? If I were translating for the Modern English reader, I would use the expression \u201cMonday face\u201d or \u201c\u2639\ufe0f\u201d.","output":"A dictionary from 1793 gives the answer: Friday face, a dismal countenance, before and even long after the reformation. Friday was a day of abstinence or jour maigre. Blackguardiana (Note that your source clarifies that it is only \u201ccounterfeiting sorrow\u201d.) For some more context, certain Christian groups (eg Catholics) were prohibited from eating meat on Fridays. Some Christians still observe this (even if only during Lent). See Are Meatless Fridays Still a Thing? Does it Matter? If I were translating for the Modern English reader, I would use the expression \u201cMonday face\u201d or \u201c\u2639\ufe0f\u201d."}
{"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\nThese three words have nearly identical meaning. The meanings of these words according to Google are Facetious: treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant. Flippant: not showing a serious or respectful attitude. Frivolous: not having any serious purpose or value. If I take these definitions, the words \"Flippant\" and \"Frivolous\" seems to be used in a pejorative sense, while Facetious seems a bit \"lighthearted\" type of characteristic. I am not a native speaker. Are these true of the words or am I over-analyzing similar words. Are there any differences between them?","question":"These three words have nearly identical meaning. The meanings of these words according to Google are Facetious: treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant. Flippant: not showing a serious or respectful attitude. Frivolous: not having any serious purpose or value. If I take these definitions, the words \"Flippant\" and \"Frivolous\" seems to be used in a pejorative sense, while Facetious seems a bit \"lighthearted\" type of characteristic. I am not a native speaker. Are these true of the words or am I over-analyzing similar words. Are there any differences between them?","answer":"Frivolous -- Frivolous can be used as a negative, but it's also quite commonly used in the context of pursuing something that may be entertaining or fun, but has no practical value -- for example, a frivolous purchase would be something you buy that makes you feel good, but that you don't actually need. People will more often acknowledge that they do something frivolously than either flippantly or facetiously, and it tends to be framed as a half-positive -- something like -- \"I know it was a little bit frivolous, but don't you just love it?\" Flippant -- this is the one that's most often used critically, usually in the context where someone is dismissing something genuinely serious with a play at humor. For example, someone might be criticised for their flippant dismissal of a serious political issue. The gentleman's flippant remarks about the Middle East drew ire from the opposition. Facetious -- This is probably the least widely used of the three, but refers more directly to being humorous than the other two. Most often, I've heard it used almost as a disclaimer about something someone is about to say, in the line of: I don't mean to be facetious, but... Which is similar to saying \"I don't mean to be funny\", or \"I don't mean to make a joke\", and then proceeding from there.","output":"Frivolous -- Frivolous can be used as a negative, but it's also quite commonly used in the context of pursuing something that may be entertaining or fun, but has no practical value -- for example, a frivolous purchase would be something you buy that makes you feel good, but that you don't actually need. People will more often acknowledge that they do something frivolously than either flippantly or facetiously, and it tends to be framed as a half-positive -- something like -- \"I know it was a little bit frivolous, but don't you just love it?\" Flippant -- this is the one that's most often used critically, usually in the context where someone is dismissing something genuinely serious with a play at humor. For example, someone might be criticised for their flippant dismissal of a serious political issue. The gentleman's flippant remarks about the Middle East drew ire from the opposition. Facetious -- This is probably the least widely used of the three, but refers more directly to being humorous than the other two. Most often, I've heard it used almost as a disclaimer about something someone is about to say, in the line of: I don't mean to be facetious, but... Which is similar to saying \"I don't mean to be funny\", or \"I don't mean to make a joke\", and then proceeding from there."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn August 1836, two real estate entrepreneurs\u2014Augustus Chapman Allen and John Kirby Allen\u2014from New York, purchased 6,642 acres (26.88 km2) of land along Buffalo Bayou with the intent of founding a city.The Allen brothers decided to name the city after Sam Houston, the popular general at the Battle of San Jacinto, who was elected President of Texas in September 1836.Houston was granted incorporation on June 5, 1837, with James S. Holman becoming its first mayor. In the same year, Houston became the county seat of Harrisburg County (now Harris County) and the temporary capital of the Republic of Texas. In 1840, the community established a chamber of commerce ** in part** to promote shipping and waterborne business at the newly created port on Buffalo Bayou. I wonder what a real estate entrepreneur does In his job. I am also wondering if anybody could tell me what the expression ** being a county seat of somewhere** means. What do the phrase ** a chamber of commerece** and in part mean?","question":"In August 1836, two real estate entrepreneurs\u2014Augustus Chapman Allen and John Kirby Allen\u2014from New York, purchased 6,642 acres (26.88 km2) of land along Buffalo Bayou with the intent of founding a city.The Allen brothers decided to name the city after Sam Houston, the popular general at the Battle of San Jacinto, who was elected President of Texas in September 1836.Houston was granted incorporation on June 5, 1837, with James S. Holman becoming its first mayor. In the same year, Houston became the county seat of Harrisburg County (now Harris County) and the temporary capital of the Republic of Texas. In 1840, the community established a chamber of commerce ** in part** to promote shipping and waterborne business at the newly created port on Buffalo Bayou. I wonder what a real estate entrepreneur does In his job. I am also wondering if anybody could tell me what the expression ** being a county seat of somewhere** means. What do the phrase ** a chamber of commerece** and in part mean?","answer":"Real estate property consisting of land or buildings. Entrepeneur a person who sets up a business or businesses, taking on financial risks in the hope of profit. Given those two definitions you should be able to ascertain the rest for yourself. A county seat is the administrative centre of a county. A county is an administrative subdivision of a US state (in this case). Wikipedia is your friend. A chamber of commerce is a network of local businesses, formed with the aim of furthering the interests of local business in general. Here's that friend again.","output":"Real estate property consisting of land or buildings. Entrepeneur a person who sets up a business or businesses, taking on financial risks in the hope of profit. Given those two definitions you should be able to ascertain the rest for yourself. A county seat is the administrative centre of a county. A county is an administrative subdivision of a US state (in this case). Wikipedia is your friend. A chamber of commerce is a network of local businesses, formed with the aim of furthering the interests of local business in general. Here's that friend again."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs physicist Robert Oppenheimer's phrase \u201cNow I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.\u201d grammatical in English? Why not \"becoming\" or \"now I become\"?","question":"Is physicist Robert Oppenheimer's phrase \u201cNow I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.\u201d grammatical in English? Why not \"becoming\" or \"now I become\"?","answer":"As modern German, French, and Italian still do today, early modern English formed the perfect tenses of intransitive verbs of directed motion and some changes of state not with a form of to have, but to be and the past participle. I have become is the modern grammatical equivalent of the archaic I am become, but far from equal in rhetorical power. This grammar change might have passed unnoticed were it not for two literary sources that both kept the form alive and gave any statement using a to be perfect tense tremendous weight: Shakespeare and the King James translation of the Bible. ISABELLA I am come to know your pleasure. Measure for Measure II.4 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. John 12.46 Oppenheimer is quoting the Bhagavad Gita, Hindu scripture originally in Sanskrit first translated into English in 1785. While there still were English speakers using a form like \"I am come\" in normal speech \u2014 some of Jane Austen's characters regularly use the form \u2014 it is unlikely that the translator was imitating that usage as much as the Shakespeare-KJV archaic forms to add gravitas to the translation. Oppenheimer is recalling the verse from some edition that maintained the archaic but rhetorically powerful to be present perfect. The only survival in ordinary speech I can think of is the use of to go as a euphemism for death: \u201cOh, Gracie,\u201d Grandma said, \u201cyour poor sweet mama is gone forever!\u201d We both bawled and completely missed seeing the funeral home men picking Mama up and heading with her out to their van. Dolores Richardson, The Climbing Tree, 2012.","output":"As modern German, French, and Italian still do today, early modern English formed the perfect tenses of intransitive verbs of directed motion and some changes of state not with a form of to have, but to be and the past participle. I have become is the modern grammatical equivalent of the archaic I am become, but far from equal in rhetorical power. This grammar change might have passed unnoticed were it not for two literary sources that both kept the form alive and gave any statement using a to be perfect tense tremendous weight: Shakespeare and the King James translation of the Bible. ISABELLA I am come to know your pleasure. Measure for Measure II.4 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. John 12.46 Oppenheimer is quoting the Bhagavad Gita, Hindu scripture originally in Sanskrit first translated into English in 1785. While there still were English speakers using a form like \"I am come\" in normal speech \u2014 some of Jane Austen's characters regularly use the form \u2014 it is unlikely that the translator was imitating that usage as much as the Shakespeare-KJV archaic forms to add gravitas to the translation. Oppenheimer is recalling the verse from some edition that maintained the archaic but rhetorically powerful to be present perfect. The only survival in ordinary speech I can think of is the use of to go as a euphemism for death: \u201cOh, Gracie,\u201d Grandma said, \u201cyour poor sweet mama is gone forever!\u201d We both bawled and completely missed seeing the funeral home men picking Mama up and heading with her out to their van. Dolores Richardson, The Climbing Tree, 2012."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSome consonants such as n,d,t are usually alveolar in English, except that they are replaced by dentals when they are before dental fricatives (th): tenth, said this, in the\u2026. What about \"r\" before \"th\"? Arthur: BrE \/\u0251:\u03b8\u0259\u02b3\/, AmE \/\u0251:r\u03b8\u025a\/ north: \/n\u0254:\u03b8\/, AmE \/n\u0254:r\u03b8\/ ; northern My conjectures are: a or o are lowered in the mouth so that we have \/\u0251\/ or \/\u0254\/. the mouth becomes less tensed the r is very loose n in north becomes dental!","question":"Some consonants such as n,d,t are usually alveolar in English, except that they are replaced by dentals when they are before dental fricatives (th): tenth, said this, in the\u2026. What about \"r\" before \"th\"? Arthur: BrE \/\u0251:\u03b8\u0259\u02b3\/, AmE \/\u0251:r\u03b8\u025a\/ north: \/n\u0254:\u03b8\/, AmE \/n\u0254:r\u03b8\/ ; northern My conjectures are: a or o are lowered in the mouth so that we have \/\u0251\/ or \/\u0254\/. the mouth becomes less tensed the r is very loose n in north becomes dental!","answer":"Let me take your conjectures one at a time: a or o are lowered in the mouth so that we have \/\u0251\/ or \/\u0254\/. This may be true, but I suspect that it's subject to quite a lot of dialectal variation and varies wildly depending on the other surrounding segments. All English dialects neutralize some contrasts before \/r\/, but the exact number and nature of the mergers vary a lot. In my idiolect, the primary difference in articulation before \/r\/ is actually monophthongization. Taking the gnome\/norm minimal pair, gnome has a diphthong which is approximately [\u0259\u028a], while norm has a monophthongal [o:]. the mouth becomes less tensed I'm not sure what you mean by this. Less tense compared to what? the r is very loose \"Loose\" is too vague for me to comment on. The \/r\/ clearly does not become dental. In rapid speech, the \/r\/ may become very brief, to the point that its presence is largely marked by the preceding vowel allophone. n in north becomes dental! This definitely does not happen. Dental\/alveolar place agreement never intervenes across vowels.","output":"Let me take your conjectures one at a time: a or o are lowered in the mouth so that we have \/\u0251\/ or \/\u0254\/. This may be true, but I suspect that it's subject to quite a lot of dialectal variation and varies wildly depending on the other surrounding segments. All English dialects neutralize some contrasts before \/r\/, but the exact number and nature of the mergers vary a lot. In my idiolect, the primary difference in articulation before \/r\/ is actually monophthongization. Taking the gnome\/norm minimal pair, gnome has a diphthong which is approximately [\u0259\u028a], while norm has a monophthongal [o:]. the mouth becomes less tensed I'm not sure what you mean by this. Less tense compared to what? the r is very loose \"Loose\" is too vague for me to comment on. The \/r\/ clearly does not become dental. In rapid speech, the \/r\/ may become very brief, to the point that its presence is largely marked by the preceding vowel allophone. n in north becomes dental! This definitely does not happen. Dental\/alveolar place agreement never intervenes across vowels."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"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 lampau:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"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\nIs you'll also valid in the context of this video? Or is viper just setting new rules down in the English language?","question":"Is you'll also valid in the context of this video? Or is viper just setting new rules down in the English language?","answer":"Compare: you'll [you will] \/ju\u02d0l\/ you will: The longer vowel is on the former word: (y)ou, so the contraction retains it and drops the shorter vowel sound (w) i ll \u2013 you'll. y'all [you all] \/j\u0254\u02d0l\/ you all: The longer vowel is on the latter word: a(ll), so the contraction retains it and drops the shorter vowel sound (y) ou \u2013 y'all.","output":"Compare: you'll [you will] \/ju\u02d0l\/ you will: The longer vowel is on the former word: (y)ou, so the contraction retains it and drops the shorter vowel sound (w) i ll \u2013 you'll. y'all [you all] \/j\u0254\u02d0l\/ you all: The longer vowel is on the latter word: a(ll), so the contraction retains it and drops the shorter vowel sound (y) ou \u2013 y'all."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI know that we commonly use \u201con the news\u201d or \u201cin the news\u201d. However, I came across a sentence which is: They were overcome by a wave of horror at the news. As far as I can understand is that \u201cat\u201d in this context is referring to a specific piece of news. Though, is \u201cat the news\u201d interchangeably used with on the news, or it has a different meaning?","question":"I know that we commonly use \u201con the news\u201d or \u201cin the news\u201d. However, I came across a sentence which is: They were overcome by a wave of horror at the news. As far as I can understand is that \u201cat\u201d in this context is referring to a specific piece of news. Though, is \u201cat the news\u201d interchangeably used with on the news, or it has a different meaning?","answer":"\"In the news\" means that a subject is currently found across all news media - on TV or radio news broadcasts, or in newspapers etc. eg \"The story has been in the news this week\". \"On the news\" would be used to refer to a specific news broadcast or source. eg \"I saw it on the news last night\". Your example using \"at the news\" could refer to hearing \"news\" from any source, not necessarily \"news media\". It could equally apply if an individual told you something important to you personally but not \"newsworthy\" to anyone else. They reeled in horror at the news that their aunt had died. It means that they reacted upon hearing whatever they have been told. You could not interchangeably use \"at\" with any of the other examples using \"in\/on\".","output":"\"In the news\" means that a subject is currently found across all news media - on TV or radio news broadcasts, or in newspapers etc. eg \"The story has been in the news this week\". \"On the news\" would be used to refer to a specific news broadcast or source. eg \"I saw it on the news last night\". Your example using \"at the news\" could refer to hearing \"news\" from any source, not necessarily \"news media\". It could equally apply if an individual told you something important to you personally but not \"newsworthy\" to anyone else. They reeled in horror at the news that their aunt had died. It means that they reacted upon hearing whatever they have been told. You could not interchangeably use \"at\" with any of the other examples using \"in\/on\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm sure you've met someone like this; a person whose understanding of nature, structure and the universe leaves them constantly awed by the complexity of practically everything. I'm looking for a word (English or borrowed) that describes a person with that constant elation of someone who has lived half a life in a small flat in a dull city but is suddenly taken on an all expenses paid round-the-world tour. Awe and Wonder are nouns that I think convey this meaning, but the na\u00efve verb equivalents (awful & wonderful) don't fit the bill. Any ideas? @sumelic makes an excellent clarification point: I'm specifically looking for a word that implies \"I would expect them to be awestruck often in the future\" whether or not they are presently.","question":"I'm sure you've met someone like this; a person whose understanding of nature, structure and the universe leaves them constantly awed by the complexity of practically everything. I'm looking for a word (English or borrowed) that describes a person with that constant elation of someone who has lived half a life in a small flat in a dull city but is suddenly taken on an all expenses paid round-the-world tour. Awe and Wonder are nouns that I think convey this meaning, but the na\u00efve verb equivalents (awful & wonderful) don't fit the bill. Any ideas? @sumelic makes an excellent clarification point: I'm specifically looking for a word that implies \"I would expect them to be awestruck often in the future\" whether or not they are presently.","answer":"How about wide-eyed: = staring, spellbound, gobsmacked (British) (slang), dumbfounded, agog, agape, thunderstruck, goggle-eyed, awe-stricken It's usually used to describe an instant reaction, but I think it works as a description of character: part impressionable, part naive, part optimistic.","output":"How about wide-eyed: = staring, spellbound, gobsmacked (British) (slang), dumbfounded, agog, agape, thunderstruck, goggle-eyed, awe-stricken It's usually used to describe an instant reaction, but I think it works as a description of character: part impressionable, part naive, part optimistic."}
{"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 interested in the semantic implications of using the words quote and estimate in a business scenario. Here's the situation: When someone wants to purchase a service that I provide, they can fill out a form on a Website with information about the work to be done. Based on that info, they are instantly given a predicted price. This is intended only to be a ballpark. Once I manually review the work order, I will contact them with a personalized, much more accurate guess at the price. My instinct is to use estimate for the ballpark and quote for the more precise guess, but I'm interested in both your opinions and the more subtle distinctions and implications of the two words.","question":"I'm interested in the semantic implications of using the words quote and estimate in a business scenario. Here's the situation: When someone wants to purchase a service that I provide, they can fill out a form on a Website with information about the work to be done. Based on that info, they are instantly given a predicted price. This is intended only to be a ballpark. Once I manually review the work order, I will contact them with a personalized, much more accurate guess at the price. My instinct is to use estimate for the ballpark and quote for the more precise guess, but I'm interested in both your opinions and the more subtle distinctions and implications of the two words.","answer":"An estimate is an unofficial ballpark figure, the final cost may be lower or higher. Once a quote is given for $X, the person who issued the quote is obliged to charge $X. It is effectively the price. If the actual cost differs from the quote the quote is still the amount payed, unless the customer and quoter re-negotiate the price.","output":"An estimate is an unofficial ballpark figure, the final cost may be lower or higher. Once a quote is given for $X, the person who issued the quote is obliged to charge $X. It is effectively the price. If the actual cost differs from the quote the quote is still the amount payed, unless the customer and quoter re-negotiate the price."}
{"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 know that saying: (A) I am here since six o\u2019clock. or (B) I was here since six o\u2019clock. would sound unidiomatic because of using \"since\" and its requisite tense which is present perfect. For example: (C) - I have been here since six o\u2019clock. But I came across another sentence somewhere in a textbook which caused me to doubt. Is it possible to say: (D) - I had been there since six o\u2019clock. If yes, what's the semantic difference between \"C\" and \"D\", and when should I use each one?","question":"I know that saying: (A) I am here since six o\u2019clock. or (B) I was here since six o\u2019clock. would sound unidiomatic because of using \"since\" and its requisite tense which is present perfect. For example: (C) - I have been here since six o\u2019clock. But I came across another sentence somewhere in a textbook which caused me to doubt. Is it possible to say: (D) - I had been there since six o\u2019clock. If yes, what's the semantic difference between \"C\" and \"D\", and when should I use each one?","answer":"Your (D) is past perfect ... it refers to a time in the past just as (C) refers to a time in the present. So (D) means that you were \u201cthere\u201d from six o\u2019clock to whatever past time you are talking about. When Amy finally arrived at the bar at eight o\u2019clock I had been there since six o\u2019clock.","output":"Your (D) is past perfect ... it refers to a time in the past just as (C) refers to a time in the present. So (D) means that you were \u201cthere\u201d from six o\u2019clock to whatever past time you are talking about. When Amy finally arrived at the bar at eight o\u2019clock I had been there since six o\u2019clock."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"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\nSo in a typical letter document that may span multiple pages At the end of the content, there is paragraph for \"thank you\" or \"signing off\" This paragraph\/section only appear once, at the end of the content however it is NOT a \"footer\" that appears on every page (as in MS Word treats footer to appear on every page) i have been resorting to calling it \"pre-footer\" but wonder if there is a proper term for it i am just trying to create a letter template, and there is a section for signing-off\/thank you which i am trying to appropriately name the section","question":"So in a typical letter document that may span multiple pages At the end of the content, there is paragraph for \"thank you\" or \"signing off\" This paragraph\/section only appear once, at the end of the content however it is NOT a \"footer\" that appears on every page (as in MS Word treats footer to appear on every page) i have been resorting to calling it \"pre-footer\" but wonder if there is a proper term for it i am just trying to create a letter template, and there is a section for signing-off\/thank you which i am trying to appropriately name the section","answer":"I think from the question you may mean the sign off... Yours sincerely etc... In which case, most would just say the sign off or the end but I think its technically the valediction Wikipedia","output":"I think from the question you may mean the sign off... Yours sincerely etc... In which case, most would just say the sign off or the end but I think its technically the valediction Wikipedia"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am writing a story about a family.named Litchford. So if I say the Litchfords were farmers do I need an apostrophe. How about We saw with Pleasant Litchfords committment to education... The Litchfords and Depps had been slave families from Virginia. Does this need an apostrophe?","question":"I am writing a story about a family.named Litchford. So if I say the Litchfords were farmers do I need an apostrophe. How about We saw with Pleasant Litchfords committment to education... The Litchfords and Depps had been slave families from Virginia. Does this need an apostrophe?","answer":"There are two reasons for putting an s at the end of Litchford: if it's a plural: you are talking about more than one member of the Litchford family if it's a possessive: you are talking about something that a member of the Litchford owns, or some property of characteristic of them. If it's a plural, an apostrophe is not required. If it's a possessive, an apostrophe is required before the s. If it's a plural and a possessive, the apostrophe goes after the s. The Litchfords were farmers -plural, no apostrophe Pleasant Litchford's commmitment to education - possessive- apostrophe before s the Litchfords' commitment to education - possessive plural- apostrophe after s","output":"There are two reasons for putting an s at the end of Litchford: if it's a plural: you are talking about more than one member of the Litchford family if it's a possessive: you are talking about something that a member of the Litchford owns, or some property of characteristic of them. If it's a plural, an apostrophe is not required. If it's a possessive, an apostrophe is required before the s. If it's a plural and a possessive, the apostrophe goes after the s. The Litchfords were farmers -plural, no apostrophe Pleasant Litchford's commmitment to education - possessive- apostrophe before s the Litchfords' commitment to education - possessive plural- apostrophe after s"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat would you call the following: Speak now or forever hold your piece.","question":"What would you call the following: Speak now or forever hold your piece.","answer":"The word is eggcorn a word or phrase that results from a mishearing or misinterpretation of another, an element of the original being substituted for one which sounds very similar. We even have an eggcorn tag.","output":"The word is eggcorn a word or phrase that results from a mishearing or misinterpretation of another, an element of the original being substituted for one which sounds very similar. We even have an eggcorn tag."}
{"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\nCan I call that person a schoolmate? Or is that a wrong word because a school isn't a university? In that case, is it common to call that person a university mate?","question":"Can I call that person a schoolmate? Or is that a wrong word because a school isn't a university? In that case, is it common to call that person a university mate?","answer":"In the US at least, this person would be a fellow student, a friend from college or a friend (or acquaintance) from school. Personally I've never heard \"university mate.\" Also I've never seen or heard \"an university\" anything. It would be \"a university\" something. Because \"university\" starts with a Y sound, a consonant in this case. A \"classmate\" is only for a student who's sitting in the same class with you. I haven't heard \"schoolmate\" but I don't know why.","output":"In the US at least, this person would be a fellow student, a friend from college or a friend (or acquaintance) from school. Personally I've never heard \"university mate.\" Also I've never seen or heard \"an university\" anything. It would be \"a university\" something. Because \"university\" starts with a Y sound, a consonant in this case. A \"classmate\" is only for a student who's sitting in the same class with you. I haven't heard \"schoolmate\" but I don't know why."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI want to use the phrase \"people are humans\", as to differentiate between the perception of mindless ants running around, and individuals with complex feelings and understandings of the world. So for instance: That the country is full of uneducated masses is, to me, fundamentally untrue; people are humans and their creativity defines them. Thoughts?","question":"I want to use the phrase \"people are humans\", as to differentiate between the perception of mindless ants running around, and individuals with complex feelings and understandings of the world. So for instance: That the country is full of uneducated masses is, to me, fundamentally untrue; people are humans and their creativity defines them. Thoughts?","answer":"\"People are humans\" just doesn't work. This might: \"That the country is full of uneducated masses is, to me, fundamentally untrue; every person is an individual who is defined by his or her creativity.\"","output":"\"People are humans\" just doesn't work. This might: \"That the country is full of uneducated masses is, to me, fundamentally untrue; every person is an individual who is defined by his or her creativity.\""}
{"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\nWhat's a politically correct word that includes all people of sub-Saharan African descent no matter what their nationality is? \"Black\" is not politically correct enough. But \"African American\" doesn't include non-Americans. And \"African\" doesn't sound right when describing an African American person (it might be a bit offensive). Is there a synonym for \"black\" that is inclusive and P.C?","question":"What's a politically correct word that includes all people of sub-Saharan African descent no matter what their nationality is? \"Black\" is not politically correct enough. But \"African American\" doesn't include non-Americans. And \"African\" doesn't sound right when describing an African American person (it might be a bit offensive). Is there a synonym for \"black\" that is inclusive and P.C?","answer":"\"Black\" is the correct term. \"Afro-American\" is a subgroup of \"Black\", just as \"Kikuyu\" and \"Luo\" are. In the RSA the offensive term \"Kaffir\" was used during the apartheid years. Now the term \"Black\" is used; even the great leader Nelson Mandela said \"Black\". Respected Medical publications use the term \"Black\", see https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/3986110","output":"\"Black\" is the correct term. \"Afro-American\" is a subgroup of \"Black\", just as \"Kikuyu\" and \"Luo\" are. In the RSA the offensive term \"Kaffir\" was used during the apartheid years. Now the term \"Black\" is used; even the great leader Nelson Mandela said \"Black\". Respected Medical publications use the term \"Black\", see https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/3986110"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm looking for another idiom similar to: not have the faintest idea It should be able to start a sentence. For some reason I want to use \"by the stars\" but I don't think this means anything, but if it did, the sentence would look something like this: By the stars I have no clue how he came to that conclusion. I guess the idom would more so mean \"in utter confusion\" like: In utter confusion I have no clue how he came to that conclusion.","question":"I'm looking for another idiom similar to: not have the faintest idea It should be able to start a sentence. For some reason I want to use \"by the stars\" but I don't think this means anything, but if it did, the sentence would look something like this: By the stars I have no clue how he came to that conclusion. I guess the idom would more so mean \"in utter confusion\" like: In utter confusion I have no clue how he came to that conclusion.","answer":"Try: I haven't the foggiest as to how he came to this conclusion. With \"as to\" you can piece other idioms together, too. There's nothing wrong with I've absolutely no clue as to how he came to this conclusion, either.","output":"Try: I haven't the foggiest as to how he came to this conclusion. With \"as to\" you can piece other idioms together, too. There's nothing wrong with I've absolutely no clue as to how he came to this conclusion, either."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI saw this on my wafers the other day: \"Wafers with cream flavoured cream\". This sounds horribly recursive to my ear. How can you rephrase it or use a synonym without losing the original meaning?","question":"I saw this on my wafers the other day: \"Wafers with cream flavoured cream\". This sounds horribly recursive to my ear. How can you rephrase it or use a synonym without losing the original meaning?","answer":"Makers of mass-produced dessert snacks in the United States struggled with this problem for years, a problem exacerbated in their case by the fact that the \"cream-flavored cream\" filling might in fact contain no cream. Their solution was to popularize terms such as \"creme\" and \"creme-filled\"\u2014without the grave accent over the first e\u2014and the even more heavily processed-sounding \"kreme\" and \"kreme-filled.\" Dunkin' Donuts, for example, currently offers a Vanilla Kreme Filled Donut and a Boston Kreme Donut whose debt to any living cow (or kow) is unknown to me. A marketer might confidently claim that a wafer contained \"cream-flavoured creme,\" without having to go into detail (on the front of the package, anyway) about what industrial substances made up the creme. If you wanted to stay away from creme and kreme, the simplest way to avoid the repetition of cream in your example would be to replace the second cream with filling: \"Wafers with cream-flavoured filling.\" In the context of a mass-produced sweet treat, U.S. readers would immediately interpret \"filling\" to mean \"squishy or pasty (and very sugary) partially hydrogenated goo.\" But I don't know whether filling carries the same instantly recognizable sense outside the U.S. that it does here.","output":"Makers of mass-produced dessert snacks in the United States struggled with this problem for years, a problem exacerbated in their case by the fact that the \"cream-flavored cream\" filling might in fact contain no cream. Their solution was to popularize terms such as \"creme\" and \"creme-filled\"\u2014without the grave accent over the first e\u2014and the even more heavily processed-sounding \"kreme\" and \"kreme-filled.\" Dunkin' Donuts, for example, currently offers a Vanilla Kreme Filled Donut and a Boston Kreme Donut whose debt to any living cow (or kow) is unknown to me. A marketer might confidently claim that a wafer contained \"cream-flavoured creme,\" without having to go into detail (on the front of the package, anyway) about what industrial substances made up the creme. If you wanted to stay away from creme and kreme, the simplest way to avoid the repetition of cream in your example would be to replace the second cream with filling: \"Wafers with cream-flavoured filling.\" In the context of a mass-produced sweet treat, U.S. readers would immediately interpret \"filling\" to mean \"squishy or pasty (and very sugary) partially hydrogenated goo.\" But I don't know whether filling carries the same instantly recognizable sense outside the U.S. that it does here."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen using the phrase \"including but not limited to\", how should it be punctuated? When used in the following (no punctuation): There are many activities including but not limited to running jumping and swimming My first try: There are many activities including, but not limited to, running, jumping, and swimming. Then I thought... maybe I need another one? Is this, or perhaps the previous version correct? There are many activities, including, but not limited to, running, jumping, and swimming. Eh, maybe that's too many. Does this justify a colon? Is it orthographically correct? With or without the first comma in parens? There are many activities(,) including, but not limited to: running, jumping, and swimming. No? Then what about this? There are many activities, including - but not limited to - running, jumping, and swimming.","question":"When using the phrase \"including but not limited to\", how should it be punctuated? When used in the following (no punctuation): There are many activities including but not limited to running jumping and swimming My first try: There are many activities including, but not limited to, running, jumping, and swimming. Then I thought... maybe I need another one? Is this, or perhaps the previous version correct? There are many activities, including, but not limited to, running, jumping, and swimming. Eh, maybe that's too many. Does this justify a colon? Is it orthographically correct? With or without the first comma in parens? There are many activities(,) including, but not limited to: running, jumping, and swimming. No? Then what about this? There are many activities, including - but not limited to - running, jumping, and swimming.","answer":"My choice would be: There are many activities, including, but not limited to, running, jumping and swimming. The comma before including shows that a new clause, even if it\u2019s a non-finite clause, is to follow, and the comma before but and after to, indicates a weak interruption to that clause. The comma between running and jumping shows that the two are to be read as part of a list, but no comma is required after jumping, because and makes it superfluous.","output":"My choice would be: There are many activities, including, but not limited to, running, jumping and swimming. The comma before including shows that a new clause, even if it\u2019s a non-finite clause, is to follow, and the comma before but and after to, indicates a weak interruption to that clause. The comma between running and jumping shows that the two are to be read as part of a list, but no comma is required after jumping, because and makes it superfluous."}
{"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\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"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\nAre these words totally interchangeable? I made the [erroneous\/wrong] decision.","question":"Are these words totally interchangeable? I made the [erroneous\/wrong] decision.","answer":"'Erroneous' is typically used when you're talking about fact-based issues. It means incorrect or mistaken. He made the erroneous assumption that the world was flat. 'Wrong' can be used in those situations too: He's wrong about how much water will fit in that cup. But it has broader meaning to include things that are morally or ethically wrong, unfair, or unjust. Shoplifting is the wrong thing to do.","output":"'Erroneous' is typically used when you're talking about fact-based issues. It means incorrect or mistaken. He made the erroneous assumption that the world was flat. 'Wrong' can be used in those situations too: He's wrong about how much water will fit in that cup. But it has broader meaning to include things that are morally or ethically wrong, unfair, or unjust. Shoplifting is the wrong thing to do."}
{"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\nI have heard that the word \"snooker\" originally meant \"beginner\" and was coined at the time when the game was first invented. Is there any truth in this theory?","question":"I have heard that the word \"snooker\" originally meant \"beginner\" and was coined at the time when the game was first invented. Is there any truth in this theory?","answer":"A check on OED snooker 1889, the game and the word said to have been invented in India by British officers as a diversion from billiards. The name is perhaps an allusion (with reference to the rawness of play by a fellow officer) to British slang snooker \"newly joined cadet\" (1872). Tradition ascribes the coinage to Col. Sir Neville Chamberlain (not the later prime minister of the same name), at the time subaltern in the Devonshire Regiment in Jubbulpore. and word origins The most widely canvassed theory of the origins of the term snooker is that it is an adaptation of late 19th-century army slang snooker \u2018new cadet\u2019 (\u2018These embryo generals were called by the somewhat sneering terms of \u201csnookers\u201d or \u201clast-joined\u201d,\u2019 Routledge\u2019s Every Boy\u2019s Annual 1872)... The ancestry of snooker (to mean) \u2018new cadet\u2019, however, remains a mystery.","output":"A check on OED snooker 1889, the game and the word said to have been invented in India by British officers as a diversion from billiards. The name is perhaps an allusion (with reference to the rawness of play by a fellow officer) to British slang snooker \"newly joined cadet\" (1872). Tradition ascribes the coinage to Col. Sir Neville Chamberlain (not the later prime minister of the same name), at the time subaltern in the Devonshire Regiment in Jubbulpore. and word origins The most widely canvassed theory of the origins of the term snooker is that it is an adaptation of late 19th-century army slang snooker \u2018new cadet\u2019 (\u2018These embryo generals were called by the somewhat sneering terms of \u201csnookers\u201d or \u201clast-joined\u201d,\u2019 Routledge\u2019s Every Boy\u2019s Annual 1872)... The ancestry of snooker (to mean) \u2018new cadet\u2019, however, remains a mystery."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMy wife and I were reading Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, translated into English in 1845 by Henry Beveridge, and we came across this phrase in the first book, chapter 5, section 4: \"a magazine stored with treasures of inestimable value\" Obviously, the context implies that a magazine is some kind of container, or perhaps a location, in which things are stored. Our questions are: What kinds of things were normally stored in a magazine? Who would have owned one? Was it a small container or a large warehouse? We tried to find some information online, but we couldn't. Anybody have any ideas?","question":"My wife and I were reading Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, translated into English in 1845 by Henry Beveridge, and we came across this phrase in the first book, chapter 5, section 4: \"a magazine stored with treasures of inestimable value\" Obviously, the context implies that a magazine is some kind of container, or perhaps a location, in which things are stored. Our questions are: What kinds of things were normally stored in a magazine? Who would have owned one? Was it a small container or a large warehouse? We tried to find some information online, but we couldn't. Anybody have any ideas?","answer":"it probably has the long-lost meaning of \"warehouse\" or a military storehouse: 1580s, \"place for storing goods, especially military ammunition,\" from M.Fr. magasin \"warehouse, depot, store,\" from It. magazzino, from Arabic makhazin, pl. of makhzan \"storehouse\" (cf. Sp. almac\u00e9n \"warehouse, magazine\"), from khazana \"to store up.\" The original sense is almost obsolete; meaning \"periodical journal\" dates from the publication of the first one, \"Gentleman's Magazine,\" in 1731, from earlier use of the word for a printed list of military stores and information, or in a figurative sense, from the publication being a \"storehouse\" of information. I think John Calvin had this usage in mind if you actually look at the full quote: \"But herein appears the shameful ingratitude of men. Though they have in their own persons a factory where innumerable operations of God are carried on, and a magazine stored with treasures of inestimable value, instead of bursting forth in his praise, as they are bound to do, they, on the contrary, are the more inflated and swelled with pride.\" To clarify as requested by OP - the Institutes was written originally in Latin and translated into English by Beveridge. The full quote above seemingly lends itself to the use of \"magazine\" in it's old usage as we can safely eliminate the use of a gun magazine or a journal.","output":"it probably has the long-lost meaning of \"warehouse\" or a military storehouse: 1580s, \"place for storing goods, especially military ammunition,\" from M.Fr. magasin \"warehouse, depot, store,\" from It. magazzino, from Arabic makhazin, pl. of makhzan \"storehouse\" (cf. Sp. almac\u00e9n \"warehouse, magazine\"), from khazana \"to store up.\" The original sense is almost obsolete; meaning \"periodical journal\" dates from the publication of the first one, \"Gentleman's Magazine,\" in 1731, from earlier use of the word for a printed list of military stores and information, or in a figurative sense, from the publication being a \"storehouse\" of information. I think John Calvin had this usage in mind if you actually look at the full quote: \"But herein appears the shameful ingratitude of men. Though they have in their own persons a factory where innumerable operations of God are carried on, and a magazine stored with treasures of inestimable value, instead of bursting forth in his praise, as they are bound to do, they, on the contrary, are the more inflated and swelled with pride.\" To clarify as requested by OP - the Institutes was written originally in Latin and translated into English by Beveridge. The full quote above seemingly lends itself to the use of \"magazine\" in it's old usage as we can safely eliminate the use of a gun magazine or a journal."}
{"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\nI know many hackles have been raised over the misuse of the word literal. Let's say there are a couple of mobsters talking about a third guy who has made a minor mistake, and jokingly one says, \"I'm going to fit him for some cement shoes.\" Meaning he's angry, but not homicidal. Perhaps he makes this joke often. He does not intend to kill him. If he actually wanted to kill him he might say, \"I'm literally going to fit him for some cement shoes\", meaning take my non-literal euphemism for killing literally. Beyond this there is a third level of literality where the very nature of the euphemism is taken into question, not a euphemism for murder, but an actual pair of shoes fashioned from cement. My question is if someone says, \"I'm literally going to fit him for some cement shoes\", are both interpretations potentially correct? That he's not joking about killing him, and that he's going to make him some heavy footwear?","question":"I know many hackles have been raised over the misuse of the word literal. Let's say there are a couple of mobsters talking about a third guy who has made a minor mistake, and jokingly one says, \"I'm going to fit him for some cement shoes.\" Meaning he's angry, but not homicidal. Perhaps he makes this joke often. He does not intend to kill him. If he actually wanted to kill him he might say, \"I'm literally going to fit him for some cement shoes\", meaning take my non-literal euphemism for killing literally. Beyond this there is a third level of literality where the very nature of the euphemism is taken into question, not a euphemism for murder, but an actual pair of shoes fashioned from cement. My question is if someone says, \"I'm literally going to fit him for some cement shoes\", are both interpretations potentially correct? That he's not joking about killing him, and that he's going to make him some heavy footwear?","answer":"\"I'm literally going to fit him for cement shoes.\" This would mean more than simply \"I intend to kill him.\" It would mean \"I intend to encase his feet in cement and throw him in the river [or lake, or ocean, etc.], thereby killing him\". That said, the sort of person who would actually kill someone in this way \u2014 who would speak those words in a literal sense \u2014 is someone who is not too worried about violating convention and would very likely not be fussy about speech and grammar; he might easily mean \"literal\" in its corrupted \"figurative\" sense. EDIT I see from the comments that some people insist on carrying any expression of literalness out to six decimal places; in other words, that for a thing to be described as being \"literally\" some state or condition, the state or condition must be exact to that amount. Or more. I disagree. The act of \"fitting someone for cement shoes\" (or overshoes, or boots) refers to a very specific way of killing someone. It is a figurative description, but one which describes a real action: putting someone's feet in a tub of cement, letting it harden, and then hurling the poor unfortunate to his death by drowning. To that extent, I insist that someone could be \"literally fitted for cement overshoes\" if they were killed in the manner that the trope suggests. The expression does not cover murder by gunfire, garotte, stiletto, or poison, but it does cover that particular case. Literally. Let's look at another case: I'm going to literally beat you to a pulp. Now, the literal-minded may insist that the word \"literally\" may not be used there, because \"to a pulp\" is a figure of speech. But if they do, they first have to explain exactly what degree of beating qualifies or doesn't qualify as producing pulp. A mashed nose or smashed ear or other severe deformation may be construed as a \"pulping,\" and if one allows that at some point pulp is produced then the argument becomes trivial and pedantic and not worth the trouble. The objection is reduced to the state of an advertising claim for orange juice: no pulp, some pulp, lots of pulp. I believe that if someone threatens to \"literally beat me to a pulp\" I face severe damage to my person. Whether or not that qualifies in some minds as \"pulp\" is irrelevant. Now, we have to look at this on a scale. The guideline to apply here would involve whether the action or state described as \"literal\" does contain actual parts of truth (\"some pulp\") or none at all (\"no pulp\"). If someone says It literally made my head explode. we may poke fun at them by saying their head has made a splendid recovery since them, because they seem to be talking out of it. In that case, the figurative expression (even though it does describe a state of abject bewilderment or consternation) is rendered ridiculous because it is too far from reality to be considered literal in any sense (\"no pulp\"). To sum up: This is all a matter of degree. Some figurative expressions, if they refer to actual actions or conditions that can be produced, may be modified by some form of the adjective \"literal\" \u2014 even to the literal-minded. (Hey, did we agree on what a mind is yet? Literally?)","output":"\"I'm literally going to fit him for cement shoes.\" This would mean more than simply \"I intend to kill him.\" It would mean \"I intend to encase his feet in cement and throw him in the river [or lake, or ocean, etc.], thereby killing him\". That said, the sort of person who would actually kill someone in this way \u2014 who would speak those words in a literal sense \u2014 is someone who is not too worried about violating convention and would very likely not be fussy about speech and grammar; he might easily mean \"literal\" in its corrupted \"figurative\" sense. EDIT I see from the comments that some people insist on carrying any expression of literalness out to six decimal places; in other words, that for a thing to be described as being \"literally\" some state or condition, the state or condition must be exact to that amount. Or more. I disagree. The act of \"fitting someone for cement shoes\" (or overshoes, or boots) refers to a very specific way of killing someone. It is a figurative description, but one which describes a real action: putting someone's feet in a tub of cement, letting it harden, and then hurling the poor unfortunate to his death by drowning. To that extent, I insist that someone could be \"literally fitted for cement overshoes\" if they were killed in the manner that the trope suggests. The expression does not cover murder by gunfire, garotte, stiletto, or poison, but it does cover that particular case. Literally. Let's look at another case: I'm going to literally beat you to a pulp. Now, the literal-minded may insist that the word \"literally\" may not be used there, because \"to a pulp\" is a figure of speech. But if they do, they first have to explain exactly what degree of beating qualifies or doesn't qualify as producing pulp. A mashed nose or smashed ear or other severe deformation may be construed as a \"pulping,\" and if one allows that at some point pulp is produced then the argument becomes trivial and pedantic and not worth the trouble. The objection is reduced to the state of an advertising claim for orange juice: no pulp, some pulp, lots of pulp. I believe that if someone threatens to \"literally beat me to a pulp\" I face severe damage to my person. Whether or not that qualifies in some minds as \"pulp\" is irrelevant. Now, we have to look at this on a scale. The guideline to apply here would involve whether the action or state described as \"literal\" does contain actual parts of truth (\"some pulp\") or none at all (\"no pulp\"). If someone says It literally made my head explode. we may poke fun at them by saying their head has made a splendid recovery since them, because they seem to be talking out of it. In that case, the figurative expression (even though it does describe a state of abject bewilderment or consternation) is rendered ridiculous because it is too far from reality to be considered literal in any sense (\"no pulp\"). To sum up: This is all a matter of degree. Some figurative expressions, if they refer to actual actions or conditions that can be produced, may be modified by some form of the adjective \"literal\" \u2014 even to the literal-minded. (Hey, did we agree on what a mind is yet? Literally?)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI tried looking this up at the Urban Dictionary, but it gave only one net-upvoted definition, and that definition wasn't even clear. The background for my question is coming my watching from a movie with lots of Cockney English sounding speakers; somebody says something to another a bar, and the person being spoken looks upset and yells back, \"are you trying to mug me off?\" What does it mean?","question":"I tried looking this up at the Urban Dictionary, but it gave only one net-upvoted definition, and that definition wasn't even clear. The background for my question is coming my watching from a movie with lots of Cockney English sounding speakers; somebody says something to another a bar, and the person being spoken looks upset and yells back, \"are you trying to mug me off?\" What does it mean?","answer":"I'm British and I do recognise the phrase, and you are correct it is usually used by Cockneys. Here is a reference to the reality TV show The Only Way is Essex where someone feels that they have been made of fool (mug) of by his date, who is dancing with another man. She responds that she didn't make him look like a fool (she didn't mug him off). In The Streets song 'Don't mug yourself' released in 2002, advice is given to a friend not to mug themselves over a girl (not to make a fool of themselves over a girl). To be mugged off means that you are being made a fool of by someone taking advantage of you. There are two different meaning to the word mug that comes into context with you use this phrase. to mug someone, is take something from someone by use of force. So in this context taking someone of their respect\/street cred. to be a mug, is to be fooled by someone, or to be taken advantage of.","output":"I'm British and I do recognise the phrase, and you are correct it is usually used by Cockneys. Here is a reference to the reality TV show The Only Way is Essex where someone feels that they have been made of fool (mug) of by his date, who is dancing with another man. She responds that she didn't make him look like a fool (she didn't mug him off). In The Streets song 'Don't mug yourself' released in 2002, advice is given to a friend not to mug themselves over a girl (not to make a fool of themselves over a girl). To be mugged off means that you are being made a fool of by someone taking advantage of you. There are two different meaning to the word mug that comes into context with you use this phrase. to mug someone, is take something from someone by use of force. So in this context taking someone of their respect\/street cred. to be a mug, is to be fooled by someone, or to be taken advantage of."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI see a sentence in this site: But both can be quite strong depending on how they are spoken. Is depending on [\u2026] an adverbial clause?","question":"I see a sentence in this site: But both can be quite strong depending on how they are spoken. Is depending on [\u2026] an adverbial clause?","answer":"\"How they are spoken\" is a clause of manner or an interrogative clause, subordinate to the preposition \"on\". \"On how they are spoken\" is then a prepositional phrase. As an alternative, you could say that \"how they are spoken\" is a noun clause that is the object of \"depending on\". Now to \"depending on how they are spoken\". It is not a clause: it merely contains a clause. If you take \"depending on\" as a preposition, it is a prepositional phrase expressing a condition or something like that. Or could it be regarded as a participial phrase? Consider this sentence: The age of your date? She may be old or young, depending on what you filled in as a preference on the site\u2014don't you remember? Suppose \"depending\" were a participle. Then it could be rephrased thus: A. She may be old or young, while she depends on what you filled in... This does not make much sense. A better rephrasing would be this: B. She may be old or young, which depends on what you filled in... It seems clear that \"depending\" is not a participle, or it would have belonged to the subject \"she\". Therefore it must be a preposition here. Your example would give this, if it were taken as a participle: A. Both can be quite strong, as they depend on how they are spoken. Or it could be a preposition: B. Both can be quite strong, which depends on how they are spoken. The first interpretation is not entirely impossible, but I'd call it weak at best; the second one sounds much better. Therefore it is best considered a preposition here, which makes the whole phrase an adverbial adjunct of condition.","output":"\"How they are spoken\" is a clause of manner or an interrogative clause, subordinate to the preposition \"on\". \"On how they are spoken\" is then a prepositional phrase. As an alternative, you could say that \"how they are spoken\" is a noun clause that is the object of \"depending on\". Now to \"depending on how they are spoken\". It is not a clause: it merely contains a clause. If you take \"depending on\" as a preposition, it is a prepositional phrase expressing a condition or something like that. Or could it be regarded as a participial phrase? Consider this sentence: The age of your date? She may be old or young, depending on what you filled in as a preference on the site\u2014don't you remember? Suppose \"depending\" were a participle. Then it could be rephrased thus: A. She may be old or young, while she depends on what you filled in... This does not make much sense. A better rephrasing would be this: B. She may be old or young, which depends on what you filled in... It seems clear that \"depending\" is not a participle, or it would have belonged to the subject \"she\". Therefore it must be a preposition here. Your example would give this, if it were taken as a participle: A. Both can be quite strong, as they depend on how they are spoken. Or it could be a preposition: B. Both can be quite strong, which depends on how they are spoken. The first interpretation is not entirely impossible, but I'd call it weak at best; the second one sounds much better. Therefore it is best considered a preposition here, which makes the whole phrase an adverbial adjunct of condition."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs there a nice proverb that highlights the foreign (e.g. German and French) origins of the English language? I remember that I've once read something like English is the bastard child of a German mother, French father and... But I can't seem to find the source.","question":"Is there a nice proverb that highlights the foreign (e.g. German and French) origins of the English language? I remember that I've once read something like English is the bastard child of a German mother, French father and... But I can't seem to find the source.","answer":"I found this thanks to Google. What is English? ... A child who was born to a German mother with a French step-father and has some Scandinavian blood (...)","output":"I found this thanks to Google. What is English? ... A child who was born to a German mother with a French step-father and has some Scandinavian blood (...)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs an unpleasant smile the same as an unhappy smile? What does an unhappy smile look like? If they're not the same then what does an unpleasant smile look like?","question":"Is an unpleasant smile the same as an unhappy smile? What does an unhappy smile look like? If they're not the same then what does an unpleasant smile look like?","answer":"\"Unhappy smile\" is a smile that makes the person look sad. \"Unpleasant smile\" is a smile that is meant to make other people feel uncomfortable. \"unpleasant smiles\" are used when the person is angry or upset, while \"unhappy smiles\" is involuntary, and is a result of being sad, or unhappy personally.","output":"\"Unhappy smile\" is a smile that makes the person look sad. \"Unpleasant smile\" is a smile that is meant to make other people feel uncomfortable. \"unpleasant smiles\" are used when the person is angry or upset, while \"unhappy smiles\" is involuntary, and is a result of being sad, or unhappy personally."}
{"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe sentence, at the beginning of a new paragraph, goes: \"A collaboration with Dr. xxx and his colleagues would yyy\". Is it \"A collaboration with\" or \"Collaboration with\"? Microsoft Word is unhappy with the article.","question":"The sentence, at the beginning of a new paragraph, goes: \"A collaboration with Dr. xxx and his colleagues would yyy\". Is it \"A collaboration with\" or \"Collaboration with\"? Microsoft Word is unhappy with the article.","answer":"Microsoft Word should not be trusted. Collaboration can be either a mass noun or a count noun, depending on context. So the sentence is correct either with or without the article. \"A collaboration ...\" would be more appropriate if you are talking about a specific project where you work with Dr. xxx, while \"Collaboration ...\" would be more appropriate if you are talking about working with Dr. xxx in general. But there are lots of situations where both are appropriate, and I suspect your situation is one of them.","output":"Microsoft Word should not be trusted. Collaboration can be either a mass noun or a count noun, depending on context. So the sentence is correct either with or without the article. \"A collaboration ...\" would be more appropriate if you are talking about a specific project where you work with Dr. xxx, while \"Collaboration ...\" would be more appropriate if you are talking about working with Dr. xxx in general. But there are lots of situations where both are appropriate, and I suspect your situation is one of them."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nFor example, many different religions say that their members can't partake in eating certain kinds of food like shellfish, pork or beef. What is a name for a general rule of this nature across religions? People don't \"need\" to do them as it is their choice to follow a religion, but still, doing something such as restricting one's diet can be a requirement of a religion itself.","question":"For example, many different religions say that their members can't partake in eating certain kinds of food like shellfish, pork or beef. What is a name for a general rule of this nature across religions? People don't \"need\" to do them as it is their choice to follow a religion, but still, doing something such as restricting one's diet can be a requirement of a religion itself.","answer":"It's just a proscription as was immediately mentioned in comments. Couldn't be simpler. This is the standard, common, term for precisely what you ask. \"What is a word for a restriction imposed by a person's religion?\" \"proscription\"","output":"It's just a proscription as was immediately mentioned in comments. Couldn't be simpler. This is the standard, common, term for precisely what you ask. \"What is a word for a restriction imposed by a person's religion?\" \"proscription\""}
{"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\nWhich one of the following is the correct one grammatically? \"Why is this book still important\" \"Why this book is still important\"","question":"Which one of the following is the correct one grammatically? \"Why is this book still important\" \"Why this book is still important\"","answer":"Both are grammatically correct, but one is a question, while the other isn't. Case #1 A question is asked: Can you explain to me why is this book still important? Case #2 No question is being asked. In this case, one could expect a colon (:) with an explanation on why this book is still important. Something like this: Jonathan explained why this book is still important: \"it's just essential to learning programming\" Or in a newspaper headline: Ferguson explains why Manchester United is still the best football team in the world All in One Example: So Joanna came to me and asked \"Why is this book still important?\" Well folks, I'm going to tell you exactly why this book is still important: Because I wrote it.","output":"Both are grammatically correct, but one is a question, while the other isn't. Case #1 A question is asked: Can you explain to me why is this book still important? Case #2 No question is being asked. In this case, one could expect a colon (:) with an explanation on why this book is still important. Something like this: Jonathan explained why this book is still important: \"it's just essential to learning programming\" Or in a newspaper headline: Ferguson explains why Manchester United is still the best football team in the world All in One Example: So Joanna came to me and asked \"Why is this book still important?\" Well folks, I'm going to tell you exactly why this book is still important: Because I wrote it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was searching about the meaning of so but I didn't understand this meaning d: most certainly : INDEED you did so do it It's from maerriam webster. can you give me another examples? is it supposed to be \"you did so, do it\" or \"you did, so do it\"?","question":"I was searching about the meaning of so but I didn't understand this meaning d: most certainly : INDEED you did so do it It's from maerriam webster. can you give me another examples? is it supposed to be \"you did so, do it\" or \"you did, so do it\"?","answer":"It's a colloquial, idiomatic usage. The commas you suggest are unnecessary because \"so\" is acting as just an intensifier; the meaning is unchanged from \"You did do it.\" The same construction often uses \"too.\" \"I didn't eat your sandwich.\" \"You did too eat it!\" \"Did not!\" \"Did too!\"","output":"It's a colloquial, idiomatic usage. The commas you suggest are unnecessary because \"so\" is acting as just an intensifier; the meaning is unchanged from \"You did do it.\" The same construction often uses \"too.\" \"I didn't eat your sandwich.\" \"You did too eat it!\" \"Did not!\" \"Did too!\""}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"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\nA: I heard he promised to buy her anything she wants. B: Right. He was so desperate that he would have given anything to win her over. In sentence B, instead of \"would have given,\" is \"did give\" correct as well? Why is \"would have given\" more appropriate?","question":"A: I heard he promised to buy her anything she wants. B: Right. He was so desperate that he would have given anything to win her over. In sentence B, instead of \"would have given,\" is \"did give\" correct as well? Why is \"would have given\" more appropriate?","answer":"Would have given is not just \u2018more appropriate\u2019. It\u2019s the only possible construction in this context. One of the uses of the modal verb would is to express what is called \u2018unreal meaning\u2019. It is not the case that he actually did give anything. The speaker is imagining a situation in which \u2018giving anything\u2019 might be possible.","output":"Would have given is not just \u2018more appropriate\u2019. It\u2019s the only possible construction in this context. One of the uses of the modal verb would is to express what is called \u2018unreal meaning\u2019. It is not the case that he actually did give anything. The speaker is imagining a situation in which \u2018giving anything\u2019 might be possible."}
{"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\nIf Jim is the same height as Tom, and other students in their class are not as tall as them, then can we say Tom is the tallest student in his class. ? Or, Should I say Tom is a tallest student in his class. ? Or, Should I say Tom and Jim are the tallest students in his class. ?","question":"If Jim is the same height as Tom, and other students in their class are not as tall as them, then can we say Tom is the tallest student in his class. ? Or, Should I say Tom is a tallest student in his class. ? Or, Should I say Tom and Jim are the tallest students in his class. ?","answer":"You can say Tom is one of the tallest students in his class. or Tom and Jim are the tallest students in their class. Saying that Tom is the tallest student in his class does somewhat mean that there is no one of the same height. But you cannot say that Tom is a tallest student in his class.","output":"You can say Tom is one of the tallest students in his class. or Tom and Jim are the tallest students in their class. Saying that Tom is the tallest student in his class does somewhat mean that there is no one of the same height. But you cannot say that Tom is a tallest student in his class."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm reading Game of Thrones, in English, and when some Heraldry shields are shown as the novel goes, I have some doubts about the meaning on some words. Or given the context some words don't mean what I know as the definition of them. Maybe some those are misspelled and I'm breaking my coconut trying to deduce what they actually mean. Here are some. If I find more words that leave me misplaced I'll let you know with another question. What does the highlighted words mean? House Ruthermont - Five black starfish on a gold pale, on pean House Bolling - Vairy orange and blue; upon a black canton, a golden stag beneath an orange bend sinister House Wagstaff - Five yellow mascles on green House Staedmon of Broad Arch - A black dagger piercing a red heart on white de sang within an undulating red border","question":"I'm reading Game of Thrones, in English, and when some Heraldry shields are shown as the novel goes, I have some doubts about the meaning on some words. Or given the context some words don't mean what I know as the definition of them. Maybe some those are misspelled and I'm breaking my coconut trying to deduce what they actually mean. Here are some. If I find more words that leave me misplaced I'll let you know with another question. What does the highlighted words mean? House Ruthermont - Five black starfish on a gold pale, on pean House Bolling - Vairy orange and blue; upon a black canton, a golden stag beneath an orange bend sinister House Wagstaff - Five yellow mascles on green House Staedmon of Broad Arch - A black dagger piercing a red heart on white de sang within an undulating red border","answer":"Pean: a heraldic fur that is the reverse of the erminois fur; see the Wikipedia article. Vairy: Charged with vair; variegated with shield-shaped figures. See Vair. Sinister: In heraldry, the side of an escutcheon or coat of arms that is to the left of the bearer (opposed to dexter). Mascles: a charge consisting of a lozenge with a lozenge-shaped hole in the middle. Also called voided lozenge. de sang: Translates literally from French as \"of blood\". According to the Handbook of Heraldry, it is a descriptor applied to a gutt\u00e9, or goutte \u2013 (droplet-shaped charge), to denote its tincture. Goutte de sang would therefore mean a droplet of blood, i.e. a red droplet. (N.B. that a charge in the context of heraldry is an object that can be placed on the field of a shield.)","output":"Pean: a heraldic fur that is the reverse of the erminois fur; see the Wikipedia article. Vairy: Charged with vair; variegated with shield-shaped figures. See Vair. Sinister: In heraldry, the side of an escutcheon or coat of arms that is to the left of the bearer (opposed to dexter). Mascles: a charge consisting of a lozenge with a lozenge-shaped hole in the middle. Also called voided lozenge. de sang: Translates literally from French as \"of blood\". According to the Handbook of Heraldry, it is a descriptor applied to a gutt\u00e9, or goutte \u2013 (droplet-shaped charge), to denote its tincture. Goutte de sang would therefore mean a droplet of blood, i.e. a red droplet. (N.B. that a charge in the context of heraldry is an object that can be placed on the field of a shield.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow do you read section 20.1234 in a regulation by a government agency? For example, the law is 38 C.F.R. section 20.1234. How do you read 20.1234? Do you read it as \"twenty one two three four\" or \"twenty point one two three four? Thanks!","question":"How do you read section 20.1234 in a regulation by a government agency? For example, the law is 38 C.F.R. section 20.1234. How do you read 20.1234? Do you read it as \"twenty one two three four\" or \"twenty point one two three four? Thanks!","answer":"Where one number ends and the next begins is often ambiguous in English, so I would recommend being explicit with separators. For example, consider the ambiguity in distinguishing section 20.1 from section 21 without some word indicating the separator. The word you use -- \"dot\", \"point\", \"mark\", \"sub\", -- is a matter of personal taste or else institutional style, but when in doubt a word which directly describes the symbol is usually fine (I would say point here). In some contexts you will find that each level of hierarchy has a name or jargon associated with it -- \"section\", \"clause\", \"item\", \"sub-section\" etc -- in which case you can use this in place of the separator.","output":"Where one number ends and the next begins is often ambiguous in English, so I would recommend being explicit with separators. For example, consider the ambiguity in distinguishing section 20.1 from section 21 without some word indicating the separator. The word you use -- \"dot\", \"point\", \"mark\", \"sub\", -- is a matter of personal taste or else institutional style, but when in doubt a word which directly describes the symbol is usually fine (I would say point here). In some contexts you will find that each level of hierarchy has a name or jargon associated with it -- \"section\", \"clause\", \"item\", \"sub-section\" etc -- in which case you can use this in place of the separator."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm not a native speaker and I have always heard that \"sale\" is pronounced \"sail\/say+l\", and \"sell\" is pronounced \"cell\". But my teacher who is a lawyer always pronounces \"sale\" as \"sell\". He is not a native English speaker either but his grammar and vocabulary is very good and he really puts effort into making sure that whatever he speaks, he says it correctly. He even spells it out when we're confused, saying \"it's SELL. S-A-L-E - SELL.\"","question":"I'm not a native speaker and I have always heard that \"sale\" is pronounced \"sail\/say+l\", and \"sell\" is pronounced \"cell\". But my teacher who is a lawyer always pronounces \"sale\" as \"sell\". He is not a native English speaker either but his grammar and vocabulary is very good and he really puts effort into making sure that whatever he speaks, he says it correctly. He even spells it out when we're confused, saying \"it's SELL. S-A-L-E - SELL.\"","answer":"The correct pronunciation of sale is the widespread one, viz. sail. It is hard to perfect foreign accents, especially when you are used to speaking something one way thru out your life. Your teacher is only a human and can make a mistake, don't fret.","output":"The correct pronunciation of sale is the widespread one, viz. sail. It is hard to perfect foreign accents, especially when you are used to speaking something one way thru out your life. Your teacher is only a human and can make a mistake, don't fret."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nRecently I wrote a sentence and came to realize I've chained two third person conjugated verbs like this: The area of the screen where the expanded toolbar appears occludes a significant part of the screen. \"appears\" is taking about one thing (the expanded toolbar), while \"occludes\" is taking about an entirely different thing (the area where the toolbar appears). The meaning of the whole sentence seems clear to me, but its the first time I see something like that. Or at least that I'm aware of it. Is this the right way to write that sentence? Even when I can't come with a sentence off the top of my head that has three of those verbs chained together, is that acceptable for more that two verbs?","question":"Recently I wrote a sentence and came to realize I've chained two third person conjugated verbs like this: The area of the screen where the expanded toolbar appears occludes a significant part of the screen. \"appears\" is taking about one thing (the expanded toolbar), while \"occludes\" is taking about an entirely different thing (the area where the toolbar appears). The meaning of the whole sentence seems clear to me, but its the first time I see something like that. Or at least that I'm aware of it. Is this the right way to write that sentence? Even when I can't come with a sentence off the top of my head that has three of those verbs chained together, is that acceptable for more that two verbs?","answer":"where the expanded toolbar appears is a relative clause. You could snip it out to make a valid sentence, though one that omits an important piece of information. The area of the screen occludes a significant part of the screen. The sentence now looks odd, because the clause contains important information that defines which particular part of the screen you are talking about: that means that it's a defining relative clause. You don't use commas to separate a defining relative clause from the rest of the sentence- you just slot it straight in- so your sentence as it stands is correct and, in my opinion, completely understandable.","output":"where the expanded toolbar appears is a relative clause. You could snip it out to make a valid sentence, though one that omits an important piece of information. The area of the screen occludes a significant part of the screen. The sentence now looks odd, because the clause contains important information that defines which particular part of the screen you are talking about: that means that it's a defining relative clause. You don't use commas to separate a defining relative clause from the rest of the sentence- you just slot it straight in- so your sentence as it stands is correct and, in my opinion, completely understandable."}
{"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\nThe following sentence is from an article of Harry Frankfurt who is a professor from Princeton University: It must be part of the point of saying that humbug is \"short of lying,\" that while it has some of the distinguishing characteristics of lies, there are others that it lacks. How should I understand the second \"that\" (in bold) here? Does it refer to \"it\" in the sentence or is it an object of the word \"saying\"? How should I understand this sentence?","question":"The following sentence is from an article of Harry Frankfurt who is a professor from Princeton University: It must be part of the point of saying that humbug is \"short of lying,\" that while it has some of the distinguishing characteristics of lies, there are others that it lacks. How should I understand the second \"that\" (in bold) here? Does it refer to \"it\" in the sentence or is it an object of the word \"saying\"? How should I understand this sentence?","answer":"\"That\" attaches to \"the point\" here. So the reason for the saying that humbug is short of lying is that it shares some but not all the characteristics of lies.","output":"\"That\" attaches to \"the point\" here. So the reason for the saying that humbug is short of lying is that it shares some but not all the characteristics of lies."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI came across the following sentence in an old Language Log post \"A recent New York Times article described the Japanese profession of hostessing, which involves entertaining men at establishments where customers pay a lot to flirt and drink with young women (services that do not, as a rule, involve prostitution).\" The question being asked there is whether \"as a rule\" here means that there is a rule that such services can not involve prostitution or rather that ther is no rule that says it must involve prostitution. Mark Lieberman preforms a fairly extensive dive in how \"as a rule\" is used currently and how it used to be used and comes to the conclusion that \"as a rule\" doesn't imply there exists any rules, regulation or mandates. Instead just saying how things \"generally are, not how they should be or must be.\" This makes sense to me in that I also see \"as a rule\" meaning usually or in most cases. But to me that doesn't really answer the question, which seems to be more about how one should read the negation. Parsing the sentence best I know how, I would have a slight tendency to favor the reading, that the provision of the services does not imply that prostitution is involved, although it could be. As opposed to parsing it as though provision of the services in most cases does not involve prostitution. For the reading where in most cases prostitution is not involved I would expect a word order of \"(services that, as a rule, do not include prostitution).\" I'm not really sure if this reading is correct in general and if it's really determined in how tight the negation is bound to the action. Can anyone explain please?","question":"I came across the following sentence in an old Language Log post \"A recent New York Times article described the Japanese profession of hostessing, which involves entertaining men at establishments where customers pay a lot to flirt and drink with young women (services that do not, as a rule, involve prostitution).\" The question being asked there is whether \"as a rule\" here means that there is a rule that such services can not involve prostitution or rather that ther is no rule that says it must involve prostitution. Mark Lieberman preforms a fairly extensive dive in how \"as a rule\" is used currently and how it used to be used and comes to the conclusion that \"as a rule\" doesn't imply there exists any rules, regulation or mandates. Instead just saying how things \"generally are, not how they should be or must be.\" This makes sense to me in that I also see \"as a rule\" meaning usually or in most cases. But to me that doesn't really answer the question, which seems to be more about how one should read the negation. Parsing the sentence best I know how, I would have a slight tendency to favor the reading, that the provision of the services does not imply that prostitution is involved, although it could be. As opposed to parsing it as though provision of the services in most cases does not involve prostitution. For the reading where in most cases prostitution is not involved I would expect a word order of \"(services that, as a rule, do not include prostitution).\" I'm not really sure if this reading is correct in general and if it's really determined in how tight the negation is bound to the action. Can anyone explain please?","answer":"as a rule (phrase) for the most part : GENERALLY m-w Usually, but not always. \u2018any architect knows that, as a rule, old buildings are more soundly built than new ones\u2019 Lexico If you say that something happens as a rule, you mean that it usually happens. As a rule, however, such attacks have been aimed at causing damage rather than taking life. Collins This represents about 14 per cent of the total population, about 18 percent of the total productive labor of the institution. As a rule, contractors get the choice labor of penal institutions. Prison reports do not show the quality of the labor let to the contractors, but no doubt the labor so let in Illinois penitentiaries is no exception to the rule. The long term prisoner is undoubtedly more productive financially as a rule. ref. Placement with negation: It does not as a rule apply when existing buildings are altered to cater for disabled people, involving perhaps the provision of a ramp in place of steps... ref. The living artist, the struggling artist, does not as a rule make money or benefit when the price of his work increases. ref. The banks, as a rule, do not pay interest on deposits, do they? ref. The man in debt, as a rule, does not care so much about seeing his savings account grow larger as he does to see the debt growing smaller. ref. As for placement, either position works: services that do not, as a rule, involve prostitution = services that do not usually involve prostitution services that, as a rule, do not involve prostitution = services that usually do not involve prostitution I have not yet come across an example where placement before or not makes a significant difference. The Cambridge Dictionary has a table classifying adverbs and adverbial phrases with their positions. EGEL classifies as a rule as a non-bounding frequency adjunct, in a subgroup that \"contains a variety of frequency idioms:\" now and again, again and again, off and on, on and off, from time to time, as a rule, for the most part (p.715)","output":"as a rule (phrase) for the most part : GENERALLY m-w Usually, but not always. \u2018any architect knows that, as a rule, old buildings are more soundly built than new ones\u2019 Lexico If you say that something happens as a rule, you mean that it usually happens. As a rule, however, such attacks have been aimed at causing damage rather than taking life. Collins This represents about 14 per cent of the total population, about 18 percent of the total productive labor of the institution. As a rule, contractors get the choice labor of penal institutions. Prison reports do not show the quality of the labor let to the contractors, but no doubt the labor so let in Illinois penitentiaries is no exception to the rule. The long term prisoner is undoubtedly more productive financially as a rule. ref. Placement with negation: It does not as a rule apply when existing buildings are altered to cater for disabled people, involving perhaps the provision of a ramp in place of steps... ref. The living artist, the struggling artist, does not as a rule make money or benefit when the price of his work increases. ref. The banks, as a rule, do not pay interest on deposits, do they? ref. The man in debt, as a rule, does not care so much about seeing his savings account grow larger as he does to see the debt growing smaller. ref. As for placement, either position works: services that do not, as a rule, involve prostitution = services that do not usually involve prostitution services that, as a rule, do not involve prostitution = services that usually do not involve prostitution I have not yet come across an example where placement before or not makes a significant difference. The Cambridge Dictionary has a table classifying adverbs and adverbial phrases with their positions. EGEL classifies as a rule as a non-bounding frequency adjunct, in a subgroup that \"contains a variety of frequency idioms:\" now and again, again and again, off and on, on and off, from time to time, as a rule, for the most part (p.715)"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\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":"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\u2026I used to run with them, and had great fun; we used to gallop all together round and round the field as hard as we could go. Sometimes we had rather rough play, for they _____ frequently bite and kick as well as gallop. I googled for the original text and I got the answer that the missing word is \"would\". But I am not quite convinced of it as the only answer, and I think \"might\" is also acceptable here grammatically. What's more, I find the sentence itself not very logical: I don't think \"They(they are horses) would frequently bite and kick as well as gallop\" can be the reason for \"had rather rough play\". The horses preferred to play in a violent way because they tended to bite and kick? I can hardly understand the logic here. Can you help me?","question":"\u2026I used to run with them, and had great fun; we used to gallop all together round and round the field as hard as we could go. Sometimes we had rather rough play, for they _____ frequently bite and kick as well as gallop. I googled for the original text and I got the answer that the missing word is \"would\". But I am not quite convinced of it as the only answer, and I think \"might\" is also acceptable here grammatically. What's more, I find the sentence itself not very logical: I don't think \"They(they are horses) would frequently bite and kick as well as gallop\" can be the reason for \"had rather rough play\". The horses preferred to play in a violent way because they tended to bite and kick? I can hardly understand the logic here. Can you help me?","answer":"You have two questions: Filling in the blank It's clear that you need a conjugated auxiliary verb to fill in the blank, since bite, kick, and gallop are all in their infinitive form rather than in a past tense form. These sentences are talking about the habitual past. Possible auxiliary verbs you could use for habitual past are used to and would. Used to implies that the biting and kicking happened habitually in the past, but was no longer going on. That's not the case here \u2014 the biting and kicking was concurrent with the rough play. Therefore, even though used to appears twice in the previous sentence, it's not appropriate for filling in the blank. Might is not quite right, as it clashes with frequently. It expresses a possibility of something happening, and here we are talking not about a possibility, but something that did happen, repeatedly. By elimination, would is the word of choice. Use of for For is being used as a conjunction, with a similar meaning to because. You could interpret the sentence as Sometimes we played in a way that could be classified as rather rough, because they would frequently bite and kick as well as gallop.","output":"You have two questions: Filling in the blank It's clear that you need a conjugated auxiliary verb to fill in the blank, since bite, kick, and gallop are all in their infinitive form rather than in a past tense form. These sentences are talking about the habitual past. Possible auxiliary verbs you could use for habitual past are used to and would. Used to implies that the biting and kicking happened habitually in the past, but was no longer going on. That's not the case here \u2014 the biting and kicking was concurrent with the rough play. Therefore, even though used to appears twice in the previous sentence, it's not appropriate for filling in the blank. Might is not quite right, as it clashes with frequently. It expresses a possibility of something happening, and here we are talking not about a possibility, but something that did happen, repeatedly. By elimination, would is the word of choice. Use of for For is being used as a conjunction, with a similar meaning to because. You could interpret the sentence as Sometimes we played in a way that could be classified as rather rough, because they would frequently bite and kick as well as gallop."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"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\nLet\u2019s sat your boss gave you a task and she\u2019s very demanding and before leaving she looks at you and says: X: \u201cI\u2019m expecting you to do an impeccable ____\u201d Should it be job or work? What\u2019s the difference?","question":"Let\u2019s sat your boss gave you a task and she\u2019s very demanding and before leaving she looks at you and says: X: \u201cI\u2019m expecting you to do an impeccable ____\u201d Should it be job or work? What\u2019s the difference?","answer":"As DW256 pointed out, strictly considering the example sentence, job is the only appropriate noun that would fit. However, if we simply remove the indefinite article an in the case where work is used, we have two possible sentences. X: \"I'm expecting you to do an impeccable job.\" and X: \"I'm expecting you to do impeccable work.\" As previously discussed here, a job and work are two distinct, but related, concepts. A job is a set task which is typically paid (as in the case of your example), whilst work is a broader term that can refer to any kind of labour or effort by a person, although it certainly does have a connotation of a job also (\"What do you do for work?\" as an example). Applying this knowledge to your scenario, the correct phrasing depends on what the boss means. It is worth noting, however, that the two are likely broadly similar enough to be interpreted in a reasonable way by the recipient. If the boss states that she expects you to do an impeccable job, then it is implied that the overall product of your labour is what she is interested in, and whilst that likely means you will have to do impeccable work to achieve such a product, the key thing she is interested in is the end result. By contrast, if she states that she wishes for impeccable work to be done, then both the process of creating the end product and the product itself are implied to be important, as work can imply both the labour done by an individual and the end result of that labour (i.e., the sum total of the work done). As previously stated however, the difference in meanings between the two is fairly minor. Both can likely be used and have the same meaning to an individual, that what they do and what they produce as a result of their work must be of a particularly high standard.","output":"As DW256 pointed out, strictly considering the example sentence, job is the only appropriate noun that would fit. However, if we simply remove the indefinite article an in the case where work is used, we have two possible sentences. X: \"I'm expecting you to do an impeccable job.\" and X: \"I'm expecting you to do impeccable work.\" As previously discussed here, a job and work are two distinct, but related, concepts. A job is a set task which is typically paid (as in the case of your example), whilst work is a broader term that can refer to any kind of labour or effort by a person, although it certainly does have a connotation of a job also (\"What do you do for work?\" as an example). Applying this knowledge to your scenario, the correct phrasing depends on what the boss means. It is worth noting, however, that the two are likely broadly similar enough to be interpreted in a reasonable way by the recipient. If the boss states that she expects you to do an impeccable job, then it is implied that the overall product of your labour is what she is interested in, and whilst that likely means you will have to do impeccable work to achieve such a product, the key thing she is interested in is the end result. By contrast, if she states that she wishes for impeccable work to be done, then both the process of creating the end product and the product itself are implied to be important, as work can imply both the labour done by an individual and the end result of that labour (i.e., the sum total of the work done). As previously stated however, the difference in meanings between the two is fairly minor. Both can likely be used and have the same meaning to an individual, that what they do and what they produce as a result of their work must be of a particularly high standard."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nConsider a car. I was thinking that we say \"this car is variant of model-x\" at times. Then we also say \"this car is a different version of model-x.\" How do I tell why \"version\" or \"variant\" were used where they were? Instinctively, I think \"variant\" at most should mean a color change, different leather or added alloys whereas \"version\" should mean like a higher capacity engine, carbon fibre roof or facelift. So too much variation may be called a different version. Help me out.","question":"Consider a car. I was thinking that we say \"this car is variant of model-x\" at times. Then we also say \"this car is a different version of model-x.\" How do I tell why \"version\" or \"variant\" were used where they were? Instinctively, I think \"variant\" at most should mean a color change, different leather or added alloys whereas \"version\" should mean like a higher capacity engine, carbon fibre roof or facelift. So too much variation may be called a different version. Help me out.","answer":"I think you're on the right track here: version implies a bigger difference than variant. The first Oxford definition of each are similar, but they have some key differences: Oxford definition of version: A particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing: Oxford definition of variation: A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard: Looking at version, Y is a version of X if it differs from an earlier form or another form of the same type of thing On the other hand, Z is a variant on X if it differs from: other forms of the same thing or a standard The \"earlier form\" is the most straightforward difference: variant does not mention \"an earlier form\". The second distinction is between another form of the same type of thing vs. the same thing or a standard. There are some gray areas here as to what the \"same thing\" is vs. the \"same type of thing\". If car A and car B are distinct only in their color, you would probably say they are the same car that differs in some respect. However, if car A has a v6 engine and a hatchback, where as car B has a v4 engine and a small trunk but are otherwise the same, you might say car A and car B are the same type of car (the hatchback and sedan versions). An example of differing from a standard is if there is a specific strain of a very common virus: you would say it was a variant. Some common usages of each: Version (examples summarized from the Oxford definition): The abridged version of my favorite book The latest version of antivirus software My version of the story Version is very commonly used to described \"An adaptation of a novel, piece of music, etc., into another medium or style\" (Oxford definition), in describing software, or describing two critically different viewpoints on the same topic. Variant (summarized from the Oxford definition and Merriam-Webster) : Gray is a spelling variant of grey. A more deadly variant of the disease. Variant is used to more to describe slight changes, such as a different letter in spelling. It also has the very specific use of strains of diseases.","output":"I think you're on the right track here: version implies a bigger difference than variant. The first Oxford definition of each are similar, but they have some key differences: Oxford definition of version: A particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing: Oxford definition of variation: A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard: Looking at version, Y is a version of X if it differs from an earlier form or another form of the same type of thing On the other hand, Z is a variant on X if it differs from: other forms of the same thing or a standard The \"earlier form\" is the most straightforward difference: variant does not mention \"an earlier form\". The second distinction is between another form of the same type of thing vs. the same thing or a standard. There are some gray areas here as to what the \"same thing\" is vs. the \"same type of thing\". If car A and car B are distinct only in their color, you would probably say they are the same car that differs in some respect. However, if car A has a v6 engine and a hatchback, where as car B has a v4 engine and a small trunk but are otherwise the same, you might say car A and car B are the same type of car (the hatchback and sedan versions). An example of differing from a standard is if there is a specific strain of a very common virus: you would say it was a variant. Some common usages of each: Version (examples summarized from the Oxford definition): The abridged version of my favorite book The latest version of antivirus software My version of the story Version is very commonly used to described \"An adaptation of a novel, piece of music, etc., into another medium or style\" (Oxford definition), in describing software, or describing two critically different viewpoints on the same topic. Variant (summarized from the Oxford definition and Merriam-Webster) : Gray is a spelling variant of grey. A more deadly variant of the disease. Variant is used to more to describe slight changes, such as a different letter in spelling. It also has the very specific use of strains of diseases."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn a BBC Documentary about Brexit, an interviewee stated his reason for voting out as following: We are giving to some of the eastern Europeans who come in here at that time. they have more priority than I did. I was standing in the queue. and they said, sorry, there is nothing we can do for you. These guys who have just come in with nothing from another country. Yes by all means help them, but I was basically waiting for someone to do something. And I never had nothing. (BBC 2016 Why We Voted Leave: Britain Speaks. see: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=o7kjg4nXsYA after 07 min 19 sec) It seems to me in this context that \"I never had nothing\" is same as \"I never had anything\". But double negation should make affirmation. How could they two be the same?","question":"In a BBC Documentary about Brexit, an interviewee stated his reason for voting out as following: We are giving to some of the eastern Europeans who come in here at that time. they have more priority than I did. I was standing in the queue. and they said, sorry, there is nothing we can do for you. These guys who have just come in with nothing from another country. Yes by all means help them, but I was basically waiting for someone to do something. And I never had nothing. (BBC 2016 Why We Voted Leave: Britain Speaks. see: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=o7kjg4nXsYA after 07 min 19 sec) It seems to me in this context that \"I never had nothing\" is same as \"I never had anything\". But double negation should make affirmation. How could they two be the same?","answer":"Informally, people often use double negation as a means of intensifying the negation. A classic example is the Rolling Stones lyric \"I can't get no satisfaction.\" The same thing is happening with your example of \"I never had nothing.\" Regarding this use of double negation as an intensifier of negation, Wikipedia writes: some double negatives may resolve to a positive; others resolve to intensify the negative clause within a sentence. For example: I didn't go nowhere today. I'm not hungry no more. You don't know nothing. This use ain't no ways uncommon.","output":"Informally, people often use double negation as a means of intensifying the negation. A classic example is the Rolling Stones lyric \"I can't get no satisfaction.\" The same thing is happening with your example of \"I never had nothing.\" Regarding this use of double negation as an intensifier of negation, Wikipedia writes: some double negatives may resolve to a positive; others resolve to intensify the negative clause within a sentence. For example: I didn't go nowhere today. I'm not hungry no more. You don't know nothing. This use ain't no ways uncommon."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThis is a stand alone sentence, used as an exercise in learning Mandarin Chinese. It has no context. I feel that it is more natural to say \"that's my brother and sister\", in English. Am I wrong?","question":"This is a stand alone sentence, used as an exercise in learning Mandarin Chinese. It has no context. I feel that it is more natural to say \"that's my brother and sister\", in English. Am I wrong?","answer":"Both sentences are fine\u2014but context will determine which is more appropriate. For instance: \"Who are those two people?\" \"They're my brother and sister. Here, you are answering a question. But: I pointed at the two of them and said, \"That's my brother and sister.\" Here, you are describing something you've introduced yourself in a demonstrative way.","output":"Both sentences are fine\u2014but context will determine which is more appropriate. For instance: \"Who are those two people?\" \"They're my brother and sister. Here, you are answering a question. But: I pointed at the two of them and said, \"That's my brother and sister.\" Here, you are describing something you've introduced yourself in a demonstrative way."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn dictionaries I see two guides for pronunciation. for example, for the word \"ambiguity\": [am-bi-gyoo-i-tee] AND \/\u02cc\u00e6mb\u026a\u02c8gyu\u026ati\/ I know the second one is named IPA. My question is, is there a special name for the first one? and is there probably any difference between them?","question":"In dictionaries I see two guides for pronunciation. for example, for the word \"ambiguity\": [am-bi-gyoo-i-tee] AND \/\u02cc\u00e6mb\u026a\u02c8gyu\u026ati\/ I know the second one is named IPA. My question is, is there a special name for the first one? and is there probably any difference between them?","answer":"It's called a pronunciation respelling system. Its advantage is that you don't have to learn it, the way you have to learn IPA. Its disadvantage is that it is good only for speakers of the language (or even the dialect) it is intended for.","output":"It's called a pronunciation respelling system. Its advantage is that you don't have to learn it, the way you have to learn IPA. Its disadvantage is that it is good only for speakers of the language (or even the dialect) it is intended for."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIf you see an attractive pizza and feel desire, you can say, \"I feel hungry\". If you see an attractive person and feel desire, you can say, \"I feel lust\". If you see an attractive car and feel desire, you can say, \"I feel _____ ?\" Is there a single word that describes the desire for something material? I'm thinking \"greedy\", but that implies a desire for more material possessions generally, it's not specific to seeing a single item and wanting it. \"Desire\", of course, is accurate, but again that is too general - it's not specific to material goods. Is there a word (or maybe short phrase) specifically describing the desire to acquire a particular item?","question":"If you see an attractive pizza and feel desire, you can say, \"I feel hungry\". If you see an attractive person and feel desire, you can say, \"I feel lust\". If you see an attractive car and feel desire, you can say, \"I feel _____ ?\" Is there a single word that describes the desire for something material? I'm thinking \"greedy\", but that implies a desire for more material possessions generally, it's not specific to seeing a single item and wanting it. \"Desire\", of course, is accurate, but again that is too general - it's not specific to material goods. Is there a word (or maybe short phrase) specifically describing the desire to acquire a particular item?","answer":"Yes: covetous: feeling or showing a very strong desire for something that you do not have and especially for something that belongs to someone else [M-W] If you want a noun, covetousness. But here is one case where the verb does most nicely: \u201cI covet that.\u201d If you can denominate sexual desire with the term lust, I anticipate no insuperable problem with the scriptural baggage of covet.","output":"Yes: covetous: feeling or showing a very strong desire for something that you do not have and especially for something that belongs to someone else [M-W] If you want a noun, covetousness. But here is one case where the verb does most nicely: \u201cI covet that.\u201d If you can denominate sexual desire with the term lust, I anticipate no insuperable problem with the scriptural baggage of covet."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIf someone says \"Fifteen divided by half\", I would interpret that literally to mean 15\/0.5, or 30. However, I usually see it interpreted as 15\/2, or 7.5. Which interpretation is correct?","question":"If someone says \"Fifteen divided by half\", I would interpret that literally to mean 15\/0.5, or 30. However, I usually see it interpreted as 15\/2, or 7.5. Which interpretation is correct?","answer":"It's simply grammatically incorrect, so it has no literal meaning. (And before anyone shows up to argue against prescriptivism, the very concept of a \"literal meaning\" contrary to what is meant\/understood is prescriptivist at a basic level) You could say \"divided by one half\", or \"divided by 0.5\" for one meaning; or \"divided in half\" for the other.","output":"It's simply grammatically incorrect, so it has no literal meaning. (And before anyone shows up to argue against prescriptivism, the very concept of a \"literal meaning\" contrary to what is meant\/understood is prescriptivist at a basic level) You could say \"divided by one half\", or \"divided by 0.5\" for one meaning; or \"divided in half\" for the other."}
{"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\nIn Mormon missionary culture, they use the word \"trunky\" to describe the feeling at the end of their two-year mission when they are tired, ready to go home, and are mentally packing their trunks to go home. They have mentally checked out from their mission at hand. I'm looking for a commonly used word or phrase that means generally the same thing as \"trunky\".","question":"In Mormon missionary culture, they use the word \"trunky\" to describe the feeling at the end of their two-year mission when they are tired, ready to go home, and are mentally packing their trunks to go home. They have mentally checked out from their mission at hand. I'm looking for a commonly used word or phrase that means generally the same thing as \"trunky\".","answer":"In the US Military one common term was FIGMO, politely it meant \"Forget It, Got My Orders\", I'll leave it to you & Google to figure out what it really meant. Another term was \"DEROS\" meaning Date Eligible for Return from Overseas, the date when you'd leave to go home. It's worth a Google as well if for nothing else the trench art. You'll find that there'll be a count of days \"and a wake up\" with some very um..colorful calendars, but I digress. A term I've heard in the Pacific Northwest is \"dundy\" (done-dee?) not sure of the spelling, I've never seen it in print. It means you're done, finished, ready to go home, usually in a \"I'm sick & tired of this\" connotation. In Hawaii, you'll hear \"All pau now\" or \"pau hana\" which generally means \"we're done doing whatever it was we were doing, let's go home\/ get a drink\". In Malay, you will hear: \"sudah?\" as in \"done already?\". And in Hainanese you might hear: \"ho mei?\" which is nearly identical in meaning to \"sudah\" at least to this gwai-lo's ear (my wife is Malaysian & ethnically Chinese).","output":"In the US Military one common term was FIGMO, politely it meant \"Forget It, Got My Orders\", I'll leave it to you & Google to figure out what it really meant. Another term was \"DEROS\" meaning Date Eligible for Return from Overseas, the date when you'd leave to go home. It's worth a Google as well if for nothing else the trench art. You'll find that there'll be a count of days \"and a wake up\" with some very um..colorful calendars, but I digress. A term I've heard in the Pacific Northwest is \"dundy\" (done-dee?) not sure of the spelling, I've never seen it in print. It means you're done, finished, ready to go home, usually in a \"I'm sick & tired of this\" connotation. In Hawaii, you'll hear \"All pau now\" or \"pau hana\" which generally means \"we're done doing whatever it was we were doing, let's go home\/ get a drink\". In Malay, you will hear: \"sudah?\" as in \"done already?\". And in Hainanese you might hear: \"ho mei?\" which is nearly identical in meaning to \"sudah\" at least to this gwai-lo's ear (my wife is Malaysian & ethnically Chinese)."}
{"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\nIs it okay to say \"He had snaggle teeth\"? Or there is a better way of describing that problem with teeth?","question":"Is it okay to say \"He had snaggle teeth\"? Or there is a better way of describing that problem with teeth?","answer":"You say that he had a snaggle-tooth, or that he had snaggle-teeth, or that he was snaggle-toothed, or that he was a snaggle-tooth. See the examples below transcribed from the Oxford English Dictionary. I suppose you could say he was in need of dental orthodontic work if you didn\u2019t want to spell out that his teeth were uneven and snaggly. snaggle snaggle \/\u02c8sn\u00e6g(\u0259)l\/, sb. Chiefly dial. and colloq. Etymology: app. f. snag sb.1: cf. snaggle-tooth. A snaggle-tooth; one who has snaggle-teeth. rare. 1823 M. Wilmot Let. 1 Oct. (1935) 197 \u2015 Blanche [has] become alas a snaggle! Those dear little pearls of teeth are going. *1880 Courtney & Couch Gloss. Words Cornwall 52\/2 \u2015 What snaggles the cheeld has. A tangle; a knotted or projecting mass. 1904 Eng. Dial. Dict. V. 567\/1 \u2015 Snaggle,\u00b7\u00b7a knotted, entangled condition. 1968 C. Helmericks Down Wild River North ii. xxii. 336 \u2015 The girls pitched our * tent in the sparse, pristine plant population between rock snaggles. 1978 T. Hughes in Times Lit. Suppl. 14 Apr. 409\/1 \u2015 All eyes watch The weathered, rooty, bushy pile of faces, A snaggle of faces. attrib., as snaggle-tusk. snaggle-tooth \u02c8snaggle-tooth. Etymology: Cf. next and snag-tooth. An irregular or projecting tooth. Also, one with snaggle-teeth. 1820 M. Wilmot Let. 12 Jan. (1935) 51 \u2015 Catherine has actually lost one of her teeth!\u00b7\u00b7 The poor Cat will be a rare frightful snaggle tooth. 1821 M. Wilmot Let. 17 Mar. 99 \u2015 Instead of being hideous in the snaggle tooth age\u00b7\u00b7she is\u00b7\u00b7improved. 1825 Jennings Obs. Dial. W. Eng. 71 \u2015 Snaggle-tooth, a tooth growing irregularly. 1859 Slang Dict. 96 \u2015 Snaggle teeth, uneven, and unpleasant looking dental operators. 1897 S. Watson Life\u2019s Look-out 67 \u2015 Every building had its own lurch inwards or outwards, like a mouthful of snaggle teeth. 1906 Dialect Notes III. 157 \u2015 You\u2019ll be a snaggle-tooth before you\u2019re twenty, if you don\u2019t quit eating so much candy. 1909 J. R. Ware Passing Eng. 227\/2 \u2015 Snaggle-tooth, woman of lower order\u00b7\u00b7who, lifting her upper lip when scolding, shows an irregular row of teeth. snaggle-toothed \u02c8snaggle-toothed, a. Etymology: app. f. snag sb.1 Having snaggle-teeth. Also fig. 1585 Higins tr. Junius\u2019 Nomencl. 452\/1 s.v. Dento. 1688 Holme Armoury ii. 427\/1 \u2015 Snaggle, or Rake toothed, is when the teeth * stands at a distance, one from the other. 1884 J. C. Harris Nts. Uncle Remus 105 \u2015 I\u2019m snaggle\u2010toofed an\u2019 double j\u2019inted. 1945 B. Macdonald Egg & I (1946) 85 \u2015 On grey winter days its snaggle-toothed horizon could be seen plainly. 1954 Caribbean Quarterly III. iv. 231 \u2015 Albert is a bright\u2010eyed, snaggle-toothed little man. 1971 B. W. Aldiss Soldier Erect 32 \u2015 That snaggle-toothed chap in the comic button-up white suit,\u00b7\u00b7-put him in a proper pinstripe and he\u2019d pass for an Eastbourne estate agent! 1977 Time 14 Feb. 21\/3 \u2015 Entertainment is provided by\u00b7\u00b7a Hollywood drop-cloth view of snaggle-toothed Mount Kenya. 1922 Joyce Ulysses 424 \u2015 The famished snaggletusks of an elderly bawd protrude from a doorway. snag-tooth snag-tooth. Etymology: f. snag sb.1 Cf. snaggle-tooth. A snag-like tooth. 1655 Cotgrave Wits Interpr. (1662) 253 \u2015 How thy snag\u2010teeth stand orderly, Like stakes which strut by th\u2019 water side. 1727 in Bailey (vol. II.). 1890 Amer. Anthropologist Oct. 316 \u2015 Projecting canines or \u2018snag teeth\u2019 are so common in low faces as to be universally remarked.","output":"You say that he had a snaggle-tooth, or that he had snaggle-teeth, or that he was snaggle-toothed, or that he was a snaggle-tooth. See the examples below transcribed from the Oxford English Dictionary. I suppose you could say he was in need of dental orthodontic work if you didn\u2019t want to spell out that his teeth were uneven and snaggly. snaggle snaggle \/\u02c8sn\u00e6g(\u0259)l\/, sb. Chiefly dial. and colloq. Etymology: app. f. snag sb.1: cf. snaggle-tooth. A snaggle-tooth; one who has snaggle-teeth. rare. 1823 M. Wilmot Let. 1 Oct. (1935) 197 \u2015 Blanche [has] become alas a snaggle! Those dear little pearls of teeth are going. *1880 Courtney & Couch Gloss. Words Cornwall 52\/2 \u2015 What snaggles the cheeld has. A tangle; a knotted or projecting mass. 1904 Eng. Dial. Dict. V. 567\/1 \u2015 Snaggle,\u00b7\u00b7a knotted, entangled condition. 1968 C. Helmericks Down Wild River North ii. xxii. 336 \u2015 The girls pitched our * tent in the sparse, pristine plant population between rock snaggles. 1978 T. Hughes in Times Lit. Suppl. 14 Apr. 409\/1 \u2015 All eyes watch The weathered, rooty, bushy pile of faces, A snaggle of faces. attrib., as snaggle-tusk. snaggle-tooth \u02c8snaggle-tooth. Etymology: Cf. next and snag-tooth. An irregular or projecting tooth. Also, one with snaggle-teeth. 1820 M. Wilmot Let. 12 Jan. (1935) 51 \u2015 Catherine has actually lost one of her teeth!\u00b7\u00b7 The poor Cat will be a rare frightful snaggle tooth. 1821 M. Wilmot Let. 17 Mar. 99 \u2015 Instead of being hideous in the snaggle tooth age\u00b7\u00b7she is\u00b7\u00b7improved. 1825 Jennings Obs. Dial. W. Eng. 71 \u2015 Snaggle-tooth, a tooth growing irregularly. 1859 Slang Dict. 96 \u2015 Snaggle teeth, uneven, and unpleasant looking dental operators. 1897 S. Watson Life\u2019s Look-out 67 \u2015 Every building had its own lurch inwards or outwards, like a mouthful of snaggle teeth. 1906 Dialect Notes III. 157 \u2015 You\u2019ll be a snaggle-tooth before you\u2019re twenty, if you don\u2019t quit eating so much candy. 1909 J. R. Ware Passing Eng. 227\/2 \u2015 Snaggle-tooth, woman of lower order\u00b7\u00b7who, lifting her upper lip when scolding, shows an irregular row of teeth. snaggle-toothed \u02c8snaggle-toothed, a. Etymology: app. f. snag sb.1 Having snaggle-teeth. Also fig. 1585 Higins tr. Junius\u2019 Nomencl. 452\/1 s.v. Dento. 1688 Holme Armoury ii. 427\/1 \u2015 Snaggle, or Rake toothed, is when the teeth * stands at a distance, one from the other. 1884 J. C. Harris Nts. Uncle Remus 105 \u2015 I\u2019m snaggle\u2010toofed an\u2019 double j\u2019inted. 1945 B. Macdonald Egg & I (1946) 85 \u2015 On grey winter days its snaggle-toothed horizon could be seen plainly. 1954 Caribbean Quarterly III. iv. 231 \u2015 Albert is a bright\u2010eyed, snaggle-toothed little man. 1971 B. W. Aldiss Soldier Erect 32 \u2015 That snaggle-toothed chap in the comic button-up white suit,\u00b7\u00b7-put him in a proper pinstripe and he\u2019d pass for an Eastbourne estate agent! 1977 Time 14 Feb. 21\/3 \u2015 Entertainment is provided by\u00b7\u00b7a Hollywood drop-cloth view of snaggle-toothed Mount Kenya. 1922 Joyce Ulysses 424 \u2015 The famished snaggletusks of an elderly bawd protrude from a doorway. snag-tooth snag-tooth. Etymology: f. snag sb.1 Cf. snaggle-tooth. A snag-like tooth. 1655 Cotgrave Wits Interpr. (1662) 253 \u2015 How thy snag\u2010teeth stand orderly, Like stakes which strut by th\u2019 water side. 1727 in Bailey (vol. II.). 1890 Amer. Anthropologist Oct. 316 \u2015 Projecting canines or \u2018snag teeth\u2019 are so common in low faces as to be universally remarked."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhy do we use was for the pronoun I? Can we use were or not? What is the difference between I was and I were??","question":"Why do we use was for the pronoun I? Can we use were or not? What is the difference between I was and I were??","answer":"We use \"was\" with I, he, she, it when speaking of the past: it is the singular past form of the verb \"to be\". We use \"were\" with you and they and we: it is the plural past form. But sometimes we can use \"were\" with I (he, she, it): I wish I were a sailor. Here, I've expressed my wish to be a sailor, which I am not. This is called the subjunctive mood, used to express desires, wishes, intents. It is used to talk of \"unreal\" situations (that we wish were real). This is the only instance in which we can use \"I + were\", and in modern English you can safely use \"was\" in its place, both sentences will mean the same: I wish I was a sailor. An example of use of \"I + were\", from a song: If I were a carpenter And you were a lady Would you marry me anyway? Would you have my baby? Here, the singer is not a carpenter, he merely speculates what might happen if he were to become a carpenter (or \"if he was to become a carpenter\", which is the same). If I were you and wished to know more, I would read up on the subjunctive mood in Michael Swan's Practical English Usage, Topic 567.","output":"We use \"was\" with I, he, she, it when speaking of the past: it is the singular past form of the verb \"to be\". We use \"were\" with you and they and we: it is the plural past form. But sometimes we can use \"were\" with I (he, she, it): I wish I were a sailor. Here, I've expressed my wish to be a sailor, which I am not. This is called the subjunctive mood, used to express desires, wishes, intents. It is used to talk of \"unreal\" situations (that we wish were real). This is the only instance in which we can use \"I + were\", and in modern English you can safely use \"was\" in its place, both sentences will mean the same: I wish I was a sailor. An example of use of \"I + were\", from a song: If I were a carpenter And you were a lady Would you marry me anyway? Would you have my baby? Here, the singer is not a carpenter, he merely speculates what might happen if he were to become a carpenter (or \"if he was to become a carpenter\", which is the same). If I were you and wished to know more, I would read up on the subjunctive mood in Michael Swan's Practical English Usage, Topic 567."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMr.Weasley scanned the front page while Percy looked over his shoulder. \"I knew it,\" said Mr.Weasley heavily. \"Ministry blunders . . .culprits not apprehended . . .lax security . . .Dark wizards running unchecked. . . national disgrace . . .Who worte this? Ah. . .of course. . .Rita Skeeter.\" \"That woman's got it in for the Ministry of Magic!\" said Percy furiously. \"Lask week she was saying we're wasting our time quibbling about cauldron thickness, when we should be stamping out vampires! As if it wasn't specifically stated in paragraph twelve of the Guidelines for the Treatment of Non-Wizard Part-Humans...\" Harry potter and the goblet of fire What's the meaning of the sentence marked in bold? I don't understand the part \"got it in for\".","question":"Mr.Weasley scanned the front page while Percy looked over his shoulder. \"I knew it,\" said Mr.Weasley heavily. \"Ministry blunders . . .culprits not apprehended . . .lax security . . .Dark wizards running unchecked. . . national disgrace . . .Who worte this? Ah. . .of course. . .Rita Skeeter.\" \"That woman's got it in for the Ministry of Magic!\" said Percy furiously. \"Lask week she was saying we're wasting our time quibbling about cauldron thickness, when we should be stamping out vampires! As if it wasn't specifically stated in paragraph twelve of the Guidelines for the Treatment of Non-Wizard Part-Humans...\" Harry potter and the goblet of fire What's the meaning of the sentence marked in bold? I don't understand the part \"got it in for\".","answer":"It's an idiom and it can be found in most dictionaries under the entry for to have it in for somebody. This expression means to persistently try or desire to criticize, cause harm to, or harass someone, especially due to a grudge (I just copied that definition from the dictionary). Examples: This is the third time in a row my professor has given me an F on my paper. I think he has it in for me or something! John's had it in for her ever since she forced him to sell his shares in the business.","output":"It's an idiom and it can be found in most dictionaries under the entry for to have it in for somebody. This expression means to persistently try or desire to criticize, cause harm to, or harass someone, especially due to a grudge (I just copied that definition from the dictionary). Examples: This is the third time in a row my professor has given me an F on my paper. I think he has it in for me or something! John's had it in for her ever since she forced him to sell his shares in the business."}
{"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 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\nOver on another network site, a helpful user corrected the grammar of a post of mine. The answer now says I believe it's valid. where I originally wrote I believe it valid. Is the original sentence gramamatically (or at least idiomatically) correct or do I absolutely need a form of 'to be' here? (What's more, is 'to be' a copula or an auxiliary verb if used like this?) I am quite certain that I have seen sentences like the original one in the past, but I am uncertain where. Given that I am frequently exposed to the somewhat made-up English of authors in the fields of sci-fi and fantasy, I might have fallen into a trap here. Edit: I don't doubt that the correction is valid and enhances readability.","question":"Over on another network site, a helpful user corrected the grammar of a post of mine. The answer now says I believe it's valid. where I originally wrote I believe it valid. Is the original sentence gramamatically (or at least idiomatically) correct or do I absolutely need a form of 'to be' here? (What's more, is 'to be' a copula or an auxiliary verb if used like this?) I am quite certain that I have seen sentences like the original one in the past, but I am uncertain where. Given that I am frequently exposed to the somewhat made-up English of authors in the fields of sci-fi and fantasy, I might have fallen into a trap here. Edit: I don't doubt that the correction is valid and enhances readability.","answer":"Believe is a verb that can take three different types of Object Complement. It can take a tensed Embedded Question complement: He believes [what you tell him]. It can take a tensed That-clause complement: He believes [that [the moon is made of white cheese]]. And it can take an Infinitive complement, with B-Raising: He believes [her to be the best shotputter in Indiana]. The only kind it doesn't take is the Gerund complement; this is ungrammatical: *He believes Shakespeare writing Canterbury Tales The two different sentences in the original question simply have different complement types. Both are grammatical, both mean the same thing, and either will get to the same place, though by a slightly different route. No worries, eh? I believe it's valid has a That-complement. The complementizer that (which is optional here because it's an object complement) has been removed. Put it back (and uncontract the contraction while you're at it) and you get I believe that it is valid, which is totally unexceptionable, though a bit stuffy for online discussion. Which is why it gets shortened. I believe it valid has an Infinitive complement. The original infinitive complementizer to and the auxiliary infinitive be have been deleted by the common rule of To Be-Deletion, leaving only the Raised subject it and the predicate adjective valid, the guts of the sentence, with all the auxiliaries stripped away. Put them back and you get I believe it to be valid, which is equally unexceptionable. Deletions are common; check for empty slots. But you have to know what slots there are.","output":"Believe is a verb that can take three different types of Object Complement. It can take a tensed Embedded Question complement: He believes [what you tell him]. It can take a tensed That-clause complement: He believes [that [the moon is made of white cheese]]. And it can take an Infinitive complement, with B-Raising: He believes [her to be the best shotputter in Indiana]. The only kind it doesn't take is the Gerund complement; this is ungrammatical: *He believes Shakespeare writing Canterbury Tales The two different sentences in the original question simply have different complement types. Both are grammatical, both mean the same thing, and either will get to the same place, though by a slightly different route. No worries, eh? I believe it's valid has a That-complement. The complementizer that (which is optional here because it's an object complement) has been removed. Put it back (and uncontract the contraction while you're at it) and you get I believe that it is valid, which is totally unexceptionable, though a bit stuffy for online discussion. Which is why it gets shortened. I believe it valid has an Infinitive complement. The original infinitive complementizer to and the auxiliary infinitive be have been deleted by the common rule of To Be-Deletion, leaving only the Raised subject it and the predicate adjective valid, the guts of the sentence, with all the auxiliaries stripped away. Put them back and you get I believe it to be valid, which is equally unexceptionable. Deletions are common; check for empty slots. But you have to know what slots there are."}
{"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 itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"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\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"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 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\nPhillip Morris has very strong values, although we might not agree with them\u2014for instance, the value of \u201cadult choice.\u201d The meanings of \"adult\" and \"choice\" are clear, but I think \"adult choice\" has a special meaning which I don't know. I didn't find any definition in online dictionaries. So, could you please explain it to me? The fuller Text: Companies can hold ethically questionable values and still be very resilient. Consider Phillip Morris, which has demonstrated impressive resilience in the face of increasing unpopularity. As Jim Collins points out, Phillip Morris has very strong values, although we might not agree with them\u2014for instance, the value of \u201cadult choice.\u201d But there\u2019s no doubt that Phillip Morris executives believe strongly in its values, and the strength of their beliefs sets the company apart from most of the other tobacco companies. In this context, it is worth noting that resilience is neither ethically good nor bad. It is merely the skill and the capacity to be robust under conditions of enormous stress and change.","question":"Phillip Morris has very strong values, although we might not agree with them\u2014for instance, the value of \u201cadult choice.\u201d The meanings of \"adult\" and \"choice\" are clear, but I think \"adult choice\" has a special meaning which I don't know. I didn't find any definition in online dictionaries. So, could you please explain it to me? The fuller Text: Companies can hold ethically questionable values and still be very resilient. Consider Phillip Morris, which has demonstrated impressive resilience in the face of increasing unpopularity. As Jim Collins points out, Phillip Morris has very strong values, although we might not agree with them\u2014for instance, the value of \u201cadult choice.\u201d But there\u2019s no doubt that Phillip Morris executives believe strongly in its values, and the strength of their beliefs sets the company apart from most of the other tobacco companies. In this context, it is worth noting that resilience is neither ethically good nor bad. It is merely the skill and the capacity to be robust under conditions of enormous stress and change.","answer":"It means the ability of adults to make their choices. The ability of children to choose things might, the argument goes, be severely limited without it being unreasonable. The choices of adults, on the other hand, should be circumscribed only with very good reason.","output":"It means the ability of adults to make their choices. The ability of children to choose things might, the argument goes, be severely limited without it being unreasonable. The choices of adults, on the other hand, should be circumscribed only with very good reason."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"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 lampau:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI would like to know what does this phrase means: \"Why don't you just beat it?\" My dictionary says only that: beat it: get lost Can you beat it? : Do you get it?","question":"I would like to know what does this phrase means: \"Why don't you just beat it?\" My dictionary says only that: beat it: get lost Can you beat it? : Do you get it?","answer":"It means \"why don't you leave?\", and comes from \"beat a retreat\", which itself comes from the use of drums to signal soldiers to leave the battle field. Find it all here: http:\/\/www.phrases.org.uk\/meanings\/58800.html","output":"It means \"why don't you leave?\", and comes from \"beat a retreat\", which itself comes from the use of drums to signal soldiers to leave the battle field. Find it all here: http:\/\/www.phrases.org.uk\/meanings\/58800.html"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nEarlier in the day, a coworker of mine referred to a spreadsheet as \"visually arresting,\" implying that it was pleasing to the eye. Later today on an elevator ride, we all experienced the breath of a third coworker in close proximity. I desperately wanted to say afterward to him that the smell was \"_____ly arresting\" but I could not find the adverb for it! My first thought is olfactorily but I find this to be clunky. Is there a word that would have helped me make this joke?","question":"Earlier in the day, a coworker of mine referred to a spreadsheet as \"visually arresting,\" implying that it was pleasing to the eye. Later today on an elevator ride, we all experienced the breath of a third coworker in close proximity. I desperately wanted to say afterward to him that the smell was \"_____ly arresting\" but I could not find the adverb for it! My first thought is olfactorily but I find this to be clunky. Is there a word that would have helped me make this joke?","answer":"Olfactorily, is the word. - To the sense of smell; as regards smell (OED). But if it sounds too highbrow\/clunky, then, for the sample sentence you give, malodorously arresting. 1858 G. A. Sala Journey due North 324 The kitchen's contiguity to me is not near enough to be olfactorily disagreeable. 1888 Cent. Mag. 35 363 He was olfactorily impressed. 1944 R. W. Moncrieff Chem. Senses ix. 187 Structurally, the esters bear the same relation to the acids as the ethers do to the alcohols... Olfactorily, however, there is a difference. 1993 S. Townsend Adrian Mole: Wilderness Yrs. 66 I found the fresh air \u2018pine tree\u2019 hanging from the roof of his taxi to be much more olfactorily offensive.","output":"Olfactorily, is the word. - To the sense of smell; as regards smell (OED). But if it sounds too highbrow\/clunky, then, for the sample sentence you give, malodorously arresting. 1858 G. A. Sala Journey due North 324 The kitchen's contiguity to me is not near enough to be olfactorily disagreeable. 1888 Cent. Mag. 35 363 He was olfactorily impressed. 1944 R. W. Moncrieff Chem. Senses ix. 187 Structurally, the esters bear the same relation to the acids as the ethers do to the alcohols... Olfactorily, however, there is a difference. 1993 S. Townsend Adrian Mole: Wilderness Yrs. 66 I found the fresh air \u2018pine tree\u2019 hanging from the roof of his taxi to be much more olfactorily offensive."}
{"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\n\"The University of Minnesota is a highly ranked public research university offering a wide range of undergraduate and graduate programs.\" \"Harvard University is devoted to excellence in teaching, learning, and research, and to developing leaders in many disciplines who make a difference globally.\" Those two sentences are quoted from the official websites of those two schools. Why is there a \"the\" in front of \"university of Minnesota\" but not in front of \"Harvard University\"? How can we decide when to use a definite article in front of a proper noun?","question":"\"The University of Minnesota is a highly ranked public research university offering a wide range of undergraduate and graduate programs.\" \"Harvard University is devoted to excellence in teaching, learning, and research, and to developing leaders in many disciplines who make a difference globally.\" Those two sentences are quoted from the official websites of those two schools. Why is there a \"the\" in front of \"university of Minnesota\" but not in front of \"Harvard University\"? How can we decide when to use a definite article in front of a proper noun?","answer":"Proper nouns should be distinguished from proper names. A proper noun refers to a single word belong to the word class of 'noun'. For example, both Minnesota and Harvard are proper nouns. In general, you may not put the definite article before a proper noun. On the other hand, a proper name is the whole noun phrase that may or may not include a proper noun. For example, both The University of Minnesota and Harvard University are proper names. As a general rule of thumb, try to use only the proper noun part of the proper name and see if the proper noun part alone can mean what the proper name purports to mean. If it can, then you cannot use the definite article for the proper name. If not, then you must use the definite article. For example, Harvard alone can mean Harvard University, so you cannot use the: She went to Harvard. She went to Harvard University. *She went to the Harvard University. Also, Minnesota alone cannot mean The University of Minnesota. So, you must use the: She went to Minnesota. (She went to the state of Minnesota.) *She went to University of Minnesota. She went to the University of Minnesota.","output":"Proper nouns should be distinguished from proper names. A proper noun refers to a single word belong to the word class of 'noun'. For example, both Minnesota and Harvard are proper nouns. In general, you may not put the definite article before a proper noun. On the other hand, a proper name is the whole noun phrase that may or may not include a proper noun. For example, both The University of Minnesota and Harvard University are proper names. As a general rule of thumb, try to use only the proper noun part of the proper name and see if the proper noun part alone can mean what the proper name purports to mean. If it can, then you cannot use the definite article for the proper name. If not, then you must use the definite article. For example, Harvard alone can mean Harvard University, so you cannot use the: She went to Harvard. She went to Harvard University. *She went to the Harvard University. Also, Minnesota alone cannot mean The University of Minnesota. So, you must use the: She went to Minnesota. (She went to the state of Minnesota.) *She went to University of Minnesota. She went to the University of Minnesota."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nFor example, McDowell, or McDonald, or McKenna, etc. Is it necessary to capitalize that letter following \"Mc\"? And if yes, why is this so?","question":"For example, McDowell, or McDonald, or McKenna, etc. Is it necessary to capitalize that letter following \"Mc\"? And if yes, why is this so?","answer":"As Etymology for Mc and O' in names says, Mc is an abbreviation for Mac, and Mac is a Gaelic term meaning \"son of\". Hence the name McKenna means \"son of Kenna\", and since Kenna is a proper name, it is capitalized, even when combined with Mac. (Of course \"mac\" alone is itself not a proper name, and from one view wouldn't need to be capitalized. However since it is taken as beginning the whole surname, it is capitalized as the initial letter of a proper name. In this respect, it is treated like English most often treats other borrowed prepositions in names, such as de from French and van from Dutch.)","output":"As Etymology for Mc and O' in names says, Mc is an abbreviation for Mac, and Mac is a Gaelic term meaning \"son of\". Hence the name McKenna means \"son of Kenna\", and since Kenna is a proper name, it is capitalized, even when combined with Mac. (Of course \"mac\" alone is itself not a proper name, and from one view wouldn't need to be capitalized. However since it is taken as beginning the whole surname, it is capitalized as the initial letter of a proper name. In this respect, it is treated like English most often treats other borrowed prepositions in names, such as de from French and van from Dutch.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI suppose the modal verb 'must' works like below: I am sure that he is busy. \u2192 He must be busy. I am sure that he was busy. \u2192 He must have been busy. I want to know how 'must' itself changes in past tense like this: I was sure that he was busy. \u2192 ?","question":"I suppose the modal verb 'must' works like below: I am sure that he is busy. \u2192 He must be busy. I am sure that he was busy. \u2192 He must have been busy. I want to know how 'must' itself changes in past tense like this: I was sure that he was busy. \u2192 ?","answer":"As rogermue points out \"must\" is the same for both past and present. To indicate something happened in the past, you would just add additional information that contains a recognizable time frame. I was sure that he was busy. \u2192 I thought he must have been busy","output":"As rogermue points out \"must\" is the same for both past and present. To indicate something happened in the past, you would just add additional information that contains a recognizable time frame. I was sure that he was busy. \u2192 I thought he must have been busy"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThis is a sentence from my dictionary: She carried herself straight and with confidence. The sentence is fairly strange to me, for the extra conjunction \"and\". Normally I would say something like this: She carried herself straight with confidence. This is more regular to me. For example, I would say \"She stood here, smiling with confident.\" But I wouldn't say \"She stood here, smiling and with confident.\" So why did the original sentence add an extra \"and\"?","question":"This is a sentence from my dictionary: She carried herself straight and with confidence. The sentence is fairly strange to me, for the extra conjunction \"and\". Normally I would say something like this: She carried herself straight with confidence. This is more regular to me. For example, I would say \"She stood here, smiling with confident.\" But I wouldn't say \"She stood here, smiling and with confident.\" So why did the original sentence add an extra \"and\"?","answer":"She carried herself straight and with confidence. Including and tells us that both straight and with confidence describe carried. The sentence means this: She carried herself straight. Also, she carried herself with confidence. If you leave out and, then with confidence describes straight. She carried herself straight with confidence. This means that she was straight because she was confident. For example: She stood there, smiling with confidence. With confidence is how she smiled, not how she stood. In this sentence, she expressed her confidence through her smile. I wouldn't say \"She stood here, smiling and with confidence.\" I would probably construct this sentence a little differently, but it's perfectly sensible. Here, she expressed her confidence with the way she stood. Also, she was smiling at the same time.","output":"She carried herself straight and with confidence. Including and tells us that both straight and with confidence describe carried. The sentence means this: She carried herself straight. Also, she carried herself with confidence. If you leave out and, then with confidence describes straight. She carried herself straight with confidence. This means that she was straight because she was confident. For example: She stood there, smiling with confidence. With confidence is how she smiled, not how she stood. In this sentence, she expressed her confidence through her smile. I wouldn't say \"She stood here, smiling and with confidence.\" I would probably construct this sentence a little differently, but it's perfectly sensible. Here, she expressed her confidence with the way she stood. Also, she was smiling at the same time."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI understand that there is usually such implication as: I took what money he gave me. =I took what little money he gave me. But I also read the following sentence : What money he could lay his hands on he spent like an Indian rajah. source I doubt that it has such implication , because an indian rajah is very rich.So I want to make sure if this structure necessarily means \"there being only a little.\"","question":"I understand that there is usually such implication as: I took what money he gave me. =I took what little money he gave me. But I also read the following sentence : What money he could lay his hands on he spent like an Indian rajah. source I doubt that it has such implication , because an indian rajah is very rich.So I want to make sure if this structure necessarily means \"there being only a little.\"","answer":"I think you are almost correct about the implication of the first example. \"I took what money he gave me\" implies that the money was insufficient, or short for some specific purpose. That isn't quite the same as \"little money\". For example, $900 is not a small sum of money for most people, but it would be insufficient if you really needed $1000. The second example is a little harder to explain. \"What money he could lay his hands on he spent\" is really saying that 'he' spent everything he had. The only implication is that perhaps the money was not sufficient for him, because he spent it \"like an Indian Rajah\". Overall, I understand it to imply the person spent money with abandon, as if he were rich, even though he was not rich - that he lived beyond his means.","output":"I think you are almost correct about the implication of the first example. \"I took what money he gave me\" implies that the money was insufficient, or short for some specific purpose. That isn't quite the same as \"little money\". For example, $900 is not a small sum of money for most people, but it would be insufficient if you really needed $1000. The second example is a little harder to explain. \"What money he could lay his hands on he spent\" is really saying that 'he' spent everything he had. The only implication is that perhaps the money was not sufficient for him, because he spent it \"like an Indian Rajah\". Overall, I understand it to imply the person spent money with abandon, as if he were rich, even though he was not rich - that he lived beyond his means."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI checked many dictionaries and the examples of poor in the context of sympathy state 'thing', 'you' or a direct name (proper noun). I wonder what is the correct form of the pronoun there? Poor him\/he? Ngram shows both in practice! Reason?","question":"I checked many dictionaries and the examples of poor in the context of sympathy state 'thing', 'you' or a direct name (proper noun). I wonder what is the correct form of the pronoun there? Poor him\/he? Ngram shows both in practice! Reason?","answer":"I've always heard this as \"Poor him\", never \"Poor he\". Note this is not a complete sentence, so it's difficult to say what grammar rules apply. There is no verb. I suppose the grammatically correct way to say it would be, \"He is poor\". Though in this case, that would change the meaning, as \"He is poor\" would be understood to mean that he is lacking in money, while \"Poor him\" means that he is a victim of some bad circumstance, possibly involving money but usually not. We typically say things like, \"Bob's dog died yesterday. Poor him.\" Of course losing his dog probably doesn't not hurt him financially, but rather emotionally. Usually in this sort of construct we use a noun rather than a pronoun. We'll say, \"Bob's dog died yesterday. Poor Bob.\", rather than \"Poor him.\" But it's not unheard of with the pronoun. Many other adjectives can be used in the adjective-noun form. \"Good dog.\" \"Foolish boy.\" \"Lazy fellow.\" Etc. I guess any of these could be used with a pronoun, when the person or thing meant by the pronoun is clear from the preceding context.","output":"I've always heard this as \"Poor him\", never \"Poor he\". Note this is not a complete sentence, so it's difficult to say what grammar rules apply. There is no verb. I suppose the grammatically correct way to say it would be, \"He is poor\". Though in this case, that would change the meaning, as \"He is poor\" would be understood to mean that he is lacking in money, while \"Poor him\" means that he is a victim of some bad circumstance, possibly involving money but usually not. We typically say things like, \"Bob's dog died yesterday. Poor him.\" Of course losing his dog probably doesn't not hurt him financially, but rather emotionally. Usually in this sort of construct we use a noun rather than a pronoun. We'll say, \"Bob's dog died yesterday. Poor Bob.\", rather than \"Poor him.\" But it's not unheard of with the pronoun. Many other adjectives can be used in the adjective-noun form. \"Good dog.\" \"Foolish boy.\" \"Lazy fellow.\" Etc. I guess any of these could be used with a pronoun, when the person or thing meant by the pronoun is clear from the preceding context."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe described the situation to me. correct He described me the situation. wrong The second sentence is said to be wrong with the reason that describe cannot take two objects. If that is so then why does the first sentence contain two objects namely situation and me?","question":"He described the situation to me. correct He described me the situation. wrong The second sentence is said to be wrong with the reason that describe cannot take two objects. If that is so then why does the first sentence contain two objects namely situation and me?","answer":"I would only consider option 1 to be standard usage. Certain verbs take both a direct (in your example, \"the situation\") and indirect (\"me\") object, and are known as \"ditransitive\". Other examples of ditransitive verb use would include: They played us a selection of their greatest hits. He brought me an apple. Tell her all about it. In the case of \"describe\", I've only ever heard it used in a monotransitive sense (it only takes a direct object, not an indirect object). This is similar to \"explain\" (see e.g. https:\/\/english.stackexchange.com\/questions\/51542\/which-one-is-correct-explain-me-or-explain-to-me) - the indirect object in these sentences is generally given in a prepositional phrase: He explained his theory to them. Describe the situation to me. And the examples above can also generally be re-cast into this alternative structure: He brought an apple to me. Unfortunately, though, I've not managed to find any concrete list of verbs that are used purely monotransitively.","output":"I would only consider option 1 to be standard usage. Certain verbs take both a direct (in your example, \"the situation\") and indirect (\"me\") object, and are known as \"ditransitive\". Other examples of ditransitive verb use would include: They played us a selection of their greatest hits. He brought me an apple. Tell her all about it. In the case of \"describe\", I've only ever heard it used in a monotransitive sense (it only takes a direct object, not an indirect object). This is similar to \"explain\" (see e.g. https:\/\/english.stackexchange.com\/questions\/51542\/which-one-is-correct-explain-me-or-explain-to-me) - the indirect object in these sentences is generally given in a prepositional phrase: He explained his theory to them. Describe the situation to me. And the examples above can also generally be re-cast into this alternative structure: He brought an apple to me. Unfortunately, though, I've not managed to find any concrete list of verbs that are used purely monotransitively."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhenever I hear my boss asking a colleague through the phone whether he or she is available to talk, his question is \" Can talk?\" I feel it's quite annoying and something not correct, but please correct me if I'm wrong, and advise what the correct way to ask whether someone is available to talk is? Thanks, guys.","question":"Whenever I hear my boss asking a colleague through the phone whether he or she is available to talk, his question is \" Can talk?\" I feel it's quite annoying and something not correct, but please correct me if I'm wrong, and advise what the correct way to ask whether someone is available to talk is? Thanks, guys.","answer":"In informal conversation, it's possible to leave out lots of words and still communicate clearly. Obviously everyone knows what your boss is trying to say, so that goal is accomplished. That said, as a native speaker I find this particular shortening to be taking it too far. It is unnatural to me to leave out the you in Can you talk?. It sounds like the type of mistake commonly made by foreign speakers whose native language doesn't require the you in the analogous sentence. A more idiomatic way of saying the same thing would be Can you talk now? Can we talk? Is this a good time? Got a minute to talk?","output":"In informal conversation, it's possible to leave out lots of words and still communicate clearly. Obviously everyone knows what your boss is trying to say, so that goal is accomplished. That said, as a native speaker I find this particular shortening to be taking it too far. It is unnatural to me to leave out the you in Can you talk?. It sounds like the type of mistake commonly made by foreign speakers whose native language doesn't require the you in the analogous sentence. A more idiomatic way of saying the same thing would be Can you talk now? Can we talk? Is this a good time? Got a minute to talk?"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nExample (Ukraine posts video of captured Russian major asking for Putin\u2019s help): Moscow has also denied providing heavy, sophisticated weaponry that has been repeatedly seen in eastern Ukraine to separatist forces. I've heard of the expression to see to something which basically means to take care of it, but it doesn't sound like what we have here is the same exact expression. Though, I might be wrong. Anyway, what do you think it means to be seen to somebody given the sentence's context?","question":"Example (Ukraine posts video of captured Russian major asking for Putin\u2019s help): Moscow has also denied providing heavy, sophisticated weaponry that has been repeatedly seen in eastern Ukraine to separatist forces. I've heard of the expression to see to something which basically means to take care of it, but it doesn't sound like what we have here is the same exact expression. Though, I might be wrong. Anyway, what do you think it means to be seen to somebody given the sentence's context?","answer":"The 'to' here relates to 'providing' not to 'seen'. The accusation is that Moscow has been providing weapons to separatists. This weaponry has been repeatedly seen. The sentence could be represented as: Moscow has also denied providing heavy, sophisticated weaponry (that has been repeatedly seen in eastern Ukraine) to separatist forces.","output":"The 'to' here relates to 'providing' not to 'seen'. The accusation is that Moscow has been providing weapons to separatists. This weaponry has been repeatedly seen. The sentence could be represented as: Moscow has also denied providing heavy, sophisticated weaponry (that has been repeatedly seen in eastern Ukraine) to separatist forces."}
{"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\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSource: UFO fanatics spot ancient god on Mars Example: If you squint and let your imagination run wild, then you can see the resemblance to ancient sculptures like you might find in the British Museum. It especially echoes a Neo-Assyrian attendant god dedicated to Nabu, a god of wisdom. What is an attendant god exactly?","question":"Source: UFO fanatics spot ancient god on Mars Example: If you squint and let your imagination run wild, then you can see the resemblance to ancient sculptures like you might find in the British Museum. It especially echoes a Neo-Assyrian attendant god dedicated to Nabu, a god of wisdom. What is an attendant god exactly?","answer":"An attendant god is a minor god who is an attendant to another god, meaning that he accompanies or serves another god. Here's an example of the usage of a similar phrase, attendant deity: \"Papsukkal is an attendant deity serving higher gods (usually Anu) as minister. Attendant deities such as Papsukkal were invoked to intercede with the higher gods and goddesses on behalf of human supplicants. They guarded access to higher gods, thus functioning as gate-keepers.\" (http:\/\/oracc.museum.upenn.edu\/amgg\/listofdeities\/papsukkal)","output":"An attendant god is a minor god who is an attendant to another god, meaning that he accompanies or serves another god. Here's an example of the usage of a similar phrase, attendant deity: \"Papsukkal is an attendant deity serving higher gods (usually Anu) as minister. Attendant deities such as Papsukkal were invoked to intercede with the higher gods and goddesses on behalf of human supplicants. They guarded access to higher gods, thus functioning as gate-keepers.\" (http:\/\/oracc.museum.upenn.edu\/amgg\/listofdeities\/papsukkal)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\"This book got me interested in Buddhism.\" Can I change this sentence to \"This book made me interested in Buddhism.\" \"This book got me thinking about my future.\" Can I change this sentence to \"This book made me think about my future.\" If there are any differences in the nuance, could you explain it? \"Get\" is a very common word, but it's very difficult to use it properly. If I say \"I got my car repaired.\",I can also say \"I had my car repaired.\" To me it seems to be much easier to use words other than \"get\". That's why I wondered if I use \"make\" instead of \"get\" in these sentences.","question":"\"This book got me interested in Buddhism.\" Can I change this sentence to \"This book made me interested in Buddhism.\" \"This book got me thinking about my future.\" Can I change this sentence to \"This book made me think about my future.\" If there are any differences in the nuance, could you explain it? \"Get\" is a very common word, but it's very difficult to use it properly. If I say \"I got my car repaired.\",I can also say \"I had my car repaired.\" To me it seems to be much easier to use words other than \"get\". That's why I wondered if I use \"make\" instead of \"get\" in these sentences.","answer":"It's probably worth noting straight away that \"to get\" is increasingly common in OP's context. As this link shows, X got me interested in Y was virtually unknown a century ago, but it's now far more common than made me interested in. But there are subtle syntactic and semantic differences. As noted above, of OP's first pair... 1: This book got me interested in Buddhism. 2: This book made me interested in Buddhism. ...#1 is more common, but both are acceptable. And so far as I'm concerned, they mean the same. But... 3: This book got me thinking about my future 4: This book made me think about my future 5: \u2732This book made me thinking about my future (where \u2732 marks a usage as unacceptable) ...with OP's second pair we can't just replace got with made. Notice also that we can explicitly use the \"marked infinitive\" (to think) with got (also to [present participle], but I don't know what to call that)... 6: This book got me to think about my future 7: \u2732This book made me to think about my future 8: ?This book got me to thinking about my future (perhaps not everyone would accept this form) 9: \u2732This book made me to thinking about my future On the basic of the above, I suggest it's well worth learners spending some time becoming familiar with the syntactic possibilities of to get. Because it's increasingly common in modern speech, and can probably be used in more contexts than to make, it's likely to be more useful over the long term. On the semantic front, note that to make often carries implications of deliberate and\/or forceful actions. Thus with this pair... 10: He got me to eat snails in garlic butter 11: He made me eat snails in garlic butter ...there's a much stronger implication that in #10 he persuaded me (possibly quite easily). It would be quite reasonable for the utterance to continue with \"...which I really enjoyed\". But #11 implies he forced me (much against my will). That one might continue with \"...which made me feel really queasy\".","output":"It's probably worth noting straight away that \"to get\" is increasingly common in OP's context. As this link shows, X got me interested in Y was virtually unknown a century ago, but it's now far more common than made me interested in. But there are subtle syntactic and semantic differences. As noted above, of OP's first pair... 1: This book got me interested in Buddhism. 2: This book made me interested in Buddhism. ...#1 is more common, but both are acceptable. And so far as I'm concerned, they mean the same. But... 3: This book got me thinking about my future 4: This book made me think about my future 5: \u2732This book made me thinking about my future (where \u2732 marks a usage as unacceptable) ...with OP's second pair we can't just replace got with made. Notice also that we can explicitly use the \"marked infinitive\" (to think) with got (also to [present participle], but I don't know what to call that)... 6: This book got me to think about my future 7: \u2732This book made me to think about my future 8: ?This book got me to thinking about my future (perhaps not everyone would accept this form) 9: \u2732This book made me to thinking about my future On the basic of the above, I suggest it's well worth learners spending some time becoming familiar with the syntactic possibilities of to get. Because it's increasingly common in modern speech, and can probably be used in more contexts than to make, it's likely to be more useful over the long term. On the semantic front, note that to make often carries implications of deliberate and\/or forceful actions. Thus with this pair... 10: He got me to eat snails in garlic butter 11: He made me eat snails in garlic butter ...there's a much stronger implication that in #10 he persuaded me (possibly quite easily). It would be quite reasonable for the utterance to continue with \"...which I really enjoyed\". But #11 implies he forced me (much against my will). That one might continue with \"...which made me feel really queasy\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI didn't get what \"mistook for simple-mindedness the surface of artlessness\" means. Usually, we'd say that you mistook the brown candy for the blue one. Meaning that you actually wanted (or expected) the blue candy but instead (may be mistakenly) picked the brown (wrong) one. Applying the same analogy here, does it mean that the critics (wrongly) interpreted artlessness as simple-mindedness? Here is the complete sentence as it appeared in a reference material for an exam prep: \"Early critics of Emily Dickinson's poetry mistook for simple-mindedness the surface of artlessness that in fact she constructed with such ___.\" Now depending on the (correct) interpretation of the sentence, I would construe a positive or negative word for the blank. Example, the poet's work was good or naive.","question":"I didn't get what \"mistook for simple-mindedness the surface of artlessness\" means. Usually, we'd say that you mistook the brown candy for the blue one. Meaning that you actually wanted (or expected) the blue candy but instead (may be mistakenly) picked the brown (wrong) one. Applying the same analogy here, does it mean that the critics (wrongly) interpreted artlessness as simple-mindedness? Here is the complete sentence as it appeared in a reference material for an exam prep: \"Early critics of Emily Dickinson's poetry mistook for simple-mindedness the surface of artlessness that in fact she constructed with such ___.\" Now depending on the (correct) interpretation of the sentence, I would construe a positive or negative word for the blank. Example, the poet's work was good or naive.","answer":"Now depending on the (correct) interpretation of the sentence, I would construe a positive or negative word for the blank. Example, the poet's work was good or naive. They are clearly looking for a positive response there, something like care or craft or skill\u2013anything that shows Dickinson as someone with great artistic power. Even if you didn't understand the comparison with its inversion of word order, you would have to notice the \"in fact\" in the exam prep sentence, which is a \"turnaround\" expression that is a counter to what has previously been stated. Let's break it down into a simpler expression: X says Y is Z when in fact _________. Without knowing the first thing about What X, Y and Z mean, you should still be able to infer something about the desired answer simply by noticing that \"contrary\" flag. You could at least with confidence fill in the blank with a statement like \"Y is a value other than Z.\" Be careful, though, that the \"in fact\" is itself set up by some other contrary indicator like but or although or when. If it's set off by and or another reinforcing word it could be construed as an affirimation: X says Y is Z and in fact ____________. Here you would have to answer to the effect that Y is indeed Z.","output":"Now depending on the (correct) interpretation of the sentence, I would construe a positive or negative word for the blank. Example, the poet's work was good or naive. They are clearly looking for a positive response there, something like care or craft or skill\u2013anything that shows Dickinson as someone with great artistic power. Even if you didn't understand the comparison with its inversion of word order, you would have to notice the \"in fact\" in the exam prep sentence, which is a \"turnaround\" expression that is a counter to what has previously been stated. Let's break it down into a simpler expression: X says Y is Z when in fact _________. Without knowing the first thing about What X, Y and Z mean, you should still be able to infer something about the desired answer simply by noticing that \"contrary\" flag. You could at least with confidence fill in the blank with a statement like \"Y is a value other than Z.\" Be careful, though, that the \"in fact\" is itself set up by some other contrary indicator like but or although or when. If it's set off by and or another reinforcing word it could be construed as an affirimation: X says Y is Z and in fact ____________. Here you would have to answer to the effect that Y is indeed Z."}
{"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\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was writing an email to the principal of my former school, and came up with a question. The letter is to be read by the principal, so I should be more polite, I need to be careful about the etiquette. But how and where in the letter should I write \"I wish you a Merry Christmas\"? Is it polite to say \"I wish you a Merry Christmas\" to the people that have higher social status?","question":"I was writing an email to the principal of my former school, and came up with a question. The letter is to be read by the principal, so I should be more polite, I need to be careful about the etiquette. But how and where in the letter should I write \"I wish you a Merry Christmas\"? Is it polite to say \"I wish you a Merry Christmas\" to the people that have higher social status?","answer":"Yes, you can say \"Merry Christmas\" to someone of higher social status. (I would argue that social status isn't very important in this case, but that's a separate question.) There are two common places to put it -- at the beginning (as a greeting) or at the end. If you put it at the beginning, normally you would just say \"Merry Christmas!\" instead of using a complete sentence. Here's an example: Dear Principal So-and-So, Merry Christmas! I hope you and your family are doing well. I've been... If you want to use a complete sentence, it's more appropriate to do so at the end. Here are a couple examples of that: ...I'll try to visit the school the next time I come home. I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Sincerely, -Your Name Here or: ...I'll try to visit the school the next time I come home. Merry Christmas! -Your Name Here","output":"Yes, you can say \"Merry Christmas\" to someone of higher social status. (I would argue that social status isn't very important in this case, but that's a separate question.) There are two common places to put it -- at the beginning (as a greeting) or at the end. If you put it at the beginning, normally you would just say \"Merry Christmas!\" instead of using a complete sentence. Here's an example: Dear Principal So-and-So, Merry Christmas! I hope you and your family are doing well. I've been... If you want to use a complete sentence, it's more appropriate to do so at the end. Here are a couple examples of that: ...I'll try to visit the school the next time I come home. I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Sincerely, -Your Name Here or: ...I'll try to visit the school the next time I come home. Merry Christmas! -Your Name Here"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWell, I was watching Gone Girl and there's an scene where you can see this text on Amy Elliott-Dunne's dairy (Rosamund Pike). I've asked people that I know about it, but the only answer that I got was that it means something more like: I thought I'd (I would) like to buy a gun. Also I was told that this is pretty common during daily conversation. I think it has a name or at least its tense has a name. I'm not a English native speaker so I'll really appreciate if someone could advise me, and maybe if I made a mistake (grammatically or orthographically) I'd really appreciate your corrections as well.","question":"Well, I was watching Gone Girl and there's an scene where you can see this text on Amy Elliott-Dunne's dairy (Rosamund Pike). I've asked people that I know about it, but the only answer that I got was that it means something more like: I thought I'd (I would) like to buy a gun. Also I was told that this is pretty common during daily conversation. I think it has a name or at least its tense has a name. I'm not a English native speaker so I'll really appreciate if someone could advise me, and maybe if I made a mistake (grammatically or orthographically) I'd really appreciate your corrections as well.","answer":"I thought I'd buy a gun Without context it is difficult. I can imagine several meanings. I decided I would buy a gun. I considered buying a gun. I thought I'd like to buy a gun. Maybe the easiest way to understand it is that it is the simple past of, \"I think I'll buy a gun.\" I'm not sure if that helps. It really depends on the context and even the tone of voice. My guess is that your friends have it right in this case.","output":"I thought I'd buy a gun Without context it is difficult. I can imagine several meanings. I decided I would buy a gun. I considered buying a gun. I thought I'd like to buy a gun. Maybe the easiest way to understand it is that it is the simple past of, \"I think I'll buy a gun.\" I'm not sure if that helps. It really depends on the context and even the tone of voice. My guess is that your friends have it right in this case."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe past tense of Bet, Let, and Set are Bet, Let, and Set; but the past tense of Jet, Net, Pet, Vet, and Wet are Jetted, Netted, Petted, Vetted, and Wetted. Is there a reason for this difference?","question":"The past tense of Bet, Let, and Set are Bet, Let, and Set; but the past tense of Jet, Net, Pet, Vet, and Wet are Jetted, Netted, Petted, Vetted, and Wetted. Is there a reason for this difference?","answer":"There is a set of English irregular verbs that have four unusual characteristics: they consist of only one syllable they end in a dental stop, \/d\/ or \/t\/ they have a lax or low vowel - \/\u025b \u026a \u00e6 \u0254 \u028a \u0259 \u025a\/ they are not inflected for past tense or past participle Examples are the verbs bet, let, set, as noted, but also others, like cut, spit, and cast. There are around 25 verbs in the list: beat, bet, bid, burst, cast, cost, cut, fit, hit, hurt, knit, let, put, quit, rid, set, shed, shut, slit, spit, split, spread, thrust, upset, wed. As can be seen, the verbs jet, net, pet, wet, and vet are not in the list, so those are regular verbs with regular past tense forms in -ed. Why those verbs and not others? Because that's the way irregularities work. Irregular verbs do not happen by rule -- irregular means 'not by rule'.","output":"There is a set of English irregular verbs that have four unusual characteristics: they consist of only one syllable they end in a dental stop, \/d\/ or \/t\/ they have a lax or low vowel - \/\u025b \u026a \u00e6 \u0254 \u028a \u0259 \u025a\/ they are not inflected for past tense or past participle Examples are the verbs bet, let, set, as noted, but also others, like cut, spit, and cast. There are around 25 verbs in the list: beat, bet, bid, burst, cast, cost, cut, fit, hit, hurt, knit, let, put, quit, rid, set, shed, shut, slit, spit, split, spread, thrust, upset, wed. As can be seen, the verbs jet, net, pet, wet, and vet are not in the list, so those are regular verbs with regular past tense forms in -ed. Why those verbs and not others? Because that's the way irregularities work. Irregular verbs do not happen by rule -- irregular means 'not by rule'."}
{"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\nIndians especially have a tendency to use the terms co-son-in-law and co-sister-in-law while referring to relations. The husband of one's wife's sister is called Co-son-in-law. The wife of one's husband's brother is called co-sister-in-law. While introducing the relations to others they are called so. The terms may be understood in the Indian sub-continent. But such terms are not understood by the native speakers. I searched on the internet for the equivalent terms in English but I could not find them. I here with attach two links so that you may understand what I mean: \u201cCo-brother\u201d or \u201cco son-in-law?\u201d https:\/\/en.m.wiktionary.org\/wiki\/co-sister-in-law What are the equivalent terms used by the native speakers while introducing them (the mentioned relatives) to others?","question":"Indians especially have a tendency to use the terms co-son-in-law and co-sister-in-law while referring to relations. The husband of one's wife's sister is called Co-son-in-law. The wife of one's husband's brother is called co-sister-in-law. While introducing the relations to others they are called so. The terms may be understood in the Indian sub-continent. But such terms are not understood by the native speakers. I searched on the internet for the equivalent terms in English but I could not find them. I here with attach two links so that you may understand what I mean: \u201cCo-brother\u201d or \u201cco son-in-law?\u201d https:\/\/en.m.wiktionary.org\/wiki\/co-sister-in-law What are the equivalent terms used by the native speakers while introducing them (the mentioned relatives) to others?","answer":"In US English (and likely most non-India regions), we refer to these persons as simply brother-in-law or sister-in-law. My wife has a sister, and that sister is married. I refer to both husband and wife as my brother and sister-in-law. In the same way, my mother has a brother who is married. I refer to both husband and wife as my aunt and uncle. In both cases the spouse becomes referred to as the same relationship. We would know from the social context that \"aunt and uncle\" refer to wife and husband rather than brother and sister, and we would therefore know that only one is a blood relation. In the same way, when \"brother and sister-in-law\" refer to a married couple, we know the actual relationships. EDIT: The expression \"co-son-in-law\" would seem to contradict US English usage. Brother\/sister-in-law refers to someone of the same generation as yourself. Son\/daughter-in-law refers to someone of the same generation as your child and NOT the same generation as yourself. My daughter's husband is my son-in-law, so I would have expected co-son-in-law to mean something similar. But I gather it does not! SECOND EDIT: It's clear from the surrounding discussions that regional usage varies. There are differences depending whether the speaker's intent is to identify a person, a married couple, or a blood relationship. My own usage (which, by definition, is regional) is not the same as what's familiar usage to others here.","output":"In US English (and likely most non-India regions), we refer to these persons as simply brother-in-law or sister-in-law. My wife has a sister, and that sister is married. I refer to both husband and wife as my brother and sister-in-law. In the same way, my mother has a brother who is married. I refer to both husband and wife as my aunt and uncle. In both cases the spouse becomes referred to as the same relationship. We would know from the social context that \"aunt and uncle\" refer to wife and husband rather than brother and sister, and we would therefore know that only one is a blood relation. In the same way, when \"brother and sister-in-law\" refer to a married couple, we know the actual relationships. EDIT: The expression \"co-son-in-law\" would seem to contradict US English usage. Brother\/sister-in-law refers to someone of the same generation as yourself. Son\/daughter-in-law refers to someone of the same generation as your child and NOT the same generation as yourself. My daughter's husband is my son-in-law, so I would have expected co-son-in-law to mean something similar. But I gather it does not! SECOND EDIT: It's clear from the surrounding discussions that regional usage varies. There are differences depending whether the speaker's intent is to identify a person, a married couple, or a blood relationship. My own usage (which, by definition, is regional) is not the same as what's familiar usage to others here."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThis phrase came from the book Understanding Probability written by Henk Tijms. The original sentence is: the probability that a normally distributed random variable will take on a value that lies z or more standard deviations above the expected value is equal to 1 \u2212 \u03a6(z) for z > 0, as is the probability of a value that lies z or more standard deviations below the expected value. I don't understand what lies means in this context. I have checked The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, and Webster's online; none of their explanations refer lie as a transitive verb. How can it used with z or more standard deviations, which is obviously a noun phrase? Could anyone explain to me: What does the sentence mean? The grammar underlying this sentence? Am I right that the lie used here is actually a transitive verb?","question":"This phrase came from the book Understanding Probability written by Henk Tijms. The original sentence is: the probability that a normally distributed random variable will take on a value that lies z or more standard deviations above the expected value is equal to 1 \u2212 \u03a6(z) for z > 0, as is the probability of a value that lies z or more standard deviations below the expected value. I don't understand what lies means in this context. I have checked The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, and Webster's online; none of their explanations refer lie as a transitive verb. How can it used with z or more standard deviations, which is obviously a noun phrase? Could anyone explain to me: What does the sentence mean? The grammar underlying this sentence? Am I right that the lie used here is actually a transitive verb?","answer":"In this case, z or more standard deviations is a measure of distance. You're right about its composition but not about its usage; it's a noun phrase but lies is still intransitive. The phrase quantifies above the expected value rather than functioning as the object of lies. The entire clause z or more standard deviations above the expected value acts as an adverb to modify lies; it tells us precisely where the value lies. Here's a break down and subsequent simplification. [A value that]1 [lies]2 [z or more standard deviations]3 [above the expected value]4. The subject; let's simplify by replacing this with the city. The verb. How far; let's simplify by replacing this with 50 kilometres. Where; let's simplify by replacing this with away. Now, the sentence becomes: The city lies 50 kilometres away. The grammar is exactly the same. 50 kilometres away is an adverbial clause telling us where the city lies.","output":"In this case, z or more standard deviations is a measure of distance. You're right about its composition but not about its usage; it's a noun phrase but lies is still intransitive. The phrase quantifies above the expected value rather than functioning as the object of lies. The entire clause z or more standard deviations above the expected value acts as an adverb to modify lies; it tells us precisely where the value lies. Here's a break down and subsequent simplification. [A value that]1 [lies]2 [z or more standard deviations]3 [above the expected value]4. The subject; let's simplify by replacing this with the city. The verb. How far; let's simplify by replacing this with 50 kilometres. Where; let's simplify by replacing this with away. Now, the sentence becomes: The city lies 50 kilometres away. The grammar is exactly the same. 50 kilometres away is an adverbial clause telling us where the city lies."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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":"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\u2019ve been seeing a lot of \u201cbinders\u201d in recent newspaper and magazine articles dealing with the recent Presidential debates. For examples: Time magazines October 19 issues carries the article titled, \u201cRomney\u2019s Binders: The Meme Women Love to Hate - How one little phrase became a potent political symbol. There was another article in the same issue titled, \u201cObama and Romney dish out jokes, Not Jabs, at Annual Al Smith Dinner,\u201d followed by the paragraph: \"At the outset, host Al Smith IV, the director of the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation -- first acknowledged women in the room and said, \u201cIt\u2019s good to see who\u2019s getting out of those binders.\u201d It was a quip that proved the proliferation of what\u2019s become a new meme, after Tuesday\u2019s debate when Mitt Romney explained that while serving as governor of Massachusetts, he was provided with \u201cwhole binders full of women\u201d to help him fill his Cabinet. In the article of New Yorker magazine October 19 issue titled \u201cObama on \u201cThe Daily Show\u201d: A Gaffe is a Gaffe,\u201d there comes again \u201cBinder full of women\u201d: \u201cWhen he (Romney) said, on Tuesday night, that as governor of Massachusetts he got help from women\u2019s groups in staffing his administration - \u201cthey brought us whole binders full of women\u201d-he was trying to come across as enlightened on gender issues, but managed to give the opposite impression.\u201d My favorite Maureen Dowd also quotes \u201cwomen in binders\u201d in her articles, \u201cPampered princes fling Gorilla dust\u201d (October 20) and \u201cOf Mad men, Mad women and Meat loaf\u201d (October 27) on NY Times: \u201cObama\u2019s contempt for Romney gleamed through as Mitt got all O.C.D. with Candy Crowley about the rules, and rambled on about his weird retro worldview, where women in binders have to bound home to make dinner, - - where we just tell \u201cour kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone.\u201d \u201cMitt hopes Americans are ready for some rules \u2014 and binders. He is baked in the fuddy-duddy dad image from the era when white men ruled and the little women toiled over a hot stove.\u201d Oxford Dictionaries defines \u2018binder\u2019 as: a cover for holding magazines or loose sheets of paper together. a substance used to make other substances or materials stick or mix together. a reaping machine that binds grain into sheaves. a bookbinder. However, the word, \u2018binder\u2019 seems to be becoming a \u2018new meme or symbol\u2019 as the authors of both of the above articles say, containing different meaning. What does it mean in those contexts?","question":"I\u2019ve been seeing a lot of \u201cbinders\u201d in recent newspaper and magazine articles dealing with the recent Presidential debates. For examples: Time magazines October 19 issues carries the article titled, \u201cRomney\u2019s Binders: The Meme Women Love to Hate - How one little phrase became a potent political symbol. There was another article in the same issue titled, \u201cObama and Romney dish out jokes, Not Jabs, at Annual Al Smith Dinner,\u201d followed by the paragraph: \"At the outset, host Al Smith IV, the director of the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation -- first acknowledged women in the room and said, \u201cIt\u2019s good to see who\u2019s getting out of those binders.\u201d It was a quip that proved the proliferation of what\u2019s become a new meme, after Tuesday\u2019s debate when Mitt Romney explained that while serving as governor of Massachusetts, he was provided with \u201cwhole binders full of women\u201d to help him fill his Cabinet. In the article of New Yorker magazine October 19 issue titled \u201cObama on \u201cThe Daily Show\u201d: A Gaffe is a Gaffe,\u201d there comes again \u201cBinder full of women\u201d: \u201cWhen he (Romney) said, on Tuesday night, that as governor of Massachusetts he got help from women\u2019s groups in staffing his administration - \u201cthey brought us whole binders full of women\u201d-he was trying to come across as enlightened on gender issues, but managed to give the opposite impression.\u201d My favorite Maureen Dowd also quotes \u201cwomen in binders\u201d in her articles, \u201cPampered princes fling Gorilla dust\u201d (October 20) and \u201cOf Mad men, Mad women and Meat loaf\u201d (October 27) on NY Times: \u201cObama\u2019s contempt for Romney gleamed through as Mitt got all O.C.D. with Candy Crowley about the rules, and rambled on about his weird retro worldview, where women in binders have to bound home to make dinner, - - where we just tell \u201cour kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone.\u201d \u201cMitt hopes Americans are ready for some rules \u2014 and binders. He is baked in the fuddy-duddy dad image from the era when white men ruled and the little women toiled over a hot stove.\u201d Oxford Dictionaries defines \u2018binder\u2019 as: a cover for holding magazines or loose sheets of paper together. a substance used to make other substances or materials stick or mix together. a reaping machine that binds grain into sheaves. a bookbinder. However, the word, \u2018binder\u2019 seems to be becoming a \u2018new meme or symbol\u2019 as the authors of both of the above articles say, containing different meaning. What does it mean in those contexts?","answer":"The original meaning was that Mr Romney was brought folders containing women's dossiers\/resumes. So \"a cover for holding magazines or loose sheets of paper together\" was the meaning for this word. At the current time the meaning of the meme is rapidly evolving, as most political situations do.","output":"The original meaning was that Mr Romney was brought folders containing women's dossiers\/resumes. So \"a cover for holding magazines or loose sheets of paper together\" was the meaning for this word. At the current time the meaning of the meme is rapidly evolving, as most political situations do."}
{"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\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nImagine you are deep inside a very sophisticated math question and just when you are finding the solution your friend comes to you and brings up a very irrelevant matter! You want to show your disapproval and your displeasure. Does the self-made sentence bellow work here? If not, I was wondering if you could let me know an alternative for that: Tom: - What the hell you're doin' Andy? Andy: - What's wrong man? Tom: - Nothing! You just brought up this matter very untimely. I googled the word \"untimely\", but it seems there is something wrong with it while in my dictionary it is the best choice for such a situation. (This is a Farsi-English Dictionary.)","question":"Imagine you are deep inside a very sophisticated math question and just when you are finding the solution your friend comes to you and brings up a very irrelevant matter! You want to show your disapproval and your displeasure. Does the self-made sentence bellow work here? If not, I was wondering if you could let me know an alternative for that: Tom: - What the hell you're doin' Andy? Andy: - What's wrong man? Tom: - Nothing! You just brought up this matter very untimely. I googled the word \"untimely\", but it seems there is something wrong with it while in my dictionary it is the best choice for such a situation. (This is a Farsi-English Dictionary.)","answer":"\"Untimely\" is very close. Instead we usually say \"it's not a good time for ...\" or \"it's not a good time to do ...\". \"Hey Jim can we talk about the English test next week?\" \"Sorry, it's not a good time for that right now. I have a set of Math problems due tomorrow.\" This expression is fairly polite, depending on how you use it. A little stronger is \"it's a bad time\" This is a bad time, I can't talk to you right now. You can also say \"I'm busy\" or \"I'm in the middle of something\", as well as other idiomatic expressions: \"I can't talk about that, I need to focus on [this other thing]\" \"I don't have any time to talk about that, I need to do [this other thing]\" \"I don't want to talk about that since my mind is on [this other thing]\" If you want to use \"untimely\" then you can use it as an adjective, although (to me) it sounds a bit formal. Please excuse the untimely interruption, but I need to talk to you about ... They were in the middle of a passionate embrace when her mother made an untimely entrance.","output":"\"Untimely\" is very close. Instead we usually say \"it's not a good time for ...\" or \"it's not a good time to do ...\". \"Hey Jim can we talk about the English test next week?\" \"Sorry, it's not a good time for that right now. I have a set of Math problems due tomorrow.\" This expression is fairly polite, depending on how you use it. A little stronger is \"it's a bad time\" This is a bad time, I can't talk to you right now. You can also say \"I'm busy\" or \"I'm in the middle of something\", as well as other idiomatic expressions: \"I can't talk about that, I need to focus on [this other thing]\" \"I don't have any time to talk about that, I need to do [this other thing]\" \"I don't want to talk about that since my mind is on [this other thing]\" If you want to use \"untimely\" then you can use it as an adjective, although (to me) it sounds a bit formal. Please excuse the untimely interruption, but I need to talk to you about ... They were in the middle of a passionate embrace when her mother made an untimely entrance."}
{"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nmany suffixes get the same meaning,such as development,oppression,their suffixes both mean state,so how do I choose the right suffix without dictionary.","question":"many suffixes get the same meaning,such as development,oppression,their suffixes both mean state,so how do I choose the right suffix without dictionary.","answer":"By learning each and every word by itself. I know that's not the answer you want to hear, but the problem with English is that it was invented by a country that was inhabited and invaded over and over again by the French, Romans, Vikings, and Celts. The -ment suffix is French, the -ion suffix is Latin, the -ing suffix is Germanic, and the -rix suffix is Celtic. There are no rules for learning them without just learning each word as you discover it.","output":"By learning each and every word by itself. I know that's not the answer you want to hear, but the problem with English is that it was invented by a country that was inhabited and invaded over and over again by the French, Romans, Vikings, and Celts. The -ment suffix is French, the -ion suffix is Latin, the -ing suffix is Germanic, and the -rix suffix is Celtic. There are no rules for learning them without just learning each word as you discover it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat's the difference between these two sentences? Are they correct? The water drop fell onto my head The water drop fell on my head Could anyone explain me difference between these terms?","question":"What's the difference between these two sentences? Are they correct? The water drop fell onto my head The water drop fell on my head Could anyone explain me difference between these terms?","answer":"In some cases, especially ones involving inanimate objects, the two prepositional phrases are interchangeable; your example sentences are identical in meaning. In other situations, particularly involving people or animals, there is a difference: onto implies motion from some other position, while on implies only a current location. So \"John fell onto the roof\" means that John was somewhere above the roof, fell, and landed on the roof. (At this point he could be standing, kneeling, or lying down; it depends on how far he fell and how much control he was able to exercise during the landing.) \"John fell on the roof\", however, means that John was already on the roof in a standing or walking position, fell, and is now lying down.","output":"In some cases, especially ones involving inanimate objects, the two prepositional phrases are interchangeable; your example sentences are identical in meaning. In other situations, particularly involving people or animals, there is a difference: onto implies motion from some other position, while on implies only a current location. So \"John fell onto the roof\" means that John was somewhere above the roof, fell, and landed on the roof. (At this point he could be standing, kneeling, or lying down; it depends on how far he fell and how much control he was able to exercise during the landing.) \"John fell on the roof\", however, means that John was already on the roof in a standing or walking position, fell, and is now lying down."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nUncle Vernon said sharply, \u201cDon't touch anything he gives you, Dudley.\u201d The giant chuckled darkly. \u201cYer great puddin\u2019 of a son don\u2019 need fattenin\u2019 anymore, Dursley, don\u2019 worry.\" He passed the sausages to Harry, who was so hungry he had never tasted anything so wonderful, but he still couldn\u2019t take his eyes off the giant. Finally, as nobody seemed about to explain anything, he said, \u201cI\u2019m sorry, but I still don\u2019t really know who you are.\u201d (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)","question":"Uncle Vernon said sharply, \u201cDon't touch anything he gives you, Dudley.\u201d The giant chuckled darkly. \u201cYer great puddin\u2019 of a son don\u2019 need fattenin\u2019 anymore, Dursley, don\u2019 worry.\" He passed the sausages to Harry, who was so hungry he had never tasted anything so wonderful, but he still couldn\u2019t take his eyes off the giant. Finally, as nobody seemed about to explain anything, he said, \u201cI\u2019m sorry, but I still don\u2019t really know who you are.\u201d (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)","answer":"Tense in sentences is fixed with respect to a Reference time, which itself is fixed with respect to the Speech time, when the sentence is read. In this case the Reference time moves forward with the narrative, but it is fixed in the past relative to Speech time; in the passage at hand it embraces the time immediately before and after Hagrid passes Harry the sausages. Consequently, the past perfect had ... tasted signifies that nothing Harry tasted before that Reference time (in which he received and ate the sausages) had been so wonderful; the past tense couldn't take signifies that during that Reference time (in which he eating the sausages) he kept his eyes fixed on Hagrid.","output":"Tense in sentences is fixed with respect to a Reference time, which itself is fixed with respect to the Speech time, when the sentence is read. In this case the Reference time moves forward with the narrative, but it is fixed in the past relative to Speech time; in the passage at hand it embraces the time immediately before and after Hagrid passes Harry the sausages. Consequently, the past perfect had ... tasted signifies that nothing Harry tasted before that Reference time (in which he received and ate the sausages) had been so wonderful; the past tense couldn't take signifies that during that Reference time (in which he eating the sausages) he kept his eyes fixed on Hagrid."}
{"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\nIn the following sentence, what is the function of \"You\"? You, go to the store. I know the sentence is in the imperative mood, and that generally means there is an implicit second-person subject. If we dropped the initial \"You\", the subject would be that implicit subject. While \"you\" matches that second-person subject, that seems just incidental and it seems like it is just an expression of address that happens to match the implicit subject. Is it the subject, or merely a vocative expression? Or in other words, is the subject the \"You\" in the sentence, or is it the implicit subject from the imperative mood?","question":"In the following sentence, what is the function of \"You\"? You, go to the store. I know the sentence is in the imperative mood, and that generally means there is an implicit second-person subject. If we dropped the initial \"You\", the subject would be that implicit subject. While \"you\" matches that second-person subject, that seems just incidental and it seems like it is just an expression of address that happens to match the implicit subject. Is it the subject, or merely a vocative expression? Or in other words, is the subject the \"You\" in the sentence, or is it the implicit subject from the imperative mood?","answer":"Assuming the comma in the OP is inserted correctly, it differentiates the vocative you with the imperative mood from the indicative mood, which would not include the comma: You go to the store. Some argue that the indicative construction can behave as an imperative where You functions as an emphatic adjunct of the standard zero argument: You go to the store! Inserting the comma invites us to interpret You as the vocative: You, go to the store. Regardless, you is the syntactic pivot of the sentence: The syntactic pivot is the verb argument around which sentences \"revolve\", in a given language. This usually means the following: If the verb has more than zero arguments, then one argument is the syntactic pivot. If the verb agrees with at least one of its arguments, then it agrees with the syntactic pivot. In coordinated propositions, in languages where an argument can be left out, the omitted argument is the syntactic pivot. If we concede poor punctuation and parse the You as an emphatic adjunct, the implied you would be expressed in the adjunct, and arguing over \"which\" you is the subject argument of go is much ado about nothing. Since the You of the first phrase is vocative, the implied you is the subject argument of go. Again, it is much ado about nothing, because the vocative you and the implied you identify the same entity. Extra note: Some argue that You is an introductory single word phrase reduced from I am talking to you or You pay attention. They recommend punctuation that removes the ambiguity with two sentences: You. Go to the store.","output":"Assuming the comma in the OP is inserted correctly, it differentiates the vocative you with the imperative mood from the indicative mood, which would not include the comma: You go to the store. Some argue that the indicative construction can behave as an imperative where You functions as an emphatic adjunct of the standard zero argument: You go to the store! Inserting the comma invites us to interpret You as the vocative: You, go to the store. Regardless, you is the syntactic pivot of the sentence: The syntactic pivot is the verb argument around which sentences \"revolve\", in a given language. This usually means the following: If the verb has more than zero arguments, then one argument is the syntactic pivot. If the verb agrees with at least one of its arguments, then it agrees with the syntactic pivot. In coordinated propositions, in languages where an argument can be left out, the omitted argument is the syntactic pivot. If we concede poor punctuation and parse the You as an emphatic adjunct, the implied you would be expressed in the adjunct, and arguing over \"which\" you is the subject argument of go is much ado about nothing. Since the You of the first phrase is vocative, the implied you is the subject argument of go. Again, it is much ado about nothing, because the vocative you and the implied you identify the same entity. Extra note: Some argue that You is an introductory single word phrase reduced from I am talking to you or You pay attention. They recommend punctuation that removes the ambiguity with two sentences: You. Go to the store."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\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":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the function of these brackets? Do they signify something or give details? Such as if I write: The sustainer of the poor (people)\u2026 Does the word \u2018people\u2019 refer back to the whole phrase \u201cThe sustainer of the poor\u201d? Or does it refer back to the adjective \u2018poor\u2019? Can we write a word in brackets which refers back to the whole preceding phrase? The bringer of the messages (postman)\u2026 I think we can, since the word with article \u2018the\u2019 here is a noun i.e. messages. But, problem with above sentence is that the word \u2018poor\u2019 is an adjective thus it seems that it describes the word that comes later in the brackets, \u2018people\u2019. Here is another example: The provider of functionality (server)\u2026 This seems to be ok but if there is an adjective before the word in bracket then I think there should be either an article \u2018the\u2019 or the sign \u2018i.e.\u2019 before we write that word to which the whole phrase refers to. So I think we may write: The sustainer of the poor (i.e. God) But we cannot write: The sustainer of the poor (God) Is my position right?","question":"What is the function of these brackets? Do they signify something or give details? Such as if I write: The sustainer of the poor (people)\u2026 Does the word \u2018people\u2019 refer back to the whole phrase \u201cThe sustainer of the poor\u201d? Or does it refer back to the adjective \u2018poor\u2019? Can we write a word in brackets which refers back to the whole preceding phrase? The bringer of the messages (postman)\u2026 I think we can, since the word with article \u2018the\u2019 here is a noun i.e. messages. But, problem with above sentence is that the word \u2018poor\u2019 is an adjective thus it seems that it describes the word that comes later in the brackets, \u2018people\u2019. Here is another example: The provider of functionality (server)\u2026 This seems to be ok but if there is an adjective before the word in bracket then I think there should be either an article \u2018the\u2019 or the sign \u2018i.e.\u2019 before we write that word to which the whole phrase refers to. So I think we may write: The sustainer of the poor (i.e. God) But we cannot write: The sustainer of the poor (God) Is my position right?","answer":"Parenthesis are used to enclose information that either: clarifies a point made, or is an aside from the main point and subject. In your example... The sustainer of the poor (people). ... the parenthesis contains a clarification. Somebody or something sustains the poor, which most people would understand alone to mean \"poor people\", but I suppose if the writer thought that there might be any doubt that it could include poor animals, they might add this clarification in parenthesis. Context, as always, is key. In your other example... The sustainer of the poor (God) ... the structure of the sentence is identical to the first, and the parenthesis hold a clarification in both examples; but whereas in the first you are clarifying only what you mean by \"the poor\" with the addition of an optional word \"people\", in this second example you are clarifying the entire statement by telling the reader that \"the sustainer of the poor\" refers to God. If you felt the information in your parenthesis was ambiguous in some way then you could clarify it as in your final example where you say: The sustainer of the poor (i.e. God) However, I feel that context is normally sufficient. For example: God (Morgan Freeman) moves in mysterious ways. If you saw this in the context of a movie review, you should instinctively know that the supplemental information in parenthesis is the name of the actor portraying God and not actually implying that Morgan Freeman is God. Even out of context many people would guess the kind of context it had been lifted from.","output":"Parenthesis are used to enclose information that either: clarifies a point made, or is an aside from the main point and subject. In your example... The sustainer of the poor (people). ... the parenthesis contains a clarification. Somebody or something sustains the poor, which most people would understand alone to mean \"poor people\", but I suppose if the writer thought that there might be any doubt that it could include poor animals, they might add this clarification in parenthesis. Context, as always, is key. In your other example... The sustainer of the poor (God) ... the structure of the sentence is identical to the first, and the parenthesis hold a clarification in both examples; but whereas in the first you are clarifying only what you mean by \"the poor\" with the addition of an optional word \"people\", in this second example you are clarifying the entire statement by telling the reader that \"the sustainer of the poor\" refers to God. If you felt the information in your parenthesis was ambiguous in some way then you could clarify it as in your final example where you say: The sustainer of the poor (i.e. God) However, I feel that context is normally sufficient. For example: God (Morgan Freeman) moves in mysterious ways. If you saw this in the context of a movie review, you should instinctively know that the supplemental information in parenthesis is the name of the actor portraying God and not actually implying that Morgan Freeman is God. Even out of context many people would guess the kind of context it had been lifted from."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAll bad news spread(s) fast. Textbooks teach that you should use singular forms with 'news'. In the sentence above, though, the plural form sounds more natural to me, somehow. So, is it 'spread' or 'spreads'?","question":"All bad news spread(s) fast. Textbooks teach that you should use singular forms with 'news'. In the sentence above, though, the plural form sounds more natural to me, somehow. So, is it 'spread' or 'spreads'?","answer":"News is an uncountable noun and, as a result, treated as singular. This is why a singular form is used.","output":"News is an uncountable noun and, as a result, treated as singular. This is why a singular form is used."}
{"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 go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThere is a British English term \"teatime\" or \"afternoon tea\". I'm wondering how people refer to it in American English.","question":"There is a British English term \"teatime\" or \"afternoon tea\". I'm wondering how people refer to it in American English.","answer":"As far as I know (as an American who lived, very briefly in England), there is no word in the US for the British concept of \"tea\", \"teatime\" or \"afternoon tea\". In fact, the Wikipedia Article on it pretty clearly points out that it's a UK & Ireland concept: Tea refers to several different meals in countries formerly part of the British Empire. Afternoon Tea High Tea (Meat tea) Evening Meal Yes, we were part of the \"British Empire\"... but the \"tea\" thing didn't stick here. We have fancy hotels in big cities that are British-themed and sell a canned \"high tea\", but even our \"high tea\" (as defined in this New York article) Pinkies up! It's time for high tea. The leisurely afternoon affair has gained popularity in the past few months in New York City, according to tea authority Kathy Chan. A proper high tea consists of three things: finger sandwiches, scones and sweets. Many hotels here that offer afternoon tea are revamping services to make the food pairings more interesting and expanding their tea offerings, says Chan. doesn't fit with the Wikipedia definition of a \"high tea\": High tea (also known as meat tea or tea time in Ireland) usually refers to the evening meal or dinner of the working class, typically eaten between 5 pm and 7 pm. High tea typically consists of a hot dish, followed by cakes and bread, butter and jam. Occasionally there would be cold cuts of meat, such as ham salad. The term was first used around 1825, and high is used in the sense of well-advanced (like high noon, for example) to signify that it was taken later in the day than afternoon tea; it was used predominantly by the working class and in certain British dialects of the north of England and Scotland. \"High Tea\" in the US, at a hotel or similar establishment, generally occurs in the mid-afternoon 1 pm - 4 pm time frame and consists of tea, finger sandwiches, and sweet cakes. The hotels usually get the terminology right and call it \"afternoon tea\" but if you search \"high tea New York\", you get results for the same establishments. Here's one in DC, at The Willard InterContinental: The best afternoon tea in Washington, DC For a taste of the finer things, The Willard InterContinental proudly hosts afternoon tea in Peacock Alley. This enchanting restaurant features live harp music, an array of organic teas, finger sandwiches and fresh decadent pastries in an elegant setting. One of the city\u2019s more unique traditions for over a century, afternoon tea at The Willard is a not-to-be-missed experience. Americans do not generally have a meal between lunch (noon meal) and dinner or supper (evening meal). We may have an afternoon snack but that usually involves finding a bag of chips (British crisps) or candy bar from the vending machine or a leftover doughnut from the break room and grabbing your 4th (or 10th) cup of coffee for the day. We're very uncivilized. So, what should you say? That depends on what you're trying to tell someone, which you haven't explained in your question. I'd start by saying \"teatime\" or \"afternoon tea\" and be prepared to explain it a little if they ask. It's a foreign concept to a lot of us.","output":"As far as I know (as an American who lived, very briefly in England), there is no word in the US for the British concept of \"tea\", \"teatime\" or \"afternoon tea\". In fact, the Wikipedia Article on it pretty clearly points out that it's a UK & Ireland concept: Tea refers to several different meals in countries formerly part of the British Empire. Afternoon Tea High Tea (Meat tea) Evening Meal Yes, we were part of the \"British Empire\"... but the \"tea\" thing didn't stick here. We have fancy hotels in big cities that are British-themed and sell a canned \"high tea\", but even our \"high tea\" (as defined in this New York article) Pinkies up! It's time for high tea. The leisurely afternoon affair has gained popularity in the past few months in New York City, according to tea authority Kathy Chan. A proper high tea consists of three things: finger sandwiches, scones and sweets. Many hotels here that offer afternoon tea are revamping services to make the food pairings more interesting and expanding their tea offerings, says Chan. doesn't fit with the Wikipedia definition of a \"high tea\": High tea (also known as meat tea or tea time in Ireland) usually refers to the evening meal or dinner of the working class, typically eaten between 5 pm and 7 pm. High tea typically consists of a hot dish, followed by cakes and bread, butter and jam. Occasionally there would be cold cuts of meat, such as ham salad. The term was first used around 1825, and high is used in the sense of well-advanced (like high noon, for example) to signify that it was taken later in the day than afternoon tea; it was used predominantly by the working class and in certain British dialects of the north of England and Scotland. \"High Tea\" in the US, at a hotel or similar establishment, generally occurs in the mid-afternoon 1 pm - 4 pm time frame and consists of tea, finger sandwiches, and sweet cakes. The hotels usually get the terminology right and call it \"afternoon tea\" but if you search \"high tea New York\", you get results for the same establishments. Here's one in DC, at The Willard InterContinental: The best afternoon tea in Washington, DC For a taste of the finer things, The Willard InterContinental proudly hosts afternoon tea in Peacock Alley. This enchanting restaurant features live harp music, an array of organic teas, finger sandwiches and fresh decadent pastries in an elegant setting. One of the city\u2019s more unique traditions for over a century, afternoon tea at The Willard is a not-to-be-missed experience. Americans do not generally have a meal between lunch (noon meal) and dinner or supper (evening meal). We may have an afternoon snack but that usually involves finding a bag of chips (British crisps) or candy bar from the vending machine or a leftover doughnut from the break room and grabbing your 4th (or 10th) cup of coffee for the day. We're very uncivilized. So, what should you say? That depends on what you're trying to tell someone, which you haven't explained in your question. I'd start by saying \"teatime\" or \"afternoon tea\" and be prepared to explain it a little if they ask. It's a foreign concept to a lot of us."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nOn our website's homepage we have the following sentence: We make our software to be as flexible as possible so you can maintain and visualize the data that is important to YOU. One of my friends insists it should be: We make our software as flexible as possible so you can maintain and visualize the data that is important to YOU. Which one of these is grammatically correct and why? Are both wrong? In case anyone's interested, our beta homepage is http:\/\/intellectpersonified.com\/","question":"On our website's homepage we have the following sentence: We make our software to be as flexible as possible so you can maintain and visualize the data that is important to YOU. One of my friends insists it should be: We make our software as flexible as possible so you can maintain and visualize the data that is important to YOU. Which one of these is grammatically correct and why? Are both wrong? In case anyone's interested, our beta homepage is http:\/\/intellectpersonified.com\/","answer":"I'm not sure about the grammatical rules, but your friend is right in terms of style. 1) definitely reads like it was literally translated from another language.","output":"I'm not sure about the grammatical rules, but your friend is right in terms of style. 1) definitely reads like it was literally translated from another language."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI noticed some time ago that the words climax and thorax, though both from Greek roots, take different suffixes for \"concerning \u2014\": -actic and -acic, respectively. A quick Google revealed one more word on each side, syntax (syntactic) and borax (boracic). What are the rules for choosing between these suffixes?","question":"I noticed some time ago that the words climax and thorax, though both from Greek roots, take different suffixes for \"concerning \u2014\": -actic and -acic, respectively. A quick Google revealed one more word on each side, syntax (syntactic) and borax (boracic). What are the rules for choosing between these suffixes?","answer":"As others have mentioned, climax going with climactic is irregular. Syntax goes with syntactic because syntax, unlike climax is not a complete word in the classical languages: it comes from Latin syntaxis. This has the common Greek noun suffix -sis, which often can be removed and replaced with the suffix -tic to form an adjective as mentioned in tchrist's answer to What is the adjectival form of \"nemesis\"? Other examples are prophylaxis, prophylactic; -taxis, -tactic (thermotaxis, thermotactic); praxis, practic. (I don't know enough to explain how this alternation originated, but a relevant Linguistics post is What is the approximate time of the loss of the intervocalic \/s\/ in Greek?) Borax and thorax don't come from Greek nouns ending in -sis. The s at the end is just the nominative suffix, not part of the noun stem, so boracic and thoracic are regular derivatives. Climax also doesn't come from a Greek noun ending in -sis. But this word has become somewhat disconnected from its classical source anyway, the Greek word \u03ba\u03bb\u1fd6\u03bc\u03b1\u03be \"ladder,\" applied in rhetoric to a series of words or phrases that build on each other. The OED says \"N.E.D. (1889) remarks that senses 1b and 3 \u2018are due to popular ignorance and misuse of the learned word\u2019.\" Sense 3 is the now-common The culmination, peak, or apex of something; the most important or exciting part of a film, contest, etc., usually happening near the end. The word \"climactic\" in my experience refers to this meaning, which it seems first grew common among people who were ignorant of classical languages. So perhaps it's not surprising that the people who coined \"climactic\" didn't follow the rules that usually apply to learned words. Also, as GEdgar mentioned, there may have been influence from climacteric which is based on climacter, a Greek word based on climax meaning \"ladder rung,\" also metaphorically \"critical point in a person's life.\"","output":"As others have mentioned, climax going with climactic is irregular. Syntax goes with syntactic because syntax, unlike climax is not a complete word in the classical languages: it comes from Latin syntaxis. This has the common Greek noun suffix -sis, which often can be removed and replaced with the suffix -tic to form an adjective as mentioned in tchrist's answer to What is the adjectival form of \"nemesis\"? Other examples are prophylaxis, prophylactic; -taxis, -tactic (thermotaxis, thermotactic); praxis, practic. (I don't know enough to explain how this alternation originated, but a relevant Linguistics post is What is the approximate time of the loss of the intervocalic \/s\/ in Greek?) Borax and thorax don't come from Greek nouns ending in -sis. The s at the end is just the nominative suffix, not part of the noun stem, so boracic and thoracic are regular derivatives. Climax also doesn't come from a Greek noun ending in -sis. But this word has become somewhat disconnected from its classical source anyway, the Greek word \u03ba\u03bb\u1fd6\u03bc\u03b1\u03be \"ladder,\" applied in rhetoric to a series of words or phrases that build on each other. The OED says \"N.E.D. (1889) remarks that senses 1b and 3 \u2018are due to popular ignorance and misuse of the learned word\u2019.\" Sense 3 is the now-common The culmination, peak, or apex of something; the most important or exciting part of a film, contest, etc., usually happening near the end. The word \"climactic\" in my experience refers to this meaning, which it seems first grew common among people who were ignorant of classical languages. So perhaps it's not surprising that the people who coined \"climactic\" didn't follow the rules that usually apply to learned words. Also, as GEdgar mentioned, there may have been influence from climacteric which is based on climacter, a Greek word based on climax meaning \"ladder rung,\" also metaphorically \"critical point in a person's life.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe question is in the title. Simply put, I see no reason why \"surfing\" in particular was chosen to describe\u2026whatever it is we are doing when partaking in this gigantic network. I can't see any good analogues in this activity to surfing terms either. I see no surfboards (except maybe ipads and similar flat devices), I see no high tides, and there is a distinct lack of surfing terms such as \"gnarly\", \"goofy\", \"hang loose\" and \"grommet\" in the current usage of Internet lingo (although we have many other Internet-only terms instead to cope with this severely limiting shortage of vocabulary :) ). So why do we call it \"surfing the web\"?","question":"The question is in the title. Simply put, I see no reason why \"surfing\" in particular was chosen to describe\u2026whatever it is we are doing when partaking in this gigantic network. I can't see any good analogues in this activity to surfing terms either. I see no surfboards (except maybe ipads and similar flat devices), I see no high tides, and there is a distinct lack of surfing terms such as \"gnarly\", \"goofy\", \"hang loose\" and \"grommet\" in the current usage of Internet lingo (although we have many other Internet-only terms instead to cope with this severely limiting shortage of vocabulary :) ). So why do we call it \"surfing the web\"?","answer":"The use of surfing appears to refers to previous usages related to radio or TV: The use of a remote control to switch channels on a TV set is quite different from the versions above as it it doesn't physically mimic surfboarding. It is surfing only in a figurative sense in that it alludes to the moving easily and smoothly from one place to another. This has led the way to the various forms of surfing that are applied to the Internet. Like any phrase or saying that has been coined since the World Wide Web was invented (around November 1990) and the Internet became widely used, these can be dated almost to the second. The first of these surfing terms was simply 'surfing the internet'. This is recorded in the archives of the Usenet newsgroup alt.gopher in a posting headed 'Re: Size Limits for Text Files?', 25th February 1992: \"There is a lot to be said for surfing the internet with gopher from anywhere that you can find a phone jack.\" The Phrase Finder","output":"The use of surfing appears to refers to previous usages related to radio or TV: The use of a remote control to switch channels on a TV set is quite different from the versions above as it it doesn't physically mimic surfboarding. It is surfing only in a figurative sense in that it alludes to the moving easily and smoothly from one place to another. This has led the way to the various forms of surfing that are applied to the Internet. Like any phrase or saying that has been coined since the World Wide Web was invented (around November 1990) and the Internet became widely used, these can be dated almost to the second. The first of these surfing terms was simply 'surfing the internet'. This is recorded in the archives of the Usenet newsgroup alt.gopher in a posting headed 'Re: Size Limits for Text Files?', 25th February 1992: \"There is a lot to be said for surfing the internet with gopher from anywhere that you can find a phone jack.\" The Phrase Finder"}
{"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 recently heard the phrase \"taking a bath with the crowd\" and that apparently it's a common idiom in many European languages. I found several results for the phrase on Google, but none that explain what it means. Does anyone know what the phrase means, and if there's a common (American) English phrase that means the same thing?","question":"I recently heard the phrase \"taking a bath with the crowd\" and that apparently it's a common idiom in many European languages. I found several results for the phrase on Google, but none that explain what it means. Does anyone know what the phrase means, and if there's a common (American) English phrase that means the same thing?","answer":"St\u00e9phane's suggestion, \u201cto mingle with the crowd\u201d, may well reflect the intended meaning of the speaker of the phrase. But note that in English, the phrase \u201ctake a bath\u201d often is associated with a stock-market loss (1, 2); since the European idiom is not well-known in the U.S., I'd expect American English speakers to either associate your phrase with taking a loss in the market (along with a crowd of other investors) or to interpret the phrase literally.","output":"St\u00e9phane's suggestion, \u201cto mingle with the crowd\u201d, may well reflect the intended meaning of the speaker of the phrase. But note that in English, the phrase \u201ctake a bath\u201d often is associated with a stock-market loss (1, 2); since the European idiom is not well-known in the U.S., I'd expect American English speakers to either associate your phrase with taking a loss in the market (along with a crowd of other investors) or to interpret the phrase literally."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThis is really annoying me. All over CBS\/ESPN\/EVERYWHERE I am hearing that today's NCAA basketball games are round 3 of the tournament. When did the definition of a round in a tournament change? I have helped put together literally 100s of baseball, basketball, and soccer tournaments in my life and a round has always been a level in a tournament. I am sure that 10 years ago that today's games were the 2nd round because it was the 2nd level of the tournament. Please see a simple google search for 3rd round. So now they are using \"round\" to mean \"day\". Yes it is the 3rd day of the tournament but it is still only the 2nd round. Why did this change? Is this the new normal? Why is this driving me nuts? When did the meaning of a round in a tournament totally change?","question":"This is really annoying me. All over CBS\/ESPN\/EVERYWHERE I am hearing that today's NCAA basketball games are round 3 of the tournament. When did the definition of a round in a tournament change? I have helped put together literally 100s of baseball, basketball, and soccer tournaments in my life and a round has always been a level in a tournament. I am sure that 10 years ago that today's games were the 2nd round because it was the 2nd level of the tournament. Please see a simple google search for 3rd round. So now they are using \"round\" to mean \"day\". Yes it is the 3rd day of the tournament but it is still only the 2nd round. Why did this change? Is this the new normal? Why is this driving me nuts? When did the meaning of a round in a tournament totally change?","answer":"Since 2011 they've added The First Four. The four lowest-seeded teams will play \"First Four\" games, with the winners advancing as sixteen seeds to play two of the top-seeded teams. The other two first four games will match up the last four teams to receive at-large bids. This is the first round of the tournament according to the NCAA's official bracket. What should be the first round - 64 teams - the day that all the major games begin is now called the second round by the NCAA.","output":"Since 2011 they've added The First Four. The four lowest-seeded teams will play \"First Four\" games, with the winners advancing as sixteen seeds to play two of the top-seeded teams. The other two first four games will match up the last four teams to receive at-large bids. This is the first round of the tournament according to the NCAA's official bracket. What should be the first round - 64 teams - the day that all the major games begin is now called the second round by the NCAA."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm looking for an English word, if one exists, that describes a pattern of repetition\u2014like epanalepsis, but where an actor interrupts him or herself in between repetitions. Example: \u201cSend the communique, absolutely. There's a Bahrain Agreement that says... send [the communique].\u201d \u2014 The West Wing \"Swiss Diplomacy\" by Eli Attie & Kevin Falls Does any word for this exist?","question":"I'm looking for an English word, if one exists, that describes a pattern of repetition\u2014like epanalepsis, but where an actor interrupts him or herself in between repetitions. Example: \u201cSend the communique, absolutely. There's a Bahrain Agreement that says... send [the communique].\u201d \u2014 The West Wing \"Swiss Diplomacy\" by Eli Attie & Kevin Falls Does any word for this exist?","answer":"The word you're looking for is anacoluthon. From Sylvae Rhetorica: anacoluthon A grammatical interruption or lack of implied sequence within a sentence. That is, beginning a sentence in a way that implies a certain logical resolution, but concluding it differently than the grammar leads one to expect. Anacoluthon can be either a grammatical fault or a stylistic virtue, depending on its use. In either case, it is an interruption or a verbal lack of symmetry. Anacolouthon is characteristic of spoken language or interior thought, and thus suggests those domains when it occurs in writing. Not to be confused with metanoia, which is explicitly correcting oneself after starting out on a different tack. See this answer on Writers.","output":"The word you're looking for is anacoluthon. From Sylvae Rhetorica: anacoluthon A grammatical interruption or lack of implied sequence within a sentence. That is, beginning a sentence in a way that implies a certain logical resolution, but concluding it differently than the grammar leads one to expect. Anacoluthon can be either a grammatical fault or a stylistic virtue, depending on its use. In either case, it is an interruption or a verbal lack of symmetry. Anacolouthon is characteristic of spoken language or interior thought, and thus suggests those domains when it occurs in writing. Not to be confused with metanoia, which is explicitly correcting oneself after starting out on a different tack. See this answer on Writers."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe news caster pronounces \u2018superior\u2019 as \/s\u0259\u02c8p\u026a\u0259r i \u0259r\/. And I can find his pronunciation in the Random House Dictionary. But the other major dictionaries show \/su\u02d0\u02c8p\u026ari\u0259r\/ or \/sju\u02d0\u02c8p\u026a\u0259ri\u0259\/. So I can\u2019t decide \u2018superior\u2019 alone can be pronounced \/s\u0259\u02c8p\u026a\u0259r i \u0259r\/, when it is pronounced by itself not in the sentence? [audio]","question":"The news caster pronounces \u2018superior\u2019 as \/s\u0259\u02c8p\u026a\u0259r i \u0259r\/. And I can find his pronunciation in the Random House Dictionary. But the other major dictionaries show \/su\u02d0\u02c8p\u026ari\u0259r\/ or \/sju\u02d0\u02c8p\u026a\u0259ri\u0259\/. So I can\u2019t decide \u2018superior\u2019 alone can be pronounced \/s\u0259\u02c8p\u026a\u0259r i \u0259r\/, when it is pronounced by itself not in the sentence? [audio]","answer":"This is closely related to an earlier question, which I think it would repay you to consult. What is in play here is varying realizations and transcriptions of a close rounded reduced vowel: a vowel representing a stem which is not only unstressed but 'bleached' of much of its distinctive character. For historical reasons, some dictionaries and phonologists represent this vowel with a schwa \/\u0259\/, others with \/u\/ or \/\u028a\/. (I find it difficult to believe that anybody has ever pronounced this syllable with \/u\u02d0\/, unless under special circumstances requiring the syllable be unnaturally stressed.) This Wikipedia article tells us the Oxford dictionaries are starting to use a symbol of their own, \/\u1d7f\/, for this sound. But it's not something anybody but a professional phonologist or phonetician needs to worry about. As long as you pronounce the syllable without stress, nobody will notice whether you say \/s\u0259\/ or \/s\u028a\/ or even \/s\u026a\/; what people actually hear is the stressed vowels.","output":"This is closely related to an earlier question, which I think it would repay you to consult. What is in play here is varying realizations and transcriptions of a close rounded reduced vowel: a vowel representing a stem which is not only unstressed but 'bleached' of much of its distinctive character. For historical reasons, some dictionaries and phonologists represent this vowel with a schwa \/\u0259\/, others with \/u\/ or \/\u028a\/. (I find it difficult to believe that anybody has ever pronounced this syllable with \/u\u02d0\/, unless under special circumstances requiring the syllable be unnaturally stressed.) This Wikipedia article tells us the Oxford dictionaries are starting to use a symbol of their own, \/\u1d7f\/, for this sound. But it's not something anybody but a professional phonologist or phonetician needs to worry about. As long as you pronounce the syllable without stress, nobody will notice whether you say \/s\u0259\/ or \/s\u028a\/ or even \/s\u026a\/; what people actually hear is the stressed vowels."}
{"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\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI hope this is not off-topic: How do you write things like this: The machine was tested in 5 3-players games, 2 4-players games... Or: five 3-players games, two 4-players games... I want to say e.g. that it was tested 5 times in games of 3 players, and so on.","question":"I hope this is not off-topic: How do you write things like this: The machine was tested in 5 3-players games, 2 4-players games... Or: five 3-players games, two 4-players games... I want to say e.g. that it was tested 5 times in games of 3 players, and so on.","answer":"Style guides usually allow for you to alternate numerals and text when you are writing about two kinds of numbers in the same sentence. APA 6th edition, 4.33 (\"Combining Numerals and Words to Express Numbers\") gives this case: Use a combination of numerals and words to express back-to-back numbers. 2 two-way interactions ten 7-point scales It recommends spelling out both in text only if readability would be impeded otherwise. In this paradigm, you could write \"five 3-player games\" or \"5 three-player games.\" The former is perhaps preferable, as it never leads to a formation where you start a sentence with a number. The Chicago Manual of Style has a similar recommendation. In 9.7 on \"Consistency and flexibility\" in numeral rules: In the same sentence or paragraph, however, items in one category may be given as numerals and items in another spelled out. ... A mixture of buildings\u2014one of 103 stories, five of more than 50, and a dozen of only 3 or 4\u2014has been suggested for the area. So Chicago, too, allows the author to make decisions about what category of number to make a numeral and which one to spell out.","output":"Style guides usually allow for you to alternate numerals and text when you are writing about two kinds of numbers in the same sentence. APA 6th edition, 4.33 (\"Combining Numerals and Words to Express Numbers\") gives this case: Use a combination of numerals and words to express back-to-back numbers. 2 two-way interactions ten 7-point scales It recommends spelling out both in text only if readability would be impeded otherwise. In this paradigm, you could write \"five 3-player games\" or \"5 three-player games.\" The former is perhaps preferable, as it never leads to a formation where you start a sentence with a number. The Chicago Manual of Style has a similar recommendation. In 9.7 on \"Consistency and flexibility\" in numeral rules: In the same sentence or paragraph, however, items in one category may be given as numerals and items in another spelled out. ... A mixture of buildings\u2014one of 103 stories, five of more than 50, and a dozen of only 3 or 4\u2014has been suggested for the area. So Chicago, too, allows the author to make decisions about what category of number to make a numeral and which one to spell out."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat are the differences between 'to paint' and 'to draw' when we are talking about arts? As I guess draw refers to pictures in pencil or pen and paint to watercolor pictures or something. I need to clarify these things. :)","question":"What are the differences between 'to paint' and 'to draw' when we are talking about arts? As I guess draw refers to pictures in pencil or pen and paint to watercolor pictures or something. I need to clarify these things. :)","answer":"I am a student at the Academy of Fine Art, in the final year, and this is what we are taught: Drawings are made by using LINES, and paintings are done by using SMUDGES or STAINS. You can use a paint brush dipped in oil color on canvas, but if you use only lines as a main form it will still be considered a drawing. Likewise, you can use pastels and crayons, but if you smudge them so the boundaries are not easily discerned, it would be considered as a painting. For example, we consider Egon Schileler as a drawing master, and Marc Chagal as a painter. When on the academy you can easily discern a graphic artist from a painter to a sculptor by basically looking at their nude study drawings, with the same method, charcoal on paper. The painter will smudge the charcoal and make big surfaces with barely any lines (or no lines), a sculptor will make hard, sharp strokes like cutting with a knife (or a chisel), and a graphic artist will do thin, controled lines. Like the previous comment said, the layers are also an important factor: drawings tend to have lesser layers, paintings more overlapping colors and layers.","output":"I am a student at the Academy of Fine Art, in the final year, and this is what we are taught: Drawings are made by using LINES, and paintings are done by using SMUDGES or STAINS. You can use a paint brush dipped in oil color on canvas, but if you use only lines as a main form it will still be considered a drawing. Likewise, you can use pastels and crayons, but if you smudge them so the boundaries are not easily discerned, it would be considered as a painting. For example, we consider Egon Schileler as a drawing master, and Marc Chagal as a painter. When on the academy you can easily discern a graphic artist from a painter to a sculptor by basically looking at their nude study drawings, with the same method, charcoal on paper. The painter will smudge the charcoal and make big surfaces with barely any lines (or no lines), a sculptor will make hard, sharp strokes like cutting with a knife (or a chisel), and a graphic artist will do thin, controled lines. Like the previous comment said, the layers are also an important factor: drawings tend to have lesser layers, paintings more overlapping colors and layers."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nLook at your watch and tell me what time is it. Look at your watch and tell me what time it is. Is the second variant correct?","question":"Look at your watch and tell me what time is it. Look at your watch and tell me what time it is. Is the second variant correct?","answer":"Strictly speaking, only #2 is \"correct\". You ask someone to tell you something = a noun phrase, as in the time [that] it is [now] is 10 o'clock. That's the standard \/ default English sequence subject + verb + object. In English, we normally invert the subject + verb element when asking questions, as in What time is it? (but not in the statement \/ answer It's = It is 10 o'clock). OP's example #1 is increasingly common among younger native speakers, so I wouldn't want to say it's \"wrong\". But historically it's long been associated with non-native speakers. So on the one hand you might want to use format #1 yourself - to appear more \"with it\", and in tune with those younger speakers. On the other hand, older or more pedantic people will tend to think you just don't know \"proper\" English. My advice is to stick with format #2 in your own constructions, but maybe it depends a bit on who you're talking to.","output":"Strictly speaking, only #2 is \"correct\". You ask someone to tell you something = a noun phrase, as in the time [that] it is [now] is 10 o'clock. That's the standard \/ default English sequence subject + verb + object. In English, we normally invert the subject + verb element when asking questions, as in What time is it? (but not in the statement \/ answer It's = It is 10 o'clock). OP's example #1 is increasingly common among younger native speakers, so I wouldn't want to say it's \"wrong\". But historically it's long been associated with non-native speakers. So on the one hand you might want to use format #1 yourself - to appear more \"with it\", and in tune with those younger speakers. On the other hand, older or more pedantic people will tend to think you just don't know \"proper\" English. My advice is to stick with format #2 in your own constructions, but maybe it depends a bit on who you're talking to."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nGeographically speaking, up is north and down is south (if that's wrong, my entire question is dumb). My friends keep saying they are doing something \"down here\" when they are actually talking about the neighborhood they live in, which is in fact 9 miles due north of me. They complain when I comment on the fact that they're wrong (I don't point it out that often, but sometimes it irritates me). Can someone just confirm for me that they are wrong and I am right? Thank you.","question":"Geographically speaking, up is north and down is south (if that's wrong, my entire question is dumb). My friends keep saying they are doing something \"down here\" when they are actually talking about the neighborhood they live in, which is in fact 9 miles due north of me. They complain when I comment on the fact that they're wrong (I don't point it out that often, but sometimes it irritates me). Can someone just confirm for me that they are wrong and I am right? Thank you.","answer":"\"Down South\", \"Up North\", \"Way Down upon the Swanee River\", Down in Florida, up in The Yukon, down in Antarctica\", etc. etc. The precedent is there, and you are correct with regard to direction. However, \"down home\" is also very prevalent, and when referring to where one is (from an idiom meaning simple, comfortable, old fashioned but with good connotations). Down here is very common (when it is one's home), perhaps due to other absorbed idiomatic phrases.","output":"\"Down South\", \"Up North\", \"Way Down upon the Swanee River\", Down in Florida, up in The Yukon, down in Antarctica\", etc. etc. The precedent is there, and you are correct with regard to direction. However, \"down home\" is also very prevalent, and when referring to where one is (from an idiom meaning simple, comfortable, old fashioned but with good connotations). Down here is very common (when it is one's home), perhaps due to other absorbed idiomatic phrases."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI think that in the phrase, \"the Cabinet conferred with the president,\" Cabinet is an example of a metonym. The answer book for a sample test I'm taking says it's a synecdoche. I thought I had finally figured out the difference. Help!","question":"I think that in the phrase, \"the Cabinet conferred with the president,\" Cabinet is an example of a metonym. The answer book for a sample test I'm taking says it's a synecdoche. I thought I had finally figured out the difference. Help!","answer":"Both metonym and synectoche are figures of speech used in rhetoric. \"The Cabinet\" in your example is a \"metonym\". They\u2019re not the same thing, though metonymy is often interpreted so widely that synecdoche can be regarded as a special case of it. Let\u2019s take synecdoche first (which is pronounced as \/s\u026a\u02c8n\u025bkd\u0259k\u026a\/ Help with IPA, by the way). You use this when you speak of a part of something but mean the whole thing. When Patrick O\u2019Brian has Captain Jack Aubrey tell his first lieutenant to \u201clet the hands go to dinner\u201d he\u2019s employing synecdoche, because he\u2019s using a part (the hand) for the whole man. You can also reverse the whole and the part, so using a word for something when you only mean part of it. This often comes up in sport: a commentator might say that \u201cThe West Indies has lost to England\u201d when he means that the West Indian team has lost to the English one. America is often used as synecdoche in this second sense, as the word refers to the whole continent but is frequently applied to a part of it, the USA. Metonymy is similar, but uses something more generally or loosely associated with a concept to stand in for it. When Americans speak of the Oval Office, for example, they are really referring to the activity within it, the position or function of the President. It\u2019s a linked term, and so a metonym. British writers refer similarly to the Crown, when they\u2019re really discussing the powers, authority and responsibilities of the monarchy, which is symbolised by the crown. The difference between synecdoche and metonymy is that in metonymy the word you employ is linked to the concept you are really talking about, but isn\u2019t actually a part of it. Another example is the turf for horse racing. But the distinction isn\u2019t always obvious and often can\u2019t be rigorously applied, and many people use metonymy to mean both. http:\/\/www.worldwidewords.org\/qa\/qa-syn1.htm","output":"Both metonym and synectoche are figures of speech used in rhetoric. \"The Cabinet\" in your example is a \"metonym\". They\u2019re not the same thing, though metonymy is often interpreted so widely that synecdoche can be regarded as a special case of it. Let\u2019s take synecdoche first (which is pronounced as \/s\u026a\u02c8n\u025bkd\u0259k\u026a\/ Help with IPA, by the way). You use this when you speak of a part of something but mean the whole thing. When Patrick O\u2019Brian has Captain Jack Aubrey tell his first lieutenant to \u201clet the hands go to dinner\u201d he\u2019s employing synecdoche, because he\u2019s using a part (the hand) for the whole man. You can also reverse the whole and the part, so using a word for something when you only mean part of it. This often comes up in sport: a commentator might say that \u201cThe West Indies has lost to England\u201d when he means that the West Indian team has lost to the English one. America is often used as synecdoche in this second sense, as the word refers to the whole continent but is frequently applied to a part of it, the USA. Metonymy is similar, but uses something more generally or loosely associated with a concept to stand in for it. When Americans speak of the Oval Office, for example, they are really referring to the activity within it, the position or function of the President. It\u2019s a linked term, and so a metonym. British writers refer similarly to the Crown, when they\u2019re really discussing the powers, authority and responsibilities of the monarchy, which is symbolised by the crown. The difference between synecdoche and metonymy is that in metonymy the word you employ is linked to the concept you are really talking about, but isn\u2019t actually a part of it. Another example is the turf for horse racing. But the distinction isn\u2019t always obvious and often can\u2019t be rigorously applied, and many people use metonymy to mean both. http:\/\/www.worldwidewords.org\/qa\/qa-syn1.htm"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm translating a text I wrote in Portuguese (I'm Brazilian) and I'd like some help. In my story, a boy around 13 years old is at the school and encounters a janitress, a woman in her late forties. She complains about the fact of him being until late in the school, then he answers her. My question is: what would be the most \"natural\" word he'd use to refer to her? I thought about using \"Ms\" or \"lady\", but I'm in doubt. In Portuguese, for example, he'd use \"tia\", which means \"aunt\", but it's also an informal way children\/young teenagers call older unknown women. I'd like to have my translation to be as accurate as possible, so any help will be greatly appreciated.","question":"I'm translating a text I wrote in Portuguese (I'm Brazilian) and I'd like some help. In my story, a boy around 13 years old is at the school and encounters a janitress, a woman in her late forties. She complains about the fact of him being until late in the school, then he answers her. My question is: what would be the most \"natural\" word he'd use to refer to her? I thought about using \"Ms\" or \"lady\", but I'm in doubt. In Portuguese, for example, he'd use \"tia\", which means \"aunt\", but it's also an informal way children\/young teenagers call older unknown women. I'd like to have my translation to be as accurate as possible, so any help will be greatly appreciated.","answer":"In UK schools, female staff of any role (and any marital status) are universally addressed as \"Miss\". Just that; nothing else. It would definitely be wrong to add the first name (\"Miss Daisy\") as that's too familiar, and \"Ma'am\" or \"Madam\" would be seen as insolent because it's too formal. \"Miss\" the equivalent of \"Sir\", the generic mode of address for male staff. \"Miss\" is akin to \"Ma'am\" in the Forces, where \"Sir\" would be used for male superiors. When referring to staff rather than addressing them, the full name is usually used. \"I gave my homework to Mr Jones.\" A janitor is known as a caretaker.","output":"In UK schools, female staff of any role (and any marital status) are universally addressed as \"Miss\". Just that; nothing else. It would definitely be wrong to add the first name (\"Miss Daisy\") as that's too familiar, and \"Ma'am\" or \"Madam\" would be seen as insolent because it's too formal. \"Miss\" the equivalent of \"Sir\", the generic mode of address for male staff. \"Miss\" is akin to \"Ma'am\" in the Forces, where \"Sir\" would be used for male superiors. When referring to staff rather than addressing them, the full name is usually used. \"I gave my homework to Mr Jones.\" A janitor is known as a caretaker."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the proper preposition to follow the noun hatred? Do we have a hatred for Buddhism? Do we have a hatred of Buddhism? Do we have a hatred against Buddhism? These are all just examples. It\u2019s not my actual sentence that I wish to form.","question":"What is the proper preposition to follow the noun hatred? Do we have a hatred for Buddhism? Do we have a hatred of Buddhism? Do we have a hatred against Buddhism? These are all just examples. It\u2019s not my actual sentence that I wish to form.","answer":"The actual usage stats from the Corpus of Contemporary American English and the British National Corpus look as follows: COCA BNC hatred of 763 181 hatred for 382 57 hatred against 40 6 hatred toward 73 0 hatred towards 31 12 hatred at 11 14 Obviously these figures will include some noise, where the object of the preposition is not actually the object of the hatred (stuff like \"hatred of epic proportions\", \"I traded my hatred for love\", and so on), but for recognizing the overall trend they are sufficient: all three of your options are options, but if you want to be on the safe side, you should pick of over against \u2014 and when writing for a British audience, you might even wish to pick it over for. Edit: I have now taken a look at every single cite (yes, all 1570 of them), and here are the cleaned-up figures: COCA BNC hatred of 738 173 hatred for 380 58 hatred against 41 6 hatred toward 74 0 hatred towards 31 12 hatred at 3 2 As you can see, the picture does not really change. One reason for that being that quite often a false positive for one preposition was a false negative for another (\"hatred of the American people for Iranians\", \"hatred of millions toward U.S.\", \"hatred of Arab against Arab\"), which is how some of the numbers have actually managed to go up. Another interesting thing to observe was parallel constructions whose authors went out of their way to use of: \"hatred of, and shame for, sin\"; \"outright hatred of and violence against women\"; \"I didn't have any great love for or hatred of Shakespeare\". (There were no examples of this behavior for prepositions other than of, but then again their sample sizes were considerably smaller.)","output":"The actual usage stats from the Corpus of Contemporary American English and the British National Corpus look as follows: COCA BNC hatred of 763 181 hatred for 382 57 hatred against 40 6 hatred toward 73 0 hatred towards 31 12 hatred at 11 14 Obviously these figures will include some noise, where the object of the preposition is not actually the object of the hatred (stuff like \"hatred of epic proportions\", \"I traded my hatred for love\", and so on), but for recognizing the overall trend they are sufficient: all three of your options are options, but if you want to be on the safe side, you should pick of over against \u2014 and when writing for a British audience, you might even wish to pick it over for. Edit: I have now taken a look at every single cite (yes, all 1570 of them), and here are the cleaned-up figures: COCA BNC hatred of 738 173 hatred for 380 58 hatred against 41 6 hatred toward 74 0 hatred towards 31 12 hatred at 3 2 As you can see, the picture does not really change. One reason for that being that quite often a false positive for one preposition was a false negative for another (\"hatred of the American people for Iranians\", \"hatred of millions toward U.S.\", \"hatred of Arab against Arab\"), which is how some of the numbers have actually managed to go up. Another interesting thing to observe was parallel constructions whose authors went out of their way to use of: \"hatred of, and shame for, sin\"; \"outright hatred of and violence against women\"; \"I didn't have any great love for or hatred of Shakespeare\". (There were no examples of this behavior for prepositions other than of, but then again their sample sizes were considerably smaller.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have a small question about the usage of Google as a verb. Is it always capitalized, even as a verb? For instance: I Googled his name and I got hundreds of results. Now, I am aware that this is a neologism and as such, it's probably not going to be in any dictionaries, but what is the most common usage for Google as a verb? It really looks strange to me to write or read \"Googled\", hence my question.","question":"I have a small question about the usage of Google as a verb. Is it always capitalized, even as a verb? For instance: I Googled his name and I got hundreds of results. Now, I am aware that this is a neologism and as such, it's probably not going to be in any dictionaries, but what is the most common usage for Google as a verb? It really looks strange to me to write or read \"Googled\", hence my question.","answer":"No. Google as a verb should not be capitalized. Because if you put 'G' capital, you mean the word 'Google' as a company (proper noun). You cannot company something. I found this on Wikipedia. It's useful. The first recorded usage of google used as a participle, thus supposing an intransitive verb, was on July 8, 1998, by Google co-founder Larry Page himself, who wrote on a mailing list: \"Have fun and keep googling!\" Its earliest known use (as a transitive verb) on American television was in the \"Help\" episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (October 15, 2002), when Willow asked Buffy, \"Have you googled her yet?\" There's no first letter capital. OALD has an entry of the verb google. It's observed that when the tool of doing something becomes too popular (and omnipotent in its field!), its proper noun, over the period of time, becomes a verb and then the first capital letter is lowercased. Another such proper nouns are --Photoshop, when used as a verb becomes photoshop (no capital) and Xerox, when used as a verb becomes xerox (no capital again). On one blog (as fluffy says) it's written: The verb \"google\" (no capital) has been used in the recent years with the meaning \"search (something) on the web\", even though you use other search engine than Google (capital). [Generally, a verb is not capitalized. However, the only verb with first letter capital I have come across is Christianize. I had asked that question here on this board some time ago.] Noun and verb usage: Did you google this term? Vs. Did you search this term on Google? You can photoshop this image to make it better Vs. You can make this image better using Photoshop.","output":"No. Google as a verb should not be capitalized. Because if you put 'G' capital, you mean the word 'Google' as a company (proper noun). You cannot company something. I found this on Wikipedia. It's useful. The first recorded usage of google used as a participle, thus supposing an intransitive verb, was on July 8, 1998, by Google co-founder Larry Page himself, who wrote on a mailing list: \"Have fun and keep googling!\" Its earliest known use (as a transitive verb) on American television was in the \"Help\" episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (October 15, 2002), when Willow asked Buffy, \"Have you googled her yet?\" There's no first letter capital. OALD has an entry of the verb google. It's observed that when the tool of doing something becomes too popular (and omnipotent in its field!), its proper noun, over the period of time, becomes a verb and then the first capital letter is lowercased. Another such proper nouns are --Photoshop, when used as a verb becomes photoshop (no capital) and Xerox, when used as a verb becomes xerox (no capital again). On one blog (as fluffy says) it's written: The verb \"google\" (no capital) has been used in the recent years with the meaning \"search (something) on the web\", even though you use other search engine than Google (capital). [Generally, a verb is not capitalized. However, the only verb with first letter capital I have come across is Christianize. I had asked that question here on this board some time ago.] Noun and verb usage: Did you google this term? Vs. Did you search this term on Google? You can photoshop this image to make it better Vs. You can make this image better using Photoshop."}
{"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\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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":"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\nHere is my sentence: \"This picture was taken in spring \/ in the spring\" commenting on a photograph in a photo documentary. Is there a difference? is the determiner THE necessary and why or why not? Thanks for your help.","question":"Here is my sentence: \"This picture was taken in spring \/ in the spring\" commenting on a photograph in a photo documentary. Is there a difference? is the determiner THE necessary and why or why not? Thanks for your help.","answer":"Both are correct and honestly I do not think there is a difference in meaning whether we use the definite article in front of the season in this case. I love the garden in (the) spring. They go skiing in (the) winter. But we have to use the article when the season is specified by the year like this: The picture was taken in the spring of 2014. but The picture was taken in (the) spring 2014. With spring, because of the dual meaning of the word, there can be an advantage not to use the article when talking about the season when the context is insufficient and we want to avoid ambiguity : I found it in spring. \u2192 I'm definitely talking about the season. I found it in the spring. \u2192 Am I talking about the season or about the spring of the river?","output":"Both are correct and honestly I do not think there is a difference in meaning whether we use the definite article in front of the season in this case. I love the garden in (the) spring. They go skiing in (the) winter. But we have to use the article when the season is specified by the year like this: The picture was taken in the spring of 2014. but The picture was taken in (the) spring 2014. With spring, because of the dual meaning of the word, there can be an advantage not to use the article when talking about the season when the context is insufficient and we want to avoid ambiguity : I found it in spring. \u2192 I'm definitely talking about the season. I found it in the spring. \u2192 Am I talking about the season or about the spring of the river?"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI often hear US citizens say something like this: Some phrases>. Period. What does period mean when it appears in a sentence by itself in this type of situation?","question":"I often hear US citizens say something like this: Some phrases>. Period. What does period mean when it appears in a sentence by itself in this type of situation?","answer":"Period at the end of the sentence means, the things said in the sentence are definite and no change is allowed. For example, \"I want the document without any errors, period\" meaning that there should not be any errors in the document.","output":"Period at the end of the sentence means, the things said in the sentence are definite and no change is allowed. For example, \"I want the document without any errors, period\" meaning that there should not be any errors in the document."}
{"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\nI know we can begin a sentence with Therefore. We can also use it after commas in a sentence. For example, which is correct? She had previous experience, therefore she seemed the best candidate. She had previous experience. Therefore, she seemed the best candidate. I myself feel when the first or second clause is long or when the subject is switched, using \"therefore\" at the beginning of sentence is better. Therefore, I think sentence #1 is better here because it uses the same subject and both sentences are short.","question":"I know we can begin a sentence with Therefore. We can also use it after commas in a sentence. For example, which is correct? She had previous experience, therefore she seemed the best candidate. She had previous experience. Therefore, she seemed the best candidate. I myself feel when the first or second clause is long or when the subject is switched, using \"therefore\" at the beginning of sentence is better. Therefore, I think sentence #1 is better here because it uses the same subject and both sentences are short.","answer":"You have asked a common question. Fortunately, there's plenty of material on the world wide web that offer guidance. See, for example, the following: COMMON PROBLEMS WITH HOWEVER, THEREFORE, AND SIMILAR WORDS This page explains a type of error writers often make when using words like [sic] however, furthermore, therefore, thus, consequently, and moreover. The problem occurs when writers use these words to conjoin sentences. Readers find the error to be distracting because it disrupts their expectation about where sentences should end. EXAMPLE MISTAKE January may be the coldest month, however, it is a time of great beauty. The boldface \u201chowever\u201d and the comma after \u201cmonth\u201d are the problems. This is easy to correct. But first, here is some explanation. A common problem writers face is the incorrect usage of conjunctive adverbs. Many times it is because they confuse them with coordinating conjunctions. A coordinating conjunction is a familiar part of the English language and includes the following: and, but, or, nor, so, for, yet. A conjunctive adverb is not so common in everyday speech, but occurs frequently in written prose. These include the following: however, moreover, therefore, thus, consequently, furthermore, unfortunately. Most of the time, problems occur when the writer uses a conjunctive adverb in the middle of a sentence when a coordinating conjunction is actually needed. But remember that conjunctive adverbs can be used in any part of a sentence. This page addresses the problem that arises when conjunctive adverbs are used wrongly to connect two sentences. To avoid this problem, a basic rule to follow is this: If the two parts you are connecting can stand on their own as separate sentences, then you have probably misused the conjunctive adverb. If this is the case, you have a few options for fixing it. Usually a semicolon is the best choice, but you may also use a period or a coordinating conjunction. INCORRECT Watering and feeding new plants is necessary for growth, however, too much water or fertilizer can kill them. Erica felt as if she might faint from hunger, therefore, she decided a trip to McDonald\u2019s was necessary. Joyce Carol Oates is a novelist, essayist, playwright, and poet, moreover, she is a distinguished scholar. All of these examples create comma splices because there are complete sentences to the left and the right of the conjunctive adverbs however, therefore, and moreover. The commas after \u201cgrowth,\u201d \u201chunger,\u201d and \u201cpoet\u201d create the comma splices. Here is the correct way to punctuate these sentences. CORRECT Watering and feeding new plants is necessary for growth, but too much water or fertilizer can kill them. Erica felt as if she might faint from hunger. Therefore, she decided a trip to McDonald\u2019s was necessary. Joyce Carol Oates is a novelist, essayist, playwright, and poet; moreover, she is a distinguished scholar. Notice that the first example replaced the conjunctive adverb with a coordinating conjunction, the second with a period, and the last used a semicolon. Because many of theses parts of speech can mean basically the same thing, it is tempting to use them the same way in a sentence. Just remember: coordinating conjunctions can conjoin sentences. Conjunctive adverbs cannot. This may be a bit confusing, but with practice and a sharp eye you can avoid making this common mistake. by Athens Battles Examples for this handout were adapted from: Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. The Allyn and Bacon Handbook. 3rd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1997. (Indiana University of Pennsylvania) PUNCTUATION WITH \u2018THEREFORE\u2019, \u2018FURTHERMORE\u2019 AND \u2018HOWEVER' Reader\u2019s question: I would like to know the appropriate punctuation when using the words however, therefore, furthermore. Answer: My guidelines for words such as however, therefore and furthermore (adverbial conjuncts) are as follows. If you use these words at the beginning of a sentence, put a comma after them. \u2026 However, we intend following up shortly. Some modern writers are now dropping the comma, but I still like it because I think it indicates a pause. Use a semicolon and comma with these words to introduce a new independent clause in the middle of a sentence. We plan to stay for another year; however, Peter is leaving now. When you use however, furthermore or therefore as intensifiers or for emphasis, you need commas around both sides of them. We, however, do not agree with the verdict. PS An independent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought. (Online Grammar)","output":"You have asked a common question. Fortunately, there's plenty of material on the world wide web that offer guidance. See, for example, the following: COMMON PROBLEMS WITH HOWEVER, THEREFORE, AND SIMILAR WORDS This page explains a type of error writers often make when using words like [sic] however, furthermore, therefore, thus, consequently, and moreover. The problem occurs when writers use these words to conjoin sentences. Readers find the error to be distracting because it disrupts their expectation about where sentences should end. EXAMPLE MISTAKE January may be the coldest month, however, it is a time of great beauty. The boldface \u201chowever\u201d and the comma after \u201cmonth\u201d are the problems. This is easy to correct. But first, here is some explanation. A common problem writers face is the incorrect usage of conjunctive adverbs. Many times it is because they confuse them with coordinating conjunctions. A coordinating conjunction is a familiar part of the English language and includes the following: and, but, or, nor, so, for, yet. A conjunctive adverb is not so common in everyday speech, but occurs frequently in written prose. These include the following: however, moreover, therefore, thus, consequently, furthermore, unfortunately. Most of the time, problems occur when the writer uses a conjunctive adverb in the middle of a sentence when a coordinating conjunction is actually needed. But remember that conjunctive adverbs can be used in any part of a sentence. This page addresses the problem that arises when conjunctive adverbs are used wrongly to connect two sentences. To avoid this problem, a basic rule to follow is this: If the two parts you are connecting can stand on their own as separate sentences, then you have probably misused the conjunctive adverb. If this is the case, you have a few options for fixing it. Usually a semicolon is the best choice, but you may also use a period or a coordinating conjunction. INCORRECT Watering and feeding new plants is necessary for growth, however, too much water or fertilizer can kill them. Erica felt as if she might faint from hunger, therefore, she decided a trip to McDonald\u2019s was necessary. Joyce Carol Oates is a novelist, essayist, playwright, and poet, moreover, she is a distinguished scholar. All of these examples create comma splices because there are complete sentences to the left and the right of the conjunctive adverbs however, therefore, and moreover. The commas after \u201cgrowth,\u201d \u201chunger,\u201d and \u201cpoet\u201d create the comma splices. Here is the correct way to punctuate these sentences. CORRECT Watering and feeding new plants is necessary for growth, but too much water or fertilizer can kill them. Erica felt as if she might faint from hunger. Therefore, she decided a trip to McDonald\u2019s was necessary. Joyce Carol Oates is a novelist, essayist, playwright, and poet; moreover, she is a distinguished scholar. Notice that the first example replaced the conjunctive adverb with a coordinating conjunction, the second with a period, and the last used a semicolon. Because many of theses parts of speech can mean basically the same thing, it is tempting to use them the same way in a sentence. Just remember: coordinating conjunctions can conjoin sentences. Conjunctive adverbs cannot. This may be a bit confusing, but with practice and a sharp eye you can avoid making this common mistake. by Athens Battles Examples for this handout were adapted from: Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. The Allyn and Bacon Handbook. 3rd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1997. (Indiana University of Pennsylvania) PUNCTUATION WITH \u2018THEREFORE\u2019, \u2018FURTHERMORE\u2019 AND \u2018HOWEVER' Reader\u2019s question: I would like to know the appropriate punctuation when using the words however, therefore, furthermore. Answer: My guidelines for words such as however, therefore and furthermore (adverbial conjuncts) are as follows. If you use these words at the beginning of a sentence, put a comma after them. \u2026 However, we intend following up shortly. Some modern writers are now dropping the comma, but I still like it because I think it indicates a pause. Use a semicolon and comma with these words to introduce a new independent clause in the middle of a sentence. We plan to stay for another year; however, Peter is leaving now. When you use however, furthermore or therefore as intensifiers or for emphasis, you need commas around both sides of them. We, however, do not agree with the verdict. PS An independent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought. (Online Grammar)"}
{"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":"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 wanted to tell a friend that I've discovered a new social outlet, but then I realized it was also an inlet. I was wondering if there's a word or phrase that combines those two meanings. Something like pipeline perhaps? But social pipeline doesn't sound right.","question":"I wanted to tell a friend that I've discovered a new social outlet, but then I realized it was also an inlet. I was wondering if there's a word or phrase that combines those two meanings. Something like pipeline perhaps? But social pipeline doesn't sound right.","answer":"Perhaps channel. The term has multiple meanings, several of which align with your concept. For example, Merriam-Webster offers, among others a means of communication or expression: as (1) : a path along which information (as data or music) in the form of an electrical signal passes (2) plural : a fixed or official course of communication: went through established military channels with his grievances a way, course, or direction of thought or action: new channels of exploration The phrase social channel might work.","output":"Perhaps channel. The term has multiple meanings, several of which align with your concept. For example, Merriam-Webster offers, among others a means of communication or expression: as (1) : a path along which information (as data or music) in the form of an electrical signal passes (2) plural : a fixed or official course of communication: went through established military channels with his grievances a way, course, or direction of thought or action: new channels of exploration The phrase social channel might work."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMetadata is \"data about data\". Are there other words with similar meaning?","question":"Metadata is \"data about data\". Are there other words with similar meaning?","answer":"Metadata has no meaningful synonym in software development; it's the abstract term to refer to data that describe the context of another value. The words object, type, attribute, property, aspect, and schema all refer to metadata in some context. The elements of a web page, for example, are collectively referred to as the Document Object Model, or DOM for short. The DOM contains the order, type, reference name, display name, and value of each element in the page. Or, more generally, it's the metadata for a web page. So I'm thinking what you really want is a more specific term than metadata, rather than a synonym for it.","output":"Metadata has no meaningful synonym in software development; it's the abstract term to refer to data that describe the context of another value. The words object, type, attribute, property, aspect, and schema all refer to metadata in some context. The elements of a web page, for example, are collectively referred to as the Document Object Model, or DOM for short. The DOM contains the order, type, reference name, display name, and value of each element in the page. Or, more generally, it's the metadata for a web page. So I'm thinking what you really want is a more specific term than metadata, rather than a synonym for it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've heard it pronounced both ways: Sons-in-law and Son-in-laws While one may be more technically correct than the other, are they both equally acceptable based on popular usage?","question":"I've heard it pronounced both ways: Sons-in-law and Son-in-laws While one may be more technically correct than the other, are they both equally acceptable based on popular usage?","answer":"\"Sons-in-law\" is proper. Think of the hyphenated suffix \"-in-law\" as an adjective, which was its original purpose. It would be equivalent to \"partners in crime\".","output":"\"Sons-in-law\" is proper. Think of the hyphenated suffix \"-in-law\" as an adjective, which was its original purpose. It would be equivalent to \"partners in crime\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nExample: \"The helicopter will land in a minute or two .\" \"Why can't we see it, then? Do I need that comma before the then? Why and why not? I got both versions on Google: ...wouldn't they be in the way then? ...wouldn't they be dead, then?","question":"Example: \"The helicopter will land in a minute or two .\" \"Why can't we see it, then? Do I need that comma before the then? Why and why not? I got both versions on Google: ...wouldn't they be in the way then? ...wouldn't they be dead, then?","answer":"The comma can represent a syntactic pause and\/or a change of intonation that accompanies and corroborates a syntactic pause. A comma would make clear that \"then\" as used here is not temporal but conditional; temporal and conditional uses of then have different syntactic pauses and intonational contours. P.S. Its being at the end of the sentence is not the deciding factor. Consider: **I'm away Monday, but I'll be in town on Tuesday. Can I see the apartment then? [no pause before \"thenn\"] The answer on the rental form is incorrect. I have no pets. I can rent the apartment, then?** [pause and different intonation to mark the meaning \"in that case\"]","output":"The comma can represent a syntactic pause and\/or a change of intonation that accompanies and corroborates a syntactic pause. A comma would make clear that \"then\" as used here is not temporal but conditional; temporal and conditional uses of then have different syntactic pauses and intonational contours. P.S. Its being at the end of the sentence is not the deciding factor. Consider: **I'm away Monday, but I'll be in town on Tuesday. Can I see the apartment then? [no pause before \"thenn\"] The answer on the rental form is incorrect. I have no pets. I can rent the apartment, then?** [pause and different intonation to mark the meaning \"in that case\"]"}
{"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 came across this phrase reading E.M.Forster's Maurice, He(Clive Durham) had neither the blind faith in tutors and lec-tures that was held by Maurice and his set nor the contempt professed by Fetherstonhaugh. \"You can always learn something from an older man, even if he hasn't read the latest Germans.\" They argued a little about Sophocles, then in low water Durham said it was a pose in \"us undergraduates\" to ignore him and advised Fetherstonhaugh to reread the Ajax with his eye on the characters rather than the author; he would learn more that way, both about Greek grammar and life. According to Collins dictionary, \"low water\" means \"low tide; a situation of difficulty\". Methinks it doesn't really fit in this context. Does it have other meanings?","question":"I came across this phrase reading E.M.Forster's Maurice, He(Clive Durham) had neither the blind faith in tutors and lec-tures that was held by Maurice and his set nor the contempt professed by Fetherstonhaugh. \"You can always learn something from an older man, even if he hasn't read the latest Germans.\" They argued a little about Sophocles, then in low water Durham said it was a pose in \"us undergraduates\" to ignore him and advised Fetherstonhaugh to reread the Ajax with his eye on the characters rather than the author; he would learn more that way, both about Greek grammar and life. According to Collins dictionary, \"low water\" means \"low tide; a situation of difficulty\". Methinks it doesn't really fit in this context. Does it have other meanings?","answer":"They argued a little about Sophocles, then in low water. (Source, suggesting that the OP's transcription incorrectly ommited that final period.) It means that in those days their school's curriculum allocated less time to the plays of Sophocles than was customary at other times in the school's history. The implied metaphor is that curriculums follow fashions, which rise and ebb like the tides at a beach.","output":"They argued a little about Sophocles, then in low water. (Source, suggesting that the OP's transcription incorrectly ommited that final period.) It means that in those days their school's curriculum allocated less time to the plays of Sophocles than was customary at other times in the school's history. The implied metaphor is that curriculums follow fashions, which rise and ebb like the tides at a beach."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMartha loves exercising so she will walk everywhere she goes. Or is it........... Martha loves exercising so she walks everywhere she goes. I am terrible at grammar and I searched all over the net for help. I believe the answer is \"walks\". I just need to be sure.","question":"Martha loves exercising so she will walk everywhere she goes. Or is it........... Martha loves exercising so she walks everywhere she goes. I am terrible at grammar and I searched all over the net for help. I believe the answer is \"walks\". I just need to be sure.","answer":"Both are grammatical. Which one is correct depends on context, but 'walks' would be more common. E.g. Martha and Bill are both overweight and their doctor told them to lose weight. Bill hates to exercise and will rely on diet, but Martha love exercising so she will walk everywhere she goes. because this is about something Martha will do in the future.","output":"Both are grammatical. Which one is correct depends on context, but 'walks' would be more common. E.g. Martha and Bill are both overweight and their doctor told them to lose weight. Bill hates to exercise and will rely on diet, but Martha love exercising so she will walk everywhere she goes. because this is about something Martha will do in the future."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am a native English speaker who is living abroad and as such I get many questions about English that I find hard to answer having never studied English grammar. One of them is the following: Does anyone know If anyone knows Why does the verb \"to know\" change depending on whether the question starts with \"does\" or \"if\"?","question":"I am a native English speaker who is living abroad and as such I get many questions about English that I find hard to answer having never studied English grammar. One of them is the following: Does anyone know If anyone knows Why does the verb \"to know\" change depending on whether the question starts with \"does\" or \"if\"?","answer":"According to English grammar, if an auxiliary verb (\"to do\", in this case) is present, it is the only one that conjugates, while the main verb remains in the bare infinitive form. The sentence with \"if\" does not have an auxiliary verb, so in that case the verb \"know\" conjugates; while in the sentence with \"does\", \"know\" stays in the infinitive form. Consider: Anyone knows; if anyone knows; maybe anyone knows; Anyone does not know; Does anyone know?; Anyone does know; Although the form \"subject + does + verb\" is not popular, it is pretty grammatical. This form is principally used to emphasize a fact, particularly to contradict a previous assertion, with emphasis on \"does\": \"I don't think anyone knows.\" \"This can't be. Someone does know!\"*","output":"According to English grammar, if an auxiliary verb (\"to do\", in this case) is present, it is the only one that conjugates, while the main verb remains in the bare infinitive form. The sentence with \"if\" does not have an auxiliary verb, so in that case the verb \"know\" conjugates; while in the sentence with \"does\", \"know\" stays in the infinitive form. Consider: Anyone knows; if anyone knows; maybe anyone knows; Anyone does not know; Does anyone know?; Anyone does know; Although the form \"subject + does + verb\" is not popular, it is pretty grammatical. This form is principally used to emphasize a fact, particularly to contradict a previous assertion, with emphasis on \"does\": \"I don't think anyone knows.\" \"This can't be. Someone does know!\"*"}
{"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 association with my question about possibility of using Etch-a-Sketch as a verb, I found the expression \u201cturn a lemon into lemonade\u201d in the related article of Five Star. It says: Etch-a-Sketch had a dilemma as it faced one of three choices: Say and do nothing, and wait for the story to go away. Object to the use of the Etch-a-Sketch brand in such contexts, and publicly reinforce its core brand values. Seize an opportunity to turn a potential lemon into lemonade. Happily, the folks at Etch-a-Sketch chose the last option. As I was interested in the expression \u201cturn a lemon into lemonade,\u201d I googled, and found the following example of usage: \u201cHow to turn lemons into lemonade. Bob Chambers. Most of us are so busy building our business that we often forget some of the simple principles that will turn our business into a powerhouse.\u201d We have Japanese sayings \u707d\u3044\u3092\u8ee2\u3058\u3066\u798f\u3068\u306a\u3059 or \u5947\u8ca8\u3068\u3059\u308bmeaning \u201cturn disaster into fortunateness.\u201c But \u201cturn lemons into lemonade\u201d seems to imply to make an ordinary thing into a special or superior thing. Am I right? Is this a popular English phrase?","question":"In association with my question about possibility of using Etch-a-Sketch as a verb, I found the expression \u201cturn a lemon into lemonade\u201d in the related article of Five Star. It says: Etch-a-Sketch had a dilemma as it faced one of three choices: Say and do nothing, and wait for the story to go away. Object to the use of the Etch-a-Sketch brand in such contexts, and publicly reinforce its core brand values. Seize an opportunity to turn a potential lemon into lemonade. Happily, the folks at Etch-a-Sketch chose the last option. As I was interested in the expression \u201cturn a lemon into lemonade,\u201d I googled, and found the following example of usage: \u201cHow to turn lemons into lemonade. Bob Chambers. Most of us are so busy building our business that we often forget some of the simple principles that will turn our business into a powerhouse.\u201d We have Japanese sayings \u707d\u3044\u3092\u8ee2\u3058\u3066\u798f\u3068\u306a\u3059 or \u5947\u8ca8\u3068\u3059\u308bmeaning \u201cturn disaster into fortunateness.\u201c But \u201cturn lemons into lemonade\u201d seems to imply to make an ordinary thing into a special or superior thing. Am I right? Is this a popular English phrase?","answer":"This is a rather popular, commonly used phrase (in many different variations). No matter the exact wording, in general you want to keep in mind two things: Lemons are sour. Lemonade is sweet. To make lemonade out of lemons is to take something that is not so great and turn it into something good. A very common phrase is as follows: \"When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.\"","output":"This is a rather popular, commonly used phrase (in many different variations). No matter the exact wording, in general you want to keep in mind two things: Lemons are sour. Lemonade is sweet. To make lemonade out of lemons is to take something that is not so great and turn it into something good. A very common phrase is as follows: \"When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have seen following sentence: Text VOTE to 00000, Paid for by XXX for Presiedent, Inc. Why it is \"paid for by\" instead of \"paid by\" in this particular sentence? Could someone provide a complete, rephrased sentence for my understanding? Edits This question comes from the following source: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/Donaldtrump\/videos: Text VOTE to 88022, paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.","question":"I have seen following sentence: Text VOTE to 00000, Paid for by XXX for Presiedent, Inc. Why it is \"paid for by\" instead of \"paid by\" in this particular sentence? Could someone provide a complete, rephrased sentence for my understanding? Edits This question comes from the following source: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/Donaldtrump\/videos: Text VOTE to 88022, paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.","answer":"The \"object\" of transitive (prepositionless) to pay can be... 1 - an actual amount paid 2 - a bill\/demand for payment 3 - someone\/something to whom payment is made The reason for the payment (the thing being paid for) must be preceded by that preposition. But in OP's exact context, there's no reference to any of my 3 common object types for a transitive usage (without for), nor is there any explicit reference to \"this text-based voting system\" (which XXX paid for). Most native speakers would probably choose to include the extra preposition in paid for by XXX because if we have to \"conjure up\" a suitable object for the verb to pay here, it's easier to settle on \"this text-based voting system\"* (an example of which we're looking at), rather than \"the bill for producing this system\" (which doesn't directly concern us). Perhaps partly because it's followed by for President, Inc (a completely different preposition usage where for means on behalf of), I think it's at least \"acceptable\" in this exact context to omit for after paid. We have to infer the subject anyway, so we may as well infer \"the cost of this system\" rather than just \"this system\" if that avoids the slightly confusing\/awkward use of for in two different ways in close proximity. EDIT: What I've written above changes if there's an actual organisation called XXX for President - where those 3 words represent a proper noun that shouldn't be syntactically deconstructed here (it's just a \"label\"). In that case, I'd definitely keep the preceding instance of for. But even then, I think it would be unreasonable to say that discarding it was somehow \"syntactically invalid\".","output":"The \"object\" of transitive (prepositionless) to pay can be... 1 - an actual amount paid 2 - a bill\/demand for payment 3 - someone\/something to whom payment is made The reason for the payment (the thing being paid for) must be preceded by that preposition. But in OP's exact context, there's no reference to any of my 3 common object types for a transitive usage (without for), nor is there any explicit reference to \"this text-based voting system\" (which XXX paid for). Most native speakers would probably choose to include the extra preposition in paid for by XXX because if we have to \"conjure up\" a suitable object for the verb to pay here, it's easier to settle on \"this text-based voting system\"* (an example of which we're looking at), rather than \"the bill for producing this system\" (which doesn't directly concern us). Perhaps partly because it's followed by for President, Inc (a completely different preposition usage where for means on behalf of), I think it's at least \"acceptable\" in this exact context to omit for after paid. We have to infer the subject anyway, so we may as well infer \"the cost of this system\" rather than just \"this system\" if that avoids the slightly confusing\/awkward use of for in two different ways in close proximity. EDIT: What I've written above changes if there's an actual organisation called XXX for President - where those 3 words represent a proper noun that shouldn't be syntactically deconstructed here (it's just a \"label\"). In that case, I'd definitely keep the preceding instance of for. But even then, I think it would be unreasonable to say that discarding it was somehow \"syntactically invalid\"."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"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\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThere was one question in my English exam that made confused me. Instruction: Rewrite this sentence in another way so that it means almost the same as the first one Tom is the best tennis player in the club. \u2192 No one else in the club can ... I wrote: No one else in the club can play tennis better than Tom. But my teacher didn't agree and said my sentence was wrong. She corrected: No one else in the club can play tennis as well as Tom. Is there any difference between my sentence and my teacher's?","question":"There was one question in my English exam that made confused me. Instruction: Rewrite this sentence in another way so that it means almost the same as the first one Tom is the best tennis player in the club. \u2192 No one else in the club can ... I wrote: No one else in the club can play tennis better than Tom. But my teacher didn't agree and said my sentence was wrong. She corrected: No one else in the club can play tennis as well as Tom. Is there any difference between my sentence and my teacher's?","answer":"Your answer No one else in the club can play tennis better than Tom would be true if there was one or more people who could play exactly as well as Tom. Your teacher's answer No one else in the club can play tennis as well as Tom. implies nobody can play as well as him so rules out anybody playing exactly as well as him. If one wanted to be really pedantic here it does not rule out people playing better that him it only rules out exact equality. Since the original sentence said he was the best, not one of the best, she is technically correct. Having said all that I suspect that most native speakers reading your version would understand it to mean what you thought. Indeed it is hard to see how two players could be exactly equal on such a task.","output":"Your answer No one else in the club can play tennis better than Tom would be true if there was one or more people who could play exactly as well as Tom. Your teacher's answer No one else in the club can play tennis as well as Tom. implies nobody can play as well as him so rules out anybody playing exactly as well as him. If one wanted to be really pedantic here it does not rule out people playing better that him it only rules out exact equality. Since the original sentence said he was the best, not one of the best, she is technically correct. Having said all that I suspect that most native speakers reading your version would understand it to mean what you thought. Indeed it is hard to see how two players could be exactly equal on such a task."}
{"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":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"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":"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":"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"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\nI'm a computer programmer and have been using ie. and eg. for years in internal reports, emails, comments in the code, etc. Where a spell-checker is hovering in the background I have just ignored its' suggestion for these abbreviations assuming it wasn't important. But I'm busy writing my MSc (in a technical subject, Computer Science, not in English language!) and want this to be correct. Does it make a difference or does it have to be i.e. and e.g.?","question":"I'm a computer programmer and have been using ie. and eg. for years in internal reports, emails, comments in the code, etc. Where a spell-checker is hovering in the background I have just ignored its' suggestion for these abbreviations assuming it wasn't important. But I'm busy writing my MSc (in a technical subject, Computer Science, not in English language!) and want this to be correct. Does it make a difference or does it have to be i.e. and e.g.?","answer":"The rule is either use the full points or don't - but do it consistently. So either 'e.g.' or 'eg', but not 'eg.' Most of the (British) English sources that I edit prefer the 'no full points' option for eg and ie, as shown on pg 49 of the Oxford University Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities (4th edn), but different publishing houses have different House Styles. Cambridge University Press seems to prefer them to be with full points (in that its style guide has them set out that way throughout). So, either use them or don't use them - but don't mix up the two styles. And if you're writing your MSc, find out which style your university prefers, and follow that.","output":"The rule is either use the full points or don't - but do it consistently. So either 'e.g.' or 'eg', but not 'eg.' Most of the (British) English sources that I edit prefer the 'no full points' option for eg and ie, as shown on pg 49 of the Oxford University Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities (4th edn), but different publishing houses have different House Styles. Cambridge University Press seems to prefer them to be with full points (in that its style guide has them set out that way throughout). So, either use them or don't use them - but don't mix up the two styles. And if you're writing your MSc, find out which style your university prefers, and follow that."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the standard US pronunciation for words such as the following: Bank Rank At least in my dialect of US English (Inland Northern), the following seem like close transcriptions: Bank: bay-nk \/beingk\/ Rank: ray-nk \/reingk\/ However, in dictionaries that I am referencing (Japanese dictionaries of English), the vowel is given as \/ae\/, as in the following: Bat: \/baet\/ Rat: \/raet\/","question":"What is the standard US pronunciation for words such as the following: Bank Rank At least in my dialect of US English (Inland Northern), the following seem like close transcriptions: Bank: bay-nk \/beingk\/ Rank: ray-nk \/reingk\/ However, in dictionaries that I am referencing (Japanese dictionaries of English), the vowel is given as \/ae\/, as in the following: Bat: \/baet\/ Rat: \/raet\/","answer":"All of the above answers are confusing phonemic with phonetic transcriptions. Transcriptions like \/b\u00e6\u014bk\/ are broad phonemic representations. A transcription like [b\u025b\u026a\u014bk] (which is pretty standard for the US and about how I actually say it) is a narrow phonetic transcription (notice the brackets, not slashes). The Japanese dictionary of English is using a broad representation for two reasons: Primarily, to avoid specifying excessive detail that is likely to confuse a learner -- they need to learn the phonemes first, and the allophonic rules later To avoid having to commit to one particular dialect Basically, before \/\u014b\/, Americans diphthongize and often raise front vowels. The words \"kit\" and \"king\" are broadly \/k\u026at\/ and \/k\u026a\u014b\/, but narrowly something like [k\u02b0\u026a\u031e\u0294t] and [k\u02b0\u026ai\u014b]. In terms of just the vowels, the vowel in \"kit\" (and nearly everywhere else that \"short i\" occurs) is significantly lower than the cardinal IPA \/\u026a\/ sound. The vowel in \"king\" is a diphthong that begins higher than the vowel in \"kit\" and moves higher still. BTW, the \"Inland Northern\" dialect is nowhere near Montana. It stretches along the major Rust Belt cities from approximately the Chicago metro area to the Rochester, NY metro area, covering areas that border Lake Michigan, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, as well as most of the state of Michigan.","output":"All of the above answers are confusing phonemic with phonetic transcriptions. Transcriptions like \/b\u00e6\u014bk\/ are broad phonemic representations. A transcription like [b\u025b\u026a\u014bk] (which is pretty standard for the US and about how I actually say it) is a narrow phonetic transcription (notice the brackets, not slashes). The Japanese dictionary of English is using a broad representation for two reasons: Primarily, to avoid specifying excessive detail that is likely to confuse a learner -- they need to learn the phonemes first, and the allophonic rules later To avoid having to commit to one particular dialect Basically, before \/\u014b\/, Americans diphthongize and often raise front vowels. The words \"kit\" and \"king\" are broadly \/k\u026at\/ and \/k\u026a\u014b\/, but narrowly something like [k\u02b0\u026a\u031e\u0294t] and [k\u02b0\u026ai\u014b]. In terms of just the vowels, the vowel in \"kit\" (and nearly everywhere else that \"short i\" occurs) is significantly lower than the cardinal IPA \/\u026a\/ sound. The vowel in \"king\" is a diphthong that begins higher than the vowel in \"kit\" and moves higher still. BTW, the \"Inland Northern\" dialect is nowhere near Montana. It stretches along the major Rust Belt cities from approximately the Chicago metro area to the Rochester, NY metro area, covering areas that border Lake Michigan, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, as well as most of the state of Michigan."}
{"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\nUpon answering the telephone, the person calling asks if Joan is available. If Joan is the person who answered the phone, should she say \"This is her\" or \"This is she\"?","question":"Upon answering the telephone, the person calling asks if Joan is available. If Joan is the person who answered the phone, should she say \"This is her\" or \"This is she\"?","answer":"Traditional grammarians prefer the nominative (\"she\") for the complement of the verb \"to be\". Most usage in my experience prefers the accusative (\"her\") and regards the verb as having a direct object rather than a complement. I suspect the traditional grammarians, as they often did, have misapplied a rule of Latin grammar. In Latin, \"esse\" takes a complement in the nominative case, but Latin declines the verb strongly enough that it doesn't bother with a pronoun as the subject of a verb unless needed for emphasis. \"It is she\" in Latin would be \"illa id est\", which looks far more natural than the English. Note that it's \"c'est lui\" in French, so there isn't a general rule for a complement of \"to be\" being in the nominative. Explanation: A normal (transitive) verb, like say \"have\" has a direct object, which is in the accusative case. So, for example, \"I have her\" uses \"her\" as a direct object, and \"her\" is in the accusative case, where \"she\" is in the nominative case. In Latin, the verb \"esse\" (\"to be\") is special; it doesn't have a direct object in the accusative case, it has a complement in the nominative case. English grammarians in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries adopted a number of rules of Latin grammar into English; this was one of them. In Latin, \"it is she\" and \"she is it\" are both the same thing \"id illa est\" or \"illa id est\" can both be translated either way - the point being that the \"is\" (\"est\") just equates to things to each other - it's like in maths you can have x=y or y=x and they both mean the same thing. English, though, takes word-order very seriously, and a pronoun after a verb is very strongly marked as being in the objective case and you don't get the benefit that you get in Latin from the exception - there's still one before the verb and one after; you don't get to make clear that it's commutative. So you have a special-case for a verb, which you get no useful benefit from. It's hardly surprising that most English speakers have reverted to \"it is her\" rather than \"it is she\". A note on cases: Latin is conventionally described as having seven cases (though only five are actually different for most nouns and pronouns). It has two cases, accusative and dative for the objects of verbs. English's residual case system only has the one case for both, which merge into the objective case (in fact, a third Latin case, ablative, merges in too). That's why the two paragraphs above appear to use two different words for the same case.","output":"Traditional grammarians prefer the nominative (\"she\") for the complement of the verb \"to be\". Most usage in my experience prefers the accusative (\"her\") and regards the verb as having a direct object rather than a complement. I suspect the traditional grammarians, as they often did, have misapplied a rule of Latin grammar. In Latin, \"esse\" takes a complement in the nominative case, but Latin declines the verb strongly enough that it doesn't bother with a pronoun as the subject of a verb unless needed for emphasis. \"It is she\" in Latin would be \"illa id est\", which looks far more natural than the English. Note that it's \"c'est lui\" in French, so there isn't a general rule for a complement of \"to be\" being in the nominative. Explanation: A normal (transitive) verb, like say \"have\" has a direct object, which is in the accusative case. So, for example, \"I have her\" uses \"her\" as a direct object, and \"her\" is in the accusative case, where \"she\" is in the nominative case. In Latin, the verb \"esse\" (\"to be\") is special; it doesn't have a direct object in the accusative case, it has a complement in the nominative case. English grammarians in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries adopted a number of rules of Latin grammar into English; this was one of them. In Latin, \"it is she\" and \"she is it\" are both the same thing \"id illa est\" or \"illa id est\" can both be translated either way - the point being that the \"is\" (\"est\") just equates to things to each other - it's like in maths you can have x=y or y=x and they both mean the same thing. English, though, takes word-order very seriously, and a pronoun after a verb is very strongly marked as being in the objective case and you don't get the benefit that you get in Latin from the exception - there's still one before the verb and one after; you don't get to make clear that it's commutative. So you have a special-case for a verb, which you get no useful benefit from. It's hardly surprising that most English speakers have reverted to \"it is her\" rather than \"it is she\". A note on cases: Latin is conventionally described as having seven cases (though only five are actually different for most nouns and pronouns). It has two cases, accusative and dative for the objects of verbs. English's residual case system only has the one case for both, which merge into the objective case (in fact, a third Latin case, ablative, merges in too). That's why the two paragraphs above appear to use two different words for the same case."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nQ: \"Do you have any juice?\" A: \"Yes, there's some in the fridge.\" Sounds perfectly fine to me, but: Q: \"Do you have any towels?\" A: \"Yes, there's some in the closet.\" Does not. I asked for towels - plural - so wouldn't \"Yes, there're some in the closet,\" in which there are is turned into a contraction be the correct way to say it? Spellcheck, however, doesn't like \"there're\", and I think I'm the only person I've ever heard use the word \"there're\". Even folks who I know say \"there are\" shorten it to \"there's\" when possible. Am I saying it wrong, or are both forms acceptable?","question":"Q: \"Do you have any juice?\" A: \"Yes, there's some in the fridge.\" Sounds perfectly fine to me, but: Q: \"Do you have any towels?\" A: \"Yes, there's some in the closet.\" Does not. I asked for towels - plural - so wouldn't \"Yes, there're some in the closet,\" in which there are is turned into a contraction be the correct way to say it? Spellcheck, however, doesn't like \"there're\", and I think I'm the only person I've ever heard use the word \"there're\". Even folks who I know say \"there are\" shorten it to \"there's\" when possible. Am I saying it wrong, or are both forms acceptable?","answer":"There're is common in speech, at least in certain dialects, but you'll rarely see it written. If I were being pedantic, I'd advise you to use there are in your example, because there is is definitely wrong, so there's could be considered wrong as well. But a huge number of English speakers, even those that are well-educated, use there's universally, regardless of the number of the noun in question, so you will probably not receive any odd looks for saying or writing there's, and if you do, just cite the fact that it can't be incorrect if a majority of people use it. As for me (a native New Englander), I use both, but may use there's in place of there're if I'm speaking quickly.","output":"There're is common in speech, at least in certain dialects, but you'll rarely see it written. If I were being pedantic, I'd advise you to use there are in your example, because there is is definitely wrong, so there's could be considered wrong as well. But a huge number of English speakers, even those that are well-educated, use there's universally, regardless of the number of the noun in question, so you will probably not receive any odd looks for saying or writing there's, and if you do, just cite the fact that it can't be incorrect if a majority of people use it. As for me (a native New Englander), I use both, but may use there's in place of there're if I'm speaking quickly."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs there a prefix or adjective that means \"one and a half\", as \"tri-\" or \"triple\" is for \"three\"? The exact usage I have is to describe \"18\" in terms of a dozen. Where I live they've started making 18-egg cartons, and the local grocer was wondering what name to give them in his computerised cash register, hoping for a single word. Even slang, informal or invented term would do if there isn't such a term already.","question":"Is there a prefix or adjective that means \"one and a half\", as \"tri-\" or \"triple\" is for \"three\"? The exact usage I have is to describe \"18\" in terms of a dozen. Where I live they've started making 18-egg cartons, and the local grocer was wondering what name to give them in his computerised cash register, hoping for a single word. Even slang, informal or invented term would do if there isn't such a term already.","answer":"Sesqui-. However, it certainly isn't informal, and is also pretty obscure. About the only use of it is sesquicentennial and sesquipedalian which is at a few removes (it literally means 18inches long but it's originally figurative meaning of using long words is the only English meaning). It certainly wouldn't go with dozen; one would just say \"one and a half dozen\", \"dozen and a half\" or \"eighteen\". Edit: If you really want a word meaning 18 of something, you've got octodecuple, which has been used in mathematics at least as far back as 1816 and probably earlier. But really, don't; unless you're talking about properties of mathematical tuples where octodecuples are interesting in some particular way, it would just be horrible.","output":"Sesqui-. However, it certainly isn't informal, and is also pretty obscure. About the only use of it is sesquicentennial and sesquipedalian which is at a few removes (it literally means 18inches long but it's originally figurative meaning of using long words is the only English meaning). It certainly wouldn't go with dozen; one would just say \"one and a half dozen\", \"dozen and a half\" or \"eighteen\". Edit: If you really want a word meaning 18 of something, you've got octodecuple, which has been used in mathematics at least as far back as 1816 and probably earlier. But really, don't; unless you're talking about properties of mathematical tuples where octodecuples are interesting in some particular way, it would just be horrible."}
{"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":"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nTo put it more specifically: is inaudible reserved for when you can't hear anything, or does it also apply when you can't hear enough? is there a more specific word than unintelligible to mean 'acoustically unintelligible'?","question":"To put it more specifically: is inaudible reserved for when you can't hear anything, or does it also apply when you can't hear enough? is there a more specific word than unintelligible to mean 'acoustically unintelligible'?","answer":"Inaudible is used in typed transcripts of taped police interviews where I come from, and covers both cases: it means that the words spoken cannot be heard clearly.","output":"Inaudible is used in typed transcripts of taped police interviews where I come from, and covers both cases: it means that the words spoken cannot be heard clearly."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"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 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\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat does \"drink the pain away\" or \"drinking my pain away\" mean? I've heard it in a song by Nicky Jam & Enrique Iglesias named Forgiveness. Here is the related part of the original lyrics: I'm missing you baby Up all night goin' crazy Now my angel can't save me Oh no!!! I'm missing you baby Up all night goin' crazy Drinking my pain away-ehh-hey","question":"What does \"drink the pain away\" or \"drinking my pain away\" mean? I've heard it in a song by Nicky Jam & Enrique Iglesias named Forgiveness. Here is the related part of the original lyrics: I'm missing you baby Up all night goin' crazy Now my angel can't save me Oh no!!! I'm missing you baby Up all night goin' crazy Drinking my pain away-ehh-hey","answer":"\"Drinking\", without an object, is usually taken as referring to alcohol. So \"drinking the pain away\" means drinking so much alcohol that the pain goes away somehow - by being forgotten, being surpassed by some other drunken activity, or some other method of numbing the pain.","output":"\"Drinking\", without an object, is usually taken as referring to alcohol. So \"drinking the pain away\" means drinking so much alcohol that the pain goes away somehow - by being forgotten, being surpassed by some other drunken activity, or some other method of numbing the pain."}
{"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":"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 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\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThis happens specifically often in the technology press: There's no point trying to ascribe motives to what Redmond [instead of \"Microsoft\"] does. We'll see shortly if Cupertino [instead of \"Apple\"] thinks likewise ... I'm certain its use is much wider though I can't think of many examples right now. Using \"Detroit\" as another name for the US auto industry is slightly wider: Who says that Detroit does not sell cars Americans want to drive? Anyway, I have a suspicion there is a name for this so what is it?","question":"This happens specifically often in the technology press: There's no point trying to ascribe motives to what Redmond [instead of \"Microsoft\"] does. We'll see shortly if Cupertino [instead of \"Apple\"] thinks likewise ... I'm certain its use is much wider though I can't think of many examples right now. Using \"Detroit\" as another name for the US auto industry is slightly wider: Who says that Detroit does not sell cars Americans want to drive? Anyway, I have a suspicion there is a name for this so what is it?","answer":"You may be looking for metonymy. If you're looking for other examples, governments are often referred to like this\u2014at least, Westminster for the UK parliament, and Washington for the US government. (In fact, looking up Westminster on Wikipedia was how I found metonym.)","output":"You may be looking for metonymy. If you're looking for other examples, governments are often referred to like this\u2014at least, Westminster for the UK parliament, and Washington for the US government. (In fact, looking up Westminster on Wikipedia was how I found metonym.)"}
{"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\nOn the books means \"part of the law\". These changes would add little to the civil rights laws now on the books. I know the meaning of this idiom, and idioms are used as they are, but idioms often have stories behind. Why is it not \"in the books\"? Could it be that in the old days people used slates of rocks to write on?","question":"On the books means \"part of the law\". These changes would add little to the civil rights laws now on the books. I know the meaning of this idiom, and idioms are used as they are, but idioms often have stories behind. Why is it not \"in the books\"? Could it be that in the old days people used slates of rocks to write on?","answer":"My guess is that this is like \"on the list\" vs \"in the list\". You generally append new entries to an account book or ledger (more generally, you edit it). It is not like a book that is written once and for all. The same is true of laws and law books (believe it or not). When things are added to a list, they are typically put on it (at the end), not in it. This is the same kind of action associated with a log book, an account book, etc. In many respects they are lists. Even when, as for a law book, you can add entries in the middle or modify existing entries, the general action is updating something that is on the list. IOW, I think it is the list nature that dominates for this kind of \"book\". And for on the books you are indeed checking whether something is listed, i.e., is on the list that is the book. [Of course, a queue is appended to similarly. Yet some people (like me) say wait in line and get in line instead of wait on line and get on line.]","output":"My guess is that this is like \"on the list\" vs \"in the list\". You generally append new entries to an account book or ledger (more generally, you edit it). It is not like a book that is written once and for all. The same is true of laws and law books (believe it or not). When things are added to a list, they are typically put on it (at the end), not in it. This is the same kind of action associated with a log book, an account book, etc. In many respects they are lists. Even when, as for a law book, you can add entries in the middle or modify existing entries, the general action is updating something that is on the list. IOW, I think it is the list nature that dominates for this kind of \"book\". And for on the books you are indeed checking whether something is listed, i.e., is on the list that is the book. [Of course, a queue is appended to similarly. Yet some people (like me) say wait in line and get in line instead of wait on line and get on line.]"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMy father is police officer. For example, when editing my student's writing (which is handwritten), this is what I do: a My father is Y police officer. If anyone happens to know how to do this in a word processing software, I'd be even more grateful. Thanks in advance","question":"My father is police officer. For example, when editing my student's writing (which is handwritten), this is what I do: a My father is Y police officer. If anyone happens to know how to do this in a word processing software, I'd be even more grateful. Thanks in advance","answer":"It's an inverted caret. The caret was originally and continues to be used in handwritten form as a proofreading mark to indicate where a punctuation mark, word, or phrase should be inserted into a document. The term comes from the Latin caret, \"it lacks\", from car\u0113re, \"to lack; to be separated from; to be free from\". The caret symbol is written below the line of text for a line-level punctuation mark, such as a comma, or above the line as an inverted caret (cf. U+02C7 \u02c7 CARON) for a higher character, such as an apostrophe; the material to be inserted may be placed inside the caret, in the margin, or above the line. - Wikipedia If you're using a word processor, it might be easier to insert a comment with the correction, rather than a traditional proofreader mark.","output":"It's an inverted caret. The caret was originally and continues to be used in handwritten form as a proofreading mark to indicate where a punctuation mark, word, or phrase should be inserted into a document. The term comes from the Latin caret, \"it lacks\", from car\u0113re, \"to lack; to be separated from; to be free from\". The caret symbol is written below the line of text for a line-level punctuation mark, such as a comma, or above the line as an inverted caret (cf. U+02C7 \u02c7 CARON) for a higher character, such as an apostrophe; the material to be inserted may be placed inside the caret, in the margin, or above the line. - Wikipedia If you're using a word processor, it might be easier to insert a comment with the correction, rather than a traditional proofreader mark."}
{"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\nIs there is a phrase for when you're very close to achieving something you've been working on? When the detective gets that final clue, but hasn't quite solved the mystery yet. When you've done 90% of the work and rest is easily achievable. I keep thinking it's something like \"you can taste it\", or \"the home straight\" but that doesn't quite sound right","question":"Is there is a phrase for when you're very close to achieving something you've been working on? When the detective gets that final clue, but hasn't quite solved the mystery yet. When you've done 90% of the work and rest is easily achievable. I keep thinking it's something like \"you can taste it\", or \"the home straight\" but that doesn't quite sound right","answer":"You could say on the verge a limit beyond which something occurs; brink \u21d2 on the verge of ecstasy [Collins] Alternatives are threshold: the starting point of an experience, event, or venture [Collins] and brink: the verge of an event or state [Collins] A phrase along the lines you mentioned is home stretch The last part of an activity or campaign [Oxford Dictionary Online]","output":"You could say on the verge a limit beyond which something occurs; brink \u21d2 on the verge of ecstasy [Collins] Alternatives are threshold: the starting point of an experience, event, or venture [Collins] and brink: the verge of an event or state [Collins] A phrase along the lines you mentioned is home stretch The last part of an activity or campaign [Oxford Dictionary Online]"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe plants have shut down for lack of funds. Why can we not say: The plants have shut down for shortage of funds. I can not tell the difference.","question":"The plants have shut down for lack of funds. Why can we not say: The plants have shut down for shortage of funds. I can not tell the difference.","answer":"The difference is not large, but \"lack of\" would suggest that there are no funds at all (or none left) while \"shortage of\" suggests that there are some funds but not enough.","output":"The difference is not large, but \"lack of\" would suggest that there are no funds at all (or none left) while \"shortage of\" suggests that there are some funds but not enough."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCan you help me about the exact meaning of the words in bold? In an emotional meeting with some hundred remaining deputies on February 3, deputies reaffirmed their loyalty to the tittering order. Note: Deputies were expressing their loyalties to a regime which was collapsed 8 days later. But, the meaning of \"tittering order\" is ambiguous for me. Titter is nervous laugh but its meaning in this sentence is unclear. I guess it means \"ridiculous order\" but I am not sure.","question":"Can you help me about the exact meaning of the words in bold? In an emotional meeting with some hundred remaining deputies on February 3, deputies reaffirmed their loyalty to the tittering order. Note: Deputies were expressing their loyalties to a regime which was collapsed 8 days later. But, the meaning of \"tittering order\" is ambiguous for me. Titter is nervous laugh but its meaning in this sentence is unclear. I guess it means \"ridiculous order\" but I am not sure.","answer":"Given the context of a regime on the verge of collapse, it looks very much like a typo. I strongly suspect the intended wording was \"their loyalty to the teetering order.\" From Merriam-Webster's definition of teeter: 1 a : to move unsteadily : WOBBLE 1 b : WAVER, VACILLATE \/\/ teetered on the brink of bankruptcy 2 : SEESAW","output":"Given the context of a regime on the verge of collapse, it looks very much like a typo. I strongly suspect the intended wording was \"their loyalty to the teetering order.\" From Merriam-Webster's definition of teeter: 1 a : to move unsteadily : WOBBLE 1 b : WAVER, VACILLATE \/\/ teetered on the brink of bankruptcy 2 : SEESAW"}
{"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\nScarcely is usually combined with When but in the following line why does not it happens so? Scarcely had the small streamer bearing Mustafa Kamal entered the Black Sea than the authorities of Istanbul became suspicious of his intentions and issued orders for the ship to be intercepted.","question":"Scarcely is usually combined with When but in the following line why does not it happens so? Scarcely had the small streamer bearing Mustafa Kamal entered the Black Sea than the authorities of Istanbul became suspicious of his intentions and issued orders for the ship to be intercepted.","answer":"It's a good example of inversion and I want to answer this question because it made me brush up on my knowledge. Generally speaking, \"than\" can be either a preposition or a conjunction. However, the former is more familiar to the learners, me included. Regarding your sentence, it's one of typical usage of \"than\" as a conjunction. In such cases, than is used to convey that something happens straight after the other one. \"scarcely was the work completed than it was abandoned.\"","output":"It's a good example of inversion and I want to answer this question because it made me brush up on my knowledge. Generally speaking, \"than\" can be either a preposition or a conjunction. However, the former is more familiar to the learners, me included. Regarding your sentence, it's one of typical usage of \"than\" as a conjunction. In such cases, than is used to convey that something happens straight after the other one. \"scarcely was the work completed than it was abandoned.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe term 'sausage fest' is quite often used when you talk about a group of which most (or all) members are male. What would be the term for a female dominated group of people? I have looked online, but most answer seem quite silly. Even though sausage fest isn't a very professional term either, it does seem more likely to be used in a casual conversation then clam jam or taco party.","question":"The term 'sausage fest' is quite often used when you talk about a group of which most (or all) members are male. What would be the term for a female dominated group of people? I have looked online, but most answer seem quite silly. Even though sausage fest isn't a very professional term either, it does seem more likely to be used in a casual conversation then clam jam or taco party.","answer":"Clam fest (qv https:\/\/www.urbandictionary.com\/define.php?term=Clamfest) would be the most direct conceptual equivalent here, so would make sense even to those only familiar with the former term. Examples found online: their half of the island was a sausage party, while my half of the island was a complete clam fest, Are most of this shows fans female? 28 y\/o male here, and it seems Like it's a total clam fest, this fandom. If I had known the [RPG] party would be a total clam fest I would have played a guy. Not sure what sort of board gaming places you're going to, but my board game nights are a total clam-fest. At the very least we're a 50\/50 split We jokingly said she'd have to play a guy because our party was becoming a real clam-fest (we're up to 6 girls 1 guy). My god the local game story is such a clam fest, as soon as guy walks in he gets swarmed by loud obnoxious gamer chicks. Based on the quotes I found, however, this seems like it might be nerd-slang, used in gamer circles more than anything else. I only found one use not related to gaming: Las Vegas Pool Party Girls: thats like a total clam fest ..that's what'im talking about ... and even that could have been posted by a gamer. Unfortunately, we don't get much from checking the Google ngrams for \"melon fest\" (none found), \"clam fest\" (none found), \"sausage fest\" (started being used in late 90s), and \"clam bake\" (overwhelmingly popular for about 200 years, but impossible to tell whether any of these uses were referring to anything other than food). https:\/\/books.google.com\/ngrams\/graph?content=sausage+fest%2C+clam+fest%2C+clam+bake%2C+melon+fest&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csausage%20fest%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cclam%20bake%3B%2Cc0","output":"Clam fest (qv https:\/\/www.urbandictionary.com\/define.php?term=Clamfest) would be the most direct conceptual equivalent here, so would make sense even to those only familiar with the former term. Examples found online: their half of the island was a sausage party, while my half of the island was a complete clam fest, Are most of this shows fans female? 28 y\/o male here, and it seems Like it's a total clam fest, this fandom. If I had known the [RPG] party would be a total clam fest I would have played a guy. Not sure what sort of board gaming places you're going to, but my board game nights are a total clam-fest. At the very least we're a 50\/50 split We jokingly said she'd have to play a guy because our party was becoming a real clam-fest (we're up to 6 girls 1 guy). My god the local game story is such a clam fest, as soon as guy walks in he gets swarmed by loud obnoxious gamer chicks. Based on the quotes I found, however, this seems like it might be nerd-slang, used in gamer circles more than anything else. I only found one use not related to gaming: Las Vegas Pool Party Girls: thats like a total clam fest ..that's what'im talking about ... and even that could have been posted by a gamer. Unfortunately, we don't get much from checking the Google ngrams for \"melon fest\" (none found), \"clam fest\" (none found), \"sausage fest\" (started being used in late 90s), and \"clam bake\" (overwhelmingly popular for about 200 years, but impossible to tell whether any of these uses were referring to anything other than food). https:\/\/books.google.com\/ngrams\/graph?content=sausage+fest%2C+clam+fest%2C+clam+bake%2C+melon+fest&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csausage%20fest%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cclam%20bake%3B%2Cc0"}
{"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\nYet another question about yet, It's really confusing! Please help me parse this phrase: Be honest yet witty At school, we used to use yet in the past perfect[if I remember] Like when we say : he didn't came yet But I found numerous of uses of yet like in headlines: Yet another mathematical problem. And so on,so how to use \"yet\"?","question":"Yet another question about yet, It's really confusing! Please help me parse this phrase: Be honest yet witty At school, we used to use yet in the past perfect[if I remember] Like when we say : he didn't came yet But I found numerous of uses of yet like in headlines: Yet another mathematical problem. And so on,so how to use \"yet\"?","answer":"With a little research you would have come across this site. That site gives some great examples on how to use yet in a sentence. Such as: 1 - up till now\/up till this time: has he come yet? I haven't seen him yet; I have nothing to say as yet. 2 - in spite of everything: he's not among the leaders but he could win yet. 3 - even: yet more people; he ate yet another cake. It can also be a conjunction meaning still\/but: she hasn't got many friends, yet everyone likes her. To paraphrase your first sentence, it would be: Be honest but nevertheless witty. Yet another mathematical problem. This sentence uses yet, meaning: In addition, again.","output":"With a little research you would have come across this site. That site gives some great examples on how to use yet in a sentence. Such as: 1 - up till now\/up till this time: has he come yet? I haven't seen him yet; I have nothing to say as yet. 2 - in spite of everything: he's not among the leaders but he could win yet. 3 - even: yet more people; he ate yet another cake. It can also be a conjunction meaning still\/but: she hasn't got many friends, yet everyone likes her. To paraphrase your first sentence, it would be: Be honest but nevertheless witty. Yet another mathematical problem. This sentence uses yet, meaning: In addition, again."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAll definitions via The Free Dictionary perdure means To last permanently; endure endure is To continue in existence; last persist means To be obstinately repetitious, insistent, or tenacious. To hold firmly and steadfastly to a purpose, state, or undertaking despite obstacles, warnings, or setbacks. To continue in existence; last UPDATE It appears the answers and comments have explained the difference between persist and perdure To persist is to remain wholly over time. To perdure is to remain over time despite changes. Objects persist and events perdure. @Philosopher but the difference between \u201cperdure\u201d and \u201cendure\u201d remains obscure. It seems as though both terms are extremely similar in meaning. Is the difference technical? Could someone please explain the difference in meaning and in usage between perdure and endure?","question":"All definitions via The Free Dictionary perdure means To last permanently; endure endure is To continue in existence; last persist means To be obstinately repetitious, insistent, or tenacious. To hold firmly and steadfastly to a purpose, state, or undertaking despite obstacles, warnings, or setbacks. To continue in existence; last UPDATE It appears the answers and comments have explained the difference between persist and perdure To persist is to remain wholly over time. To perdure is to remain over time despite changes. Objects persist and events perdure. @Philosopher but the difference between \u201cperdure\u201d and \u201cendure\u201d remains obscure. It seems as though both terms are extremely similar in meaning. Is the difference technical? Could someone please explain the difference in meaning and in usage between perdure and endure?","answer":"The odd one out, and by far the rarest of the three, perdure has more \u201cthroughness\u201d to it, implying that something has not just endured, but in fact persisted through or despite something else. It has more of a survival connotation than the others. Selected OED citations: 1854 Hickok Mental Philos. 76 \u2015 The mind perdures while its energizing may construct a thousand lines. 1973 Boil\u00e8s & Horcasitas tr. M. Le\u00f3n-Portilla\u2019s Time & Reality in Thought of Maya ii. 33 \u2015 For longer than a millennium and a half, not a little of Maya symbolism has perdured. 1979 Nature 22 Mar. 348\/1 \u2015 Thus enough maternal gene products (mRNAs or proteins) may perdure in embryonic cells to allow normal segmentation and cuticular differentiation. And for the resulting perduring: 1890 J. Skinner Dissert. Metaphysics 109 \u2015 The Soul is revealed intuitively as a perduring living agent or entity. 1977 D\u00e6dalus Summer 63 \u2015 The assignment and reassignment of meaning must be investigated as processes in the domain of resilience possessed by each population recognizing itself to be culturally perduring.","output":"The odd one out, and by far the rarest of the three, perdure has more \u201cthroughness\u201d to it, implying that something has not just endured, but in fact persisted through or despite something else. It has more of a survival connotation than the others. Selected OED citations: 1854 Hickok Mental Philos. 76 \u2015 The mind perdures while its energizing may construct a thousand lines. 1973 Boil\u00e8s & Horcasitas tr. M. Le\u00f3n-Portilla\u2019s Time & Reality in Thought of Maya ii. 33 \u2015 For longer than a millennium and a half, not a little of Maya symbolism has perdured. 1979 Nature 22 Mar. 348\/1 \u2015 Thus enough maternal gene products (mRNAs or proteins) may perdure in embryonic cells to allow normal segmentation and cuticular differentiation. And for the resulting perduring: 1890 J. Skinner Dissert. Metaphysics 109 \u2015 The Soul is revealed intuitively as a perduring living agent or entity. 1977 D\u00e6dalus Summer 63 \u2015 The assignment and reassignment of meaning must be investigated as processes in the domain of resilience possessed by each population recognizing itself to be culturally perduring."}
{"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\nQuite paradoxically, I came across this usage in a blog on How to improve your writing skills where the author says, \"When I was a neophyte writer...\" Is this a correct usage? Shouldn't it be \"When I was a neophyte in writing...\" Neophyte is not an adjective but a noun so, it has to be a wrong usage there. But I found this on a website which I usually visit to correct my grammar and English usage, therefore, I am perplexed. Later when I googled this word, I found the same usage at few other places as well. Can neophyte also be used as an adjective? Edit: While asking this question, I was not aware of attributive nouns so didn't note this question about usage of noun attributively. But as it stands now, this can be considered a duplicate question.","question":"Quite paradoxically, I came across this usage in a blog on How to improve your writing skills where the author says, \"When I was a neophyte writer...\" Is this a correct usage? Shouldn't it be \"When I was a neophyte in writing...\" Neophyte is not an adjective but a noun so, it has to be a wrong usage there. But I found this on a website which I usually visit to correct my grammar and English usage, therefore, I am perplexed. Later when I googled this word, I found the same usage at few other places as well. Can neophyte also be used as an adjective? Edit: While asking this question, I was not aware of attributive nouns so didn't note this question about usage of noun attributively. But as it stands now, this can be considered a duplicate question.","answer":"It is certainly correct to write \"neophyte writer\". A noun can be used to modify another noun in English This is probably an example of the noun neophyte being used attributively. The attributive noun construction (also called things like \"noun adjunct\" or \"compound noun\" or \"noun used as an adjective\") is common in English. You may have heard of it already; if not, you should study it. In general, any noun can be placed before any other noun to modify it (the exact meaning of this construction is fairly vague). A comparable example would be \"master writer\", which is acceptable even though \"master\" is not an adjective. In addition, nouns can often be converted to adjectives That said, it is fairly easy to convert a noun (or substantive) to an true adjective or vice versa in English. It would not be too surprising to me to see neophyte used as a true adjective, and in fact the Oxford English Dictionary classifies it as possibly being an adjective: B. adj. (chiefly attrib.). Recently converted, initiated, or ordained; inexperienced. Also: characteristic of a recent convert or of a beginner or novice; displaying inexperience. The most adjective-like example listed in the OED in my opinion is 1883 R. L. Stevenson Silverado Squatters i. iii. 44 A certain neophite and girlish trepidation. (the word \"neophyte\" is here coordinated with the word \"girlish\", which is unambiguously an adjective) I think one factor that may faciliate this conversion is the etymology of the term: neophyte is borrowed from Ancient Greek, via Latin, and both of these languages generally have easy interchange of substantives and adjectives. In Latin, neophytus was perfectly acceptable as an adjective; it was borrowed from a Greek word meaning \"newly planted\".","output":"It is certainly correct to write \"neophyte writer\". A noun can be used to modify another noun in English This is probably an example of the noun neophyte being used attributively. The attributive noun construction (also called things like \"noun adjunct\" or \"compound noun\" or \"noun used as an adjective\") is common in English. You may have heard of it already; if not, you should study it. In general, any noun can be placed before any other noun to modify it (the exact meaning of this construction is fairly vague). A comparable example would be \"master writer\", which is acceptable even though \"master\" is not an adjective. In addition, nouns can often be converted to adjectives That said, it is fairly easy to convert a noun (or substantive) to an true adjective or vice versa in English. It would not be too surprising to me to see neophyte used as a true adjective, and in fact the Oxford English Dictionary classifies it as possibly being an adjective: B. adj. (chiefly attrib.). Recently converted, initiated, or ordained; inexperienced. Also: characteristic of a recent convert or of a beginner or novice; displaying inexperience. The most adjective-like example listed in the OED in my opinion is 1883 R. L. Stevenson Silverado Squatters i. iii. 44 A certain neophite and girlish trepidation. (the word \"neophyte\" is here coordinated with the word \"girlish\", which is unambiguously an adjective) I think one factor that may faciliate this conversion is the etymology of the term: neophyte is borrowed from Ancient Greek, via Latin, and both of these languages generally have easy interchange of substantives and adjectives. In Latin, neophytus was perfectly acceptable as an adjective; it was borrowed from a Greek word meaning \"newly planted\"."}
{"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\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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\nA catalyst is a compound which allows a chemical reaction to occur without undergoing a chemical change itself. Thus it is not 'used up' when performing its function. Thus the word catalyst is a common metaphor for something which is not expended when used. Is there a word to mean the opposite? For example food and firewood can only be used once. In usage they are, by definition, expended. They are examples of _______. This is in contrast with, say, a nappy, which is still a nappy after being soiled. However a clean nappy might be an example of a _______ as after used it is no longer a clean nappy. I would love if _____ were also a piece of chemistry jargon which passed into lay usage.","question":"A catalyst is a compound which allows a chemical reaction to occur without undergoing a chemical change itself. Thus it is not 'used up' when performing its function. Thus the word catalyst is a common metaphor for something which is not expended when used. Is there a word to mean the opposite? For example food and firewood can only be used once. In usage they are, by definition, expended. They are examples of _______. This is in contrast with, say, a nappy, which is still a nappy after being soiled. However a clean nappy might be an example of a _______ as after used it is no longer a clean nappy. I would love if _____ were also a piece of chemistry jargon which passed into lay usage.","answer":"Food and firewood are examples of fuel. In addition to being the raw material for synthesis of complex living tissue, food is basically fuel for the production of energy, without which no chemical reaction would occur in the living organism. Thus, these consumables could, metaphorically, be referred to as fuel.","output":"Food and firewood are examples of fuel. In addition to being the raw material for synthesis of complex living tissue, food is basically fuel for the production of energy, without which no chemical reaction would occur in the living organism. Thus, these consumables could, metaphorically, be referred to as fuel."}
{"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":"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\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow should one pronounce, \"minestrone\" in English? I was at an Italian restaurant (US) and ordered \"min eh stron ee soup\" and my friend told me that's wrong... that the ending \"e\" is silent. They said it's pronounced, \"min e stron\". What is correct?","question":"How should one pronounce, \"minestrone\" in English? I was at an Italian restaurant (US) and ordered \"min eh stron ee soup\" and my friend told me that's wrong... that the ending \"e\" is silent. They said it's pronounced, \"min e stron\". What is correct?","answer":"Ministrone is an English loan word from Italian. Italian language courses teach the Standard Italian pronunciation in which almost all letters are vocalized except silent h. (So for example, \"bella\" is pronounced \"bel la\", not \"be la\".) So minestrone is pronounced \"min eh stron ee\" or \"min eh stron eh\". However, many people in America pronounce it \"ministrohn\" (silent e), and this is also ok, as that's how it's pronounced in some Italian dialects. In fact, this type of pronunciation (dropping ending vowels, especially for foods) was popularized during the long running HBO series, \"The Sopranos\". (See Why do The Sopranos leave off the last vowel in Italian words?) But those who insist that \"ministrohn\" is the only proper pronunciation don't know what they're talking about. From a linguistic perspective, neither pronunciation is \"the one and only correct way\" or \"wrong\", they're just different. Here's a good article from the The New York Times: You Say Prosciutto, I Say Pro-SHOOT, and Purists Cringe. For general reference, see https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=italian+drop+final+vowel. keyword: minestrone soup","output":"Ministrone is an English loan word from Italian. Italian language courses teach the Standard Italian pronunciation in which almost all letters are vocalized except silent h. (So for example, \"bella\" is pronounced \"bel la\", not \"be la\".) So minestrone is pronounced \"min eh stron ee\" or \"min eh stron eh\". However, many people in America pronounce it \"ministrohn\" (silent e), and this is also ok, as that's how it's pronounced in some Italian dialects. In fact, this type of pronunciation (dropping ending vowels, especially for foods) was popularized during the long running HBO series, \"The Sopranos\". (See Why do The Sopranos leave off the last vowel in Italian words?) But those who insist that \"ministrohn\" is the only proper pronunciation don't know what they're talking about. From a linguistic perspective, neither pronunciation is \"the one and only correct way\" or \"wrong\", they're just different. Here's a good article from the The New York Times: You Say Prosciutto, I Say Pro-SHOOT, and Purists Cringe. For general reference, see https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=italian+drop+final+vowel. keyword: minestrone soup"}
{"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\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat are the differences in meaning and usage between \"to start\" and \"to get started\"? Are there any cases in which these variants are not interchangeable? I feel that there are. For example, this page looks less natural with its Start tab than it would with a Getting Started tab. I cannot see why there is a difference. Could you please explain?","question":"What are the differences in meaning and usage between \"to start\" and \"to get started\"? Are there any cases in which these variants are not interchangeable? I feel that there are. For example, this page looks less natural with its Start tab than it would with a Getting Started tab. I cannot see why there is a difference. Could you please explain?","answer":"I think to some degree \"to get started\" is a weasel phrase. Either you start something, and then it runs, or you don't. \"Get started\" implies, start it, but don't expect any results yet, because you're still starting and not actually doing yet. Of course, the language is full of weasel phrases that add color and fuzziness, attempting to reflect the nuances of reality. Feel free to use them when it feels natural, but when you need clarity, use a different phrase, such as \"start the planning phase\" or \"Silverlight installation tutorial\". A similar phrase is \"to finish up\" vs. \"to stop\".","output":"I think to some degree \"to get started\" is a weasel phrase. Either you start something, and then it runs, or you don't. \"Get started\" implies, start it, but don't expect any results yet, because you're still starting and not actually doing yet. Of course, the language is full of weasel phrases that add color and fuzziness, attempting to reflect the nuances of reality. Feel free to use them when it feels natural, but when you need clarity, use a different phrase, such as \"start the planning phase\" or \"Silverlight installation tutorial\". A similar phrase is \"to finish up\" vs. \"to stop\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\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\nSource: Russian ruble collapses to 7-month low on weak oil prices Given the following context, what exactly is an oil contract? Oil is the backbone of the Russian economy and the fall of the ruble follows a sharp decline in the price of crude. The U.S. oil contract on Friday dropped below $40 per barrel for the first time since 2009 and on Monday was down another $1.23 a barrel at $39.22.","question":"Source: Russian ruble collapses to 7-month low on weak oil prices Given the following context, what exactly is an oil contract? Oil is the backbone of the Russian economy and the fall of the ruble follows a sharp decline in the price of crude. The U.S. oil contract on Friday dropped below $40 per barrel for the first time since 2009 and on Monday was down another $1.23 a barrel at $39.22.","answer":"I'm no economist, but I'd say almost certainly OP's context is referring to... the benchmark U.S. oil contract, known as West Texas Intermediate, and the European benchmark, known as Brent. (Source) In the UK we rarely hear reference to [the US] oil contract - our financial news stories usually say Brent [crude] dropped to [some new low price]. You could assume a \"deleted\" word such as price or index after contract if that helps parsing. Presumably the WTI and Brent \"benchmark prices\" are effectively some kind of \"average\", and some specific authority is responsible for determining the actual value in \"real time\" (since tiny adjustments would potentially have huge implications for financial \"oil futures contracts\", where the actual price to be paid\/received is often specified relative to the benchmark at time of delivery, rather than when the deal was struck). But that's outside the scope of ELL (and as implied, I don't know who controls it).","output":"I'm no economist, but I'd say almost certainly OP's context is referring to... the benchmark U.S. oil contract, known as West Texas Intermediate, and the European benchmark, known as Brent. (Source) In the UK we rarely hear reference to [the US] oil contract - our financial news stories usually say Brent [crude] dropped to [some new low price]. You could assume a \"deleted\" word such as price or index after contract if that helps parsing. Presumably the WTI and Brent \"benchmark prices\" are effectively some kind of \"average\", and some specific authority is responsible for determining the actual value in \"real time\" (since tiny adjustments would potentially have huge implications for financial \"oil futures contracts\", where the actual price to be paid\/received is often specified relative to the benchmark at time of delivery, rather than when the deal was struck). But that's outside the scope of ELL (and as implied, I don't know who controls it)."}
{"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\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nFor example: Since it's raining, wouldn't it be a good idea to bring an umbrella? That sounds OK, but I'm not sure if it is. What about these alternatives? Since it's raining, isn't it a good idea to bring an umbrella? I thought that this might be grammatically correct because \"is\" is on both sides of the sentence. It doesn't sound right though. Why? Since it's raining, won't it be a good idea to bring an umbrella? For some reason this doesn't sound right either, but I don't know why. It sounds better than the second example, but not as good as the first example.","question":"For example: Since it's raining, wouldn't it be a good idea to bring an umbrella? That sounds OK, but I'm not sure if it is. What about these alternatives? Since it's raining, isn't it a good idea to bring an umbrella? I thought that this might be grammatically correct because \"is\" is on both sides of the sentence. It doesn't sound right though. Why? Since it's raining, won't it be a good idea to bring an umbrella? For some reason this doesn't sound right either, but I don't know why. It sounds better than the second example, but not as good as the first example.","answer":"There is absolutely nothing wrong with Since it's raining, wouldn't it be a good idea to bring an umbrella? Look at a few other constructions to see how natural it is: Since you're going to the store anyway, wouldn't you like to pick us up some ice cream? Since our success is uncertain, wouldn't we be well advised to consider how to minimize our risks in case of a downturn? The first clause assumes a fact, and the second balances it with a speculative counterpoint. That is grammatical, unexceptionable and, incidentally, one way to make a sentence interesting.","output":"There is absolutely nothing wrong with Since it's raining, wouldn't it be a good idea to bring an umbrella? Look at a few other constructions to see how natural it is: Since you're going to the store anyway, wouldn't you like to pick us up some ice cream? Since our success is uncertain, wouldn't we be well advised to consider how to minimize our risks in case of a downturn? The first clause assumes a fact, and the second balances it with a speculative counterpoint. That is grammatical, unexceptionable and, incidentally, one way to make a sentence interesting."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe passage below comes from a book, What The F. It's about the anomaly in the rule of profane words. But jack-shit and its profane peers flout the rule. You can say You don\u2019t know jack-shit, using it in a negative context, but you can also just as easily say You know jack-shit. Same with dick\u2014I don\u2019t draw dick unless the price is right is fine, as is I draw dick unless the price is right. In this I cannot figure out what draw dick means in this context. (Excuse my profanity.) My gut feeling says Don't draw dick means Don't care, but I am not sure.","question":"The passage below comes from a book, What The F. It's about the anomaly in the rule of profane words. But jack-shit and its profane peers flout the rule. You can say You don\u2019t know jack-shit, using it in a negative context, but you can also just as easily say You know jack-shit. Same with dick\u2014I don\u2019t draw dick unless the price is right is fine, as is I draw dick unless the price is right. In this I cannot figure out what draw dick means in this context. (Excuse my profanity.) My gut feeling says Don't draw dick means Don't care, but I am not sure.","answer":"\"I draw dick unless the price is right\" in this passage is probably meant to express \"I draw nothing unless the price is right\" (which would more commonly be expressed with the negation on the auxiliary, as \"I don't draw anything unless the price is right\"). It's not clear what the word \"draw\" means without more context, but it doesn't really matter. As Peter Shor says in a comment, the imaginary context of the statement may be \"an artist saying he won't work for free\" [or for less than his work is worth]. Or, as fixer1234 and aparente001 say, it may be that in this example \"I draw\" is being used with the meaning \"I earn.\" The comments beneath your question seem to indicate that this use of profanity is not especially familar to all English speakers. \"Dick\" can also be extended to \"dick all\" when used with this meaning. The passage is about the use of profane words as substitutes for either negative words, such as \"nothing\" or \"nobody,\" or negative-polarity words, such as \"(not)... anything\" and \"(not)... anybody.\" In standard English, usually a single word cannot be used in both of these contexts. (In some varieties of colloquial English, words like \"nothing\" and \"nobody\" can be used in both contexts.) The author is pointing out that the synonymy of \"I don't draw dick\" and \"I draw dick\" might therefore be seen as unusual. It also contrasts with the use of \"shit,\" which for many speakers does generally have to be used with a clause-level negation: \"you don't know anything\" is much more likely to be expressed as \"you don't know shit\" than as \"you know shit\" (though the second might be possible for some speakers).","output":"\"I draw dick unless the price is right\" in this passage is probably meant to express \"I draw nothing unless the price is right\" (which would more commonly be expressed with the negation on the auxiliary, as \"I don't draw anything unless the price is right\"). It's not clear what the word \"draw\" means without more context, but it doesn't really matter. As Peter Shor says in a comment, the imaginary context of the statement may be \"an artist saying he won't work for free\" [or for less than his work is worth]. Or, as fixer1234 and aparente001 say, it may be that in this example \"I draw\" is being used with the meaning \"I earn.\" The comments beneath your question seem to indicate that this use of profanity is not especially familar to all English speakers. \"Dick\" can also be extended to \"dick all\" when used with this meaning. The passage is about the use of profane words as substitutes for either negative words, such as \"nothing\" or \"nobody,\" or negative-polarity words, such as \"(not)... anything\" and \"(not)... anybody.\" In standard English, usually a single word cannot be used in both of these contexts. (In some varieties of colloquial English, words like \"nothing\" and \"nobody\" can be used in both contexts.) The author is pointing out that the synonymy of \"I don't draw dick\" and \"I draw dick\" might therefore be seen as unusual. It also contrasts with the use of \"shit,\" which for many speakers does generally have to be used with a clause-level negation: \"you don't know anything\" is much more likely to be expressed as \"you don't know shit\" than as \"you know shit\" (though the second might be possible for some speakers)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nwhat is difference of the below example: 1 When she worried she always rubbed her hands together 2 When she is worried she has always rubbed her hands together","question":"what is difference of the below example: 1 When she worried she always rubbed her hands together 2 When she is worried she has always rubbed her hands together","answer":"In the first sentence, \"worried\" is a verb. In the second one however, \"worried\" is not a verb, it is an adjective. \"be\" is the English copula, which does a ton of functions. One of them is to identify nouns with adjectives or with other nouns. e.g. He is dead. You are not a good basketball player.","output":"In the first sentence, \"worried\" is a verb. In the second one however, \"worried\" is not a verb, it is an adjective. \"be\" is the English copula, which does a ton of functions. One of them is to identify nouns with adjectives or with other nouns. e.g. He is dead. You are not a good basketball player."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nActually I should be working on my bachelor report (it's due tonight), but hey, there are more important things like: Can I omit the to in the following sentence? ... foster behaviour that would help the robot population (to) adapt to the MONEE environment.","question":"Actually I should be working on my bachelor report (it's due tonight), but hey, there are more important things like: Can I omit the to in the following sentence? ... foster behaviour that would help the robot population (to) adapt to the MONEE environment.","answer":"When using the verb \"help,\" you can use either a to-infinitive or a bare infinitive without affecting the meaning or the grammaticality of the sentence. The bare infinitive version is more common especially in American English. \"[...]the better practice is to use a bare infinitive after help (if the choice is between a fully expressed infinitive [with to] and a bare one [without to]) [...] \"The bare infinitive form after help overtook the to-form in the late 1960s and remains more than twice as common with various verbs.\" Garner (2016), Garner's Modern English Usage. Oxford University Press.","output":"When using the verb \"help,\" you can use either a to-infinitive or a bare infinitive without affecting the meaning or the grammaticality of the sentence. The bare infinitive version is more common especially in American English. \"[...]the better practice is to use a bare infinitive after help (if the choice is between a fully expressed infinitive [with to] and a bare one [without to]) [...] \"The bare infinitive form after help overtook the to-form in the late 1960s and remains more than twice as common with various verbs.\" Garner (2016), Garner's Modern English Usage. Oxford University Press."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"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\nIn an article, someone conveys their view of a country and mentions a property called claustrophobic insularity. I googled those word getting nothing useful. I get that claustrophobic has to do with fear of enclosed spaces and insularity is preference for introversion of cultural focus. However, that specific combination tells me little and I definitely can't connect it by context to the properties of the considered country.","question":"In an article, someone conveys their view of a country and mentions a property called claustrophobic insularity. I googled those word getting nothing useful. I get that claustrophobic has to do with fear of enclosed spaces and insularity is preference for introversion of cultural focus. However, that specific combination tells me little and I definitely can't connect it by context to the properties of the considered country.","answer":"\"Claustrophobic insularity\" isn't really a known phrase, just two known words being used together. I think your understanding of the individual words isn't quite right. Insularity doesn't really mean a preference for being insular. It implies an ignorance of or lack of interest in other cultures. Claustrophobia is literally the fear of confined spaces but is sometimes also used in a figurative way to refer to other kinds of limitations. It is often used quite glibly by persons with no actual phobia to describe a cramped situation. \"Claustrophobic\" is sometimes used as an adjective to describe a space that looks cramped. It would seem a contradiction to say that someone is both insular and figurately claustrophobic - you cannot be afraid of something you are unaware (ignorant) of. I understand the phrase to be an insult - the writer is saying that from their point of view, another person's insularity looks figuratively claustrophobic. In other words, they would not like to live in the confines of ignorance. As an alternative, I might say they were \"trapped inside their own tiny mind\".","output":"\"Claustrophobic insularity\" isn't really a known phrase, just two known words being used together. I think your understanding of the individual words isn't quite right. Insularity doesn't really mean a preference for being insular. It implies an ignorance of or lack of interest in other cultures. Claustrophobia is literally the fear of confined spaces but is sometimes also used in a figurative way to refer to other kinds of limitations. It is often used quite glibly by persons with no actual phobia to describe a cramped situation. \"Claustrophobic\" is sometimes used as an adjective to describe a space that looks cramped. It would seem a contradiction to say that someone is both insular and figurately claustrophobic - you cannot be afraid of something you are unaware (ignorant) of. I understand the phrase to be an insult - the writer is saying that from their point of view, another person's insularity looks figuratively claustrophobic. In other words, they would not like to live in the confines of ignorance. As an alternative, I might say they were \"trapped inside their own tiny mind\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\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\nAre there any adverbs\/pronouns (or sentence constructs) that fulfilled the gradation role of more and less in Early Modern English, that currently fell out of use or exist only in marginal, archaic or domain-specific speech? example: how could one rephrase these sentences into Early Modern English, so that they don't use the the words 'more' or 'less'? You did more for me than you imagine. Less gawking, more helping! I should study that some more. I meant that more... figuratively. Pour me some more coffee, please. (note, if there are no such words, an answer that states so is perfectly acceptable)","question":"Are there any adverbs\/pronouns (or sentence constructs) that fulfilled the gradation role of more and less in Early Modern English, that currently fell out of use or exist only in marginal, archaic or domain-specific speech? example: how could one rephrase these sentences into Early Modern English, so that they don't use the the words 'more' or 'less'? You did more for me than you imagine. Less gawking, more helping! I should study that some more. I meant that more... figuratively. Pour me some more coffee, please. (note, if there are no such words, an answer that states so is perfectly acceptable)","answer":"I am not aware of any other word used like \u2018less\u2019 in this manner in Old or Middle English. For \u2018more\u2019, though, there is the related and in earlier times separate (though now fully defunct) mo. The OED entry has quite a few examples from both Old English and Middle English, as well as a few from Early Modern English: c1387\u201395 Chaucer Canterbury Tales Prol. 576 Of maistres hadde he mo than thries ten. c1330 (\u25b8?a1300) Sir Tristrem (1886) l. 613 (MED), He..redily \u021daf him..Ten schilinges and ma. 1483 (\u25b81413) Pilgrimage of Soul (Caxton) iv. vii. 61 This fayre grene appel tree..said..I ne bere neuer no mo but this one appel. a1616 Shakespeare Tempest (1623) v. i. 237 With..noyses Of roring,..gingling chaines, And mo diuersitie of sounds. There is even a quote with mo or less: c1426 J. Audelay Poems (1931) 78 Fore \u00feiself furst \u00feou pray..And fore men and wemen mo and lees. \u2013 which shows that \u2018less\u2019, at least, was used back then exactly as it is now. \u2018More\u2019 gradually took over the role of mo later on, starting in Late Middle English, gaining pace in Early Modern English, and finally ousting it completely (except dialectally) during the 17th and 18th centuries.","output":"I am not aware of any other word used like \u2018less\u2019 in this manner in Old or Middle English. For \u2018more\u2019, though, there is the related and in earlier times separate (though now fully defunct) mo. The OED entry has quite a few examples from both Old English and Middle English, as well as a few from Early Modern English: c1387\u201395 Chaucer Canterbury Tales Prol. 576 Of maistres hadde he mo than thries ten. c1330 (\u25b8?a1300) Sir Tristrem (1886) l. 613 (MED), He..redily \u021daf him..Ten schilinges and ma. 1483 (\u25b81413) Pilgrimage of Soul (Caxton) iv. vii. 61 This fayre grene appel tree..said..I ne bere neuer no mo but this one appel. a1616 Shakespeare Tempest (1623) v. i. 237 With..noyses Of roring,..gingling chaines, And mo diuersitie of sounds. There is even a quote with mo or less: c1426 J. Audelay Poems (1931) 78 Fore \u00feiself furst \u00feou pray..And fore men and wemen mo and lees. \u2013 which shows that \u2018less\u2019, at least, was used back then exactly as it is now. \u2018More\u2019 gradually took over the role of mo later on, starting in Late Middle English, gaining pace in Early Modern English, and finally ousting it completely (except dialectally) during the 17th and 18th centuries."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn almost every dictionary, candidly and honestly are explained as having the same meaning. Still, I'm pretty sure there must be some difference, whether big or tiny. Any reasonable tip would be much appreciated!","question":"In almost every dictionary, candidly and honestly are explained as having the same meaning. Still, I'm pretty sure there must be some difference, whether big or tiny. Any reasonable tip would be much appreciated!","answer":"Candid and honest do not mean the same thing--they don't even have similar word roots. Let's start with \"candid.\" This word means \"openness\" and \"not scripted or rehearsed.\" During the 70s, there was a popular American TV show called \"Candid Camera\" hosted by Alan Funt. We did not call it \"Honest Camera.\" The show featured raw film footage of people in candid situations. It was not scripted and showed sincere and genuine reactions of ordinary people. We use the word \"candid\" to talk about politicians' answers and interviews with actors. We say \"candid interview\" not \"honest interview.\" In a candid interview, a person might not have access to the questions beforehand, or have thought out answers, or be as scripted. If a politician or actor were involved in a scandal, you can be sure they will not participate in a candid interview. The word honest means \"not deceptive, fair, or displaying integrity.\" We want policemen who are honest, judges who display honesty, and politicians that give honest answers. The key word is \"not deceptive.\" Candid has nothing to do with deception, trickery, fraud, or cheating, things which the light of honesty combats. The words have started to be used interchangeably because people confuse \"unscripted\" with \"honest.\" We want honest not candid politicians. Donald Trump is an example of a candid politician. He's being honest about his answers but I prefer he were less candid in his responses. Usually, the more experience a politician has the less candid they are, which can be frustrating for voters who think everything is scripted and designed to manipulate. Candid responses such as Trump's often cause people to grimace or cringe. Policemen typically do not speak candidly about subjects because the stakes are high. They have practiced responses and ways of dealing with things that protect and serve the greater purpose of justice. In the current situation in America, many people will laugh at what I just said, but ideally we believe this. We do want policemen who are honest and give honest answers. Candid answers are usually spontaneous and people are called to task for them. \"I misspoke\" is a response when criticized for a candid answer. There is some overlap with these words but the overlap is not a majority.","output":"Candid and honest do not mean the same thing--they don't even have similar word roots. Let's start with \"candid.\" This word means \"openness\" and \"not scripted or rehearsed.\" During the 70s, there was a popular American TV show called \"Candid Camera\" hosted by Alan Funt. We did not call it \"Honest Camera.\" The show featured raw film footage of people in candid situations. It was not scripted and showed sincere and genuine reactions of ordinary people. We use the word \"candid\" to talk about politicians' answers and interviews with actors. We say \"candid interview\" not \"honest interview.\" In a candid interview, a person might not have access to the questions beforehand, or have thought out answers, or be as scripted. If a politician or actor were involved in a scandal, you can be sure they will not participate in a candid interview. The word honest means \"not deceptive, fair, or displaying integrity.\" We want policemen who are honest, judges who display honesty, and politicians that give honest answers. The key word is \"not deceptive.\" Candid has nothing to do with deception, trickery, fraud, or cheating, things which the light of honesty combats. The words have started to be used interchangeably because people confuse \"unscripted\" with \"honest.\" We want honest not candid politicians. Donald Trump is an example of a candid politician. He's being honest about his answers but I prefer he were less candid in his responses. Usually, the more experience a politician has the less candid they are, which can be frustrating for voters who think everything is scripted and designed to manipulate. Candid responses such as Trump's often cause people to grimace or cringe. Policemen typically do not speak candidly about subjects because the stakes are high. They have practiced responses and ways of dealing with things that protect and serve the greater purpose of justice. In the current situation in America, many people will laugh at what I just said, but ideally we believe this. We do want policemen who are honest and give honest answers. Candid answers are usually spontaneous and people are called to task for them. \"I misspoke\" is a response when criticized for a candid answer. There is some overlap with these words but the overlap is not a majority."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nNo, seriously. I can't think of a single abbreviation that's longer than the actual word. Why isn't \"abbreviation\" nice and short like the word \"terse\"?","question":"No, seriously. I can't think of a single abbreviation that's longer than the actual word. Why isn't \"abbreviation\" nice and short like the word \"terse\"?","answer":"Because our short words come from German and French and describe things that farmers and sailors and priests and their Norman overlords were doing and working with in the Middle Ages. The only one of those groups who needed a word for \"a shorter way to write something\" were the priests, who were the only ones who wrote much of anything at all. Since Chinese characters developed in China, not Italy, they chose to use Latin in order to make themselves understood across Europe's variety of local spellings and languages. Latin doesn't cotton with short terms: it uses a welter of prefixes and suffixes to get its point across. We still use the Latin term abbreviation because shortening isn't much shorter and has other uses and wordshortening is even longer.","output":"Because our short words come from German and French and describe things that farmers and sailors and priests and their Norman overlords were doing and working with in the Middle Ages. The only one of those groups who needed a word for \"a shorter way to write something\" were the priests, who were the only ones who wrote much of anything at all. Since Chinese characters developed in China, not Italy, they chose to use Latin in order to make themselves understood across Europe's variety of local spellings and languages. Latin doesn't cotton with short terms: it uses a welter of prefixes and suffixes to get its point across. We still use the Latin term abbreviation because shortening isn't much shorter and has other uses and wordshortening is even longer."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow-many-day a tour was it? How many days was the tour? How many days of tour were you on? How-many-day tour of Cambridge were you on? Are the above sentences grammatically correct? I understand that there are simpler ways to ask that question, such as \"how long was the tour?\" or \"how many days did the tour last?\", but I'm wondering about the correctness of the above sentences.","question":"How-many-day a tour was it? How many days was the tour? How many days of tour were you on? How-many-day tour of Cambridge were you on? Are the above sentences grammatically correct? I understand that there are simpler ways to ask that question, such as \"how long was the tour?\" or \"how many days did the tour last?\", but I'm wondering about the correctness of the above sentences.","answer":"\"How many days was the tour\" is the only option there that is correct. I'd still definitely prefer to use \"how long was the tour\". Edit: as Jack said, option 2 \"How many days of tour were you on\" sounds possible, but it is quite awkward and I would probably never say it. Options 1 and 4 are wrong. Edit: as alephzero said, option 2 sounds like you didn't complete the tour.","output":"\"How many days was the tour\" is the only option there that is correct. I'd still definitely prefer to use \"how long was the tour\". Edit: as Jack said, option 2 \"How many days of tour were you on\" sounds possible, but it is quite awkward and I would probably never say it. Options 1 and 4 are wrong. Edit: as alephzero said, option 2 sounds like you didn't complete the tour."}
{"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\nWhat's the difference between rules and principles? For example, which one is the better fit in the following context? Strict __ govern the clothes we wear.","question":"What's the difference between rules and principles? For example, which one is the better fit in the following context? Strict __ govern the clothes we wear.","answer":"A principle is a sort of rule, but more to govern personal behaviour. Think of it as a personal rule, one that shouldn't affect other people. A rule is generally imposed by a figure of authority, and used to guide and govern people. So in the above sentence, it would be: Strict rules govern the clothes we wear Because it is being imposed by someone else. If someone were to say: That goes against my principles. That would mean that they felt you were breaking one of their personal rules, or perhaps asking them to break a personal rule. I hope this answers your question.","output":"A principle is a sort of rule, but more to govern personal behaviour. Think of it as a personal rule, one that shouldn't affect other people. A rule is generally imposed by a figure of authority, and used to guide and govern people. So in the above sentence, it would be: Strict rules govern the clothes we wear Because it is being imposed by someone else. If someone were to say: That goes against my principles. That would mean that they felt you were breaking one of their personal rules, or perhaps asking them to break a personal rule. I hope this answers your question."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n[original question] Do any words words exist that are a countable and an uncountable noun at the same time? Are there any nouns that are both countable and uncountable? Are there any words which are uncountable and uncountable at the same time?","question":"[original question] Do any words words exist that are a countable and an uncountable noun at the same time? Are there any nouns that are both countable and uncountable? Are there any words which are uncountable and uncountable at the same time?","answer":"Almost anything normally uncountable - certainly it applies to most food items - can be made countable if one uses a simple plural as an alternative to varieties of. e.g. There are countless cheeses (Varieties of cheese), whiskies, wines, beers, yoghurts, breads, meats, hams, etc. It can also apply as substitute in the case of bottles of, jars of, cups of etc. Five beers is too many! How many whiskies has he drunk? Two coffees please.","output":"Almost anything normally uncountable - certainly it applies to most food items - can be made countable if one uses a simple plural as an alternative to varieties of. e.g. There are countless cheeses (Varieties of cheese), whiskies, wines, beers, yoghurts, breads, meats, hams, etc. It can also apply as substitute in the case of bottles of, jars of, cups of etc. Five beers is too many! How many whiskies has he drunk? Two coffees please."}
{"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\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAfter a percentage do we use of or of the? For example: 22% of Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new National Anthem. or 22% of the Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new National Anthem. also 22% of all Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new National Anthem. or 22% of all the Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new National Anthem. Are we supposed to say, for example 25% of the times I lie down I fall asleep or 25% of times I lie down I fall asleep? How can I know when to use % of the and % of?","question":"After a percentage do we use of or of the? For example: 22% of Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new National Anthem. or 22% of the Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new National Anthem. also 22% of all Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new National Anthem. or 22% of all the Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new National Anthem. Are we supposed to say, for example 25% of the times I lie down I fall asleep or 25% of times I lie down I fall asleep? How can I know when to use % of the and % of?","answer":"A simple rule of thumb is, when you're talking about a noun that has a restrictive clause on it, use 'the'; if you're talking about an unrestricted noun, don't use 'the'. An \"unrestricted noun\" talks about an entire group; a noun with a restrictive clause talks only about some subset of the group. In your first example, \"Americans\" is an unrestricted noun: it refers to every American citizen. So, you can leave off \"the\": 22% of Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new national anthem. In your second example, the noun is \"times\", but it has the restrictive clause \"[that] I lie down\"; we are not talking about all times, only a specific subset of them. So we want to use 'the' in this case: 25% of the times I lie down, I fall asleep. Of course, having laid out this rule of thumb, I feel compelled to point out some exceptions. First, when you use a noun that is understood to be part of some larger group, even though it's not explicitly stated, you still use 'the': Everybody here is hungry, and most of us have agreed to order pizza, but 40% of the Americans are holding out for cheeseburgers. Secondly, time almost always takes 'the': How often do I fall asleep when I lie down? Oh, about 25% of the time. This is probably because it is implicitly restricted by the conditions in the question, although those conditions are not repeated in the answer. (The use of all, while not strictly incorrect, is redundant and unnecessary.)","output":"A simple rule of thumb is, when you're talking about a noun that has a restrictive clause on it, use 'the'; if you're talking about an unrestricted noun, don't use 'the'. An \"unrestricted noun\" talks about an entire group; a noun with a restrictive clause talks only about some subset of the group. In your first example, \"Americans\" is an unrestricted noun: it refers to every American citizen. So, you can leave off \"the\": 22% of Americans want Bruce Springsteen to write a new national anthem. In your second example, the noun is \"times\", but it has the restrictive clause \"[that] I lie down\"; we are not talking about all times, only a specific subset of them. So we want to use 'the' in this case: 25% of the times I lie down, I fall asleep. Of course, having laid out this rule of thumb, I feel compelled to point out some exceptions. First, when you use a noun that is understood to be part of some larger group, even though it's not explicitly stated, you still use 'the': Everybody here is hungry, and most of us have agreed to order pizza, but 40% of the Americans are holding out for cheeseburgers. Secondly, time almost always takes 'the': How often do I fall asleep when I lie down? Oh, about 25% of the time. This is probably because it is implicitly restricted by the conditions in the question, although those conditions are not repeated in the answer. (The use of all, while not strictly incorrect, is redundant and unnecessary.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nPlease check the below sentences and let me know, is this correct or not. As per me had been (the past perfect tense) should not be used with since. As per my friend: I had been writing since childhood. As per me, it should be: I have been writing since childhood. Thanks in advance.","question":"Please check the below sentences and let me know, is this correct or not. As per me had been (the past perfect tense) should not be used with since. As per my friend: I had been writing since childhood. As per me, it should be: I have been writing since childhood. Thanks in advance.","answer":"Perfect constructions speak about a state which obtains at Reference Time\u2014the time which your discourse addresses\u2014as a result of some prior event. Present perfect and past perfect address different Reference Times. Present perfect speaks about a present Reference Time: I am about to start my first novel, but I have been writing since childhood. ... This speaks about my present writing experience. Past perfect speaks about a past Reference Time: In 2003 I started my first novel, but I had been writing since childhood. ... This speaks about my writing experience in 2003. You may read more (much more, possibly, than you want) about the meaning and use of perfect constructions here.","output":"Perfect constructions speak about a state which obtains at Reference Time\u2014the time which your discourse addresses\u2014as a result of some prior event. Present perfect and past perfect address different Reference Times. Present perfect speaks about a present Reference Time: I am about to start my first novel, but I have been writing since childhood. ... This speaks about my present writing experience. Past perfect speaks about a past Reference Time: In 2003 I started my first novel, but I had been writing since childhood. ... This speaks about my writing experience in 2003. You may read more (much more, possibly, than you want) about the meaning and use of perfect constructions here."}
{"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 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":"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\nA phrase I've heard on various comedy programs regarding famous people is \"[he or she] can't get arrested in this town.\" It often seems to be in reference to the person no longer being famous, however I've asked native English speakers and they claim it's the opposite, that the person is so famous they cannot get arrested. Further searching online I've found very few places which define it, Collins Dictionary defines it as: (informal) (of a performer) is unrecognized and unsuccessful \u21d2 he can't get arrested here but is a megastar in the States This makes no sense, as why would it be difficult for a non-famous person to get arrested? Seemingly popular perception is celebrities are more likely to get away with crimes, rather than actually be arrested. An example of usage I know if is in the television series 30 Rock, but I've heard it other places: Jenna: Thank you, but I am a selfless person who can't get arrested in this town! So, what does it mean and why does it mean it? If it does mean they are no longer famous, what's the logic behind someone being so unfamous they cannot get arrested? If that's case it's rather strange that the phrase is so unclear that native English speakers don't seem even get the meaning.","question":"A phrase I've heard on various comedy programs regarding famous people is \"[he or she] can't get arrested in this town.\" It often seems to be in reference to the person no longer being famous, however I've asked native English speakers and they claim it's the opposite, that the person is so famous they cannot get arrested. Further searching online I've found very few places which define it, Collins Dictionary defines it as: (informal) (of a performer) is unrecognized and unsuccessful \u21d2 he can't get arrested here but is a megastar in the States This makes no sense, as why would it be difficult for a non-famous person to get arrested? Seemingly popular perception is celebrities are more likely to get away with crimes, rather than actually be arrested. An example of usage I know if is in the television series 30 Rock, but I've heard it other places: Jenna: Thank you, but I am a selfless person who can't get arrested in this town! So, what does it mean and why does it mean it? If it does mean they are no longer famous, what's the logic behind someone being so unfamous they cannot get arrested? If that's case it's rather strange that the phrase is so unclear that native English speakers don't seem even get the meaning.","answer":"The struggle to make it in entertainment is a struggle to be noticed. This hyperbolic complaint is that even committing a crime wouldn't be enough to get one noticed. It's not about no longer being famous. Famous or not, it's about commanding attention. Read some of the nonsense people get up to in the tabloids and you'll find many people coming very close to getting themselves arrested just to command any kind of attention. When talent finally is recognized the recognition can be localized. Meaning the performer has to go through the whole promotional struggle again when they go somewhere else. Thus \"in this town\". can't get arrested (informal) (of a performer) is unrecognized and unsuccessful \u21d2 he can't get arrested here but is a megastar in the States Collins Dictionary The sad truth is there are many talented people you've never heard of because talent alone isn't what makes people famous. What's behind the complaint is a frustration with this fact. Failure to command any sort of attention anywhere can leave you homeless. You can see this expression used this way in song here. It's lyrics include: I can't get arrested in this town Lord I'm restless and running around I've been rejected and kicked around I'm being tested when I'm down Got my mind on gravity Another ride on another highway Still my feet are on the ground I can't get arrested in this town I'm walkin' for miles as the sun fades away Talkin' with t' strangers I meet along the way Everybody got somethin' to say, alright But nobody really looks me in the eye Well, maybe I expected more from my sisters and brothers Like, maybe we'd be hangin' on to one another They all turn their heads when I look back C'mon and cut me some slack! Cut me somethin! Corus Now I'm standing on the sidewalk with my bag in my hand I've been in the wrong place when it all hit the fan Now there's a cold wind blowing down these avenues You'll tell me there's nothing that you can do Well, maybe I expected more from my brothers and sisters Take a look around you man, take a look around you mister Too many walking around with a hole in their heart these days We keep walking away, we keep walking Corus -- John Carpino","output":"The struggle to make it in entertainment is a struggle to be noticed. This hyperbolic complaint is that even committing a crime wouldn't be enough to get one noticed. It's not about no longer being famous. Famous or not, it's about commanding attention. Read some of the nonsense people get up to in the tabloids and you'll find many people coming very close to getting themselves arrested just to command any kind of attention. When talent finally is recognized the recognition can be localized. Meaning the performer has to go through the whole promotional struggle again when they go somewhere else. Thus \"in this town\". can't get arrested (informal) (of a performer) is unrecognized and unsuccessful \u21d2 he can't get arrested here but is a megastar in the States Collins Dictionary The sad truth is there are many talented people you've never heard of because talent alone isn't what makes people famous. What's behind the complaint is a frustration with this fact. Failure to command any sort of attention anywhere can leave you homeless. You can see this expression used this way in song here. It's lyrics include: I can't get arrested in this town Lord I'm restless and running around I've been rejected and kicked around I'm being tested when I'm down Got my mind on gravity Another ride on another highway Still my feet are on the ground I can't get arrested in this town I'm walkin' for miles as the sun fades away Talkin' with t' strangers I meet along the way Everybody got somethin' to say, alright But nobody really looks me in the eye Well, maybe I expected more from my sisters and brothers Like, maybe we'd be hangin' on to one another They all turn their heads when I look back C'mon and cut me some slack! Cut me somethin! Corus Now I'm standing on the sidewalk with my bag in my hand I've been in the wrong place when it all hit the fan Now there's a cold wind blowing down these avenues You'll tell me there's nothing that you can do Well, maybe I expected more from my brothers and sisters Take a look around you man, take a look around you mister Too many walking around with a hole in their heart these days We keep walking away, we keep walking Corus -- John Carpino"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nFive minutes to go. Harry heard something creak outside. He hoped the roof wasn't going to fall in, although he might be warmer if it did. Four minutes to go. Maybe the house in Privet Drive would be so full of letters when they got back that he'd be able to steal one somehow. Three minutes to go. Was that the sea, slapping hard on the rock like that? And (two minutes to go) what was that funny crunching noise? Was the rock crumbling into the sea? One minute to go and he'd be eleven. Thirty seconds... twenty ... ten... nine -- maybe he'd wake Dudley up, just to annoy him -- three... two... one... (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) I guess would in the highlighted sentence is used \u2018to express a wish.\u2019 If it is right, what does maybe mean? Maybe he wished to wake Dudley up, seems somewhat funny.","question":"Five minutes to go. Harry heard something creak outside. He hoped the roof wasn't going to fall in, although he might be warmer if it did. Four minutes to go. Maybe the house in Privet Drive would be so full of letters when they got back that he'd be able to steal one somehow. Three minutes to go. Was that the sea, slapping hard on the rock like that? And (two minutes to go) what was that funny crunching noise? Was the rock crumbling into the sea? One minute to go and he'd be eleven. Thirty seconds... twenty ... ten... nine -- maybe he'd wake Dudley up, just to annoy him -- three... two... one... (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) I guess would in the highlighted sentence is used \u2018to express a wish.\u2019 If it is right, what does maybe mean? Maybe he wished to wake Dudley up, seems somewhat funny.","answer":"Maybe he'd wake Dudley up, just to annoy him. The above means that Harry had an uncertain plan\/wish, which was not put into effect by him. In other words, waking Dudley up was just a passing thought, a virtual simulation, that ran through Harry's mind.","output":"Maybe he'd wake Dudley up, just to annoy him. The above means that Harry had an uncertain plan\/wish, which was not put into effect by him. In other words, waking Dudley up was just a passing thought, a virtual simulation, that ran through Harry's mind."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"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\nSo, there seem to be some contradicting opinions on this matter. Can anyone shed some light on this case? Might be similar to visualize vs visualise, etc. I thought it might be a British vs American English matter.","question":"So, there seem to be some contradicting opinions on this matter. Can anyone shed some light on this case? Might be similar to visualize vs visualise, etc. I thought it might be a British vs American English matter.","answer":"Virtualization is used in American English, virtualisation is used in British English. The Oxford English Dictionary reports virtualization, and virtualisation as alternative form. The New Oxford American Dictionary only reports virtualization.","output":"Virtualization is used in American English, virtualisation is used in British English. The Oxford English Dictionary reports virtualization, and virtualisation as alternative form. The New Oxford American Dictionary only reports virtualization."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe rule says that we can use a possessive adjective or an object pronoun before a gerund. Is there a rule that says when to use each or are they interchangeable? Some say that it's wrong to use an object pronoun before a gerund.","question":"The rule says that we can use a possessive adjective or an object pronoun before a gerund. Is there a rule that says when to use each or are they interchangeable? Some say that it's wrong to use an object pronoun before a gerund.","answer":"The basic \"rule\" is that formal written English prefers the possessive in all circumstances, while informal, conversational speech prefers the objective. Generally, the more formal the register, the more likely it is that the possessive will be used. However Formal English is becoming less rigid. It now tolerates the objective in many circumstances\u2014for instance, a transitive gerund clause which acts as the complement of a matrix verb, as in snailplane's example: Do you mind me asking a question? Likewise, the possessive is hardly rare in informal English; it is particularly frequent when the gerund clause is the first constituent in a matrix clause: My kids KNEW their dad as they had lived with him and me until the separation... but, his leaving like that was tough on them. \u2014from CafeMom, a meeting place for moms. What seems to govern colloquial use is the syntax; a gerund which plays a particularly \u2018un-verbish\u2019 and \u2018noun-y\u2019 role is more likely to take the possessive. So although some dogmatic \u2018descriptivists\u2019 claim that the possessive sounds \u2018stilted\u2019, in my experience this isn\u2019t true; colloquial English tolerates a wide variety of usages. Under the circumstances, I would advise you to stick to the possessive, particularly if you are in school or are in a field which demands a lot of formal writing. It\u2019s easier to make a habit of using just one form instead of trying to juggle two; and the possessive will never get you into trouble.","output":"The basic \"rule\" is that formal written English prefers the possessive in all circumstances, while informal, conversational speech prefers the objective. Generally, the more formal the register, the more likely it is that the possessive will be used. However Formal English is becoming less rigid. It now tolerates the objective in many circumstances\u2014for instance, a transitive gerund clause which acts as the complement of a matrix verb, as in snailplane's example: Do you mind me asking a question? Likewise, the possessive is hardly rare in informal English; it is particularly frequent when the gerund clause is the first constituent in a matrix clause: My kids KNEW their dad as they had lived with him and me until the separation... but, his leaving like that was tough on them. \u2014from CafeMom, a meeting place for moms. What seems to govern colloquial use is the syntax; a gerund which plays a particularly \u2018un-verbish\u2019 and \u2018noun-y\u2019 role is more likely to take the possessive. So although some dogmatic \u2018descriptivists\u2019 claim that the possessive sounds \u2018stilted\u2019, in my experience this isn\u2019t true; colloquial English tolerates a wide variety of usages. Under the circumstances, I would advise you to stick to the possessive, particularly if you are in school or are in a field which demands a lot of formal writing. It\u2019s easier to make a habit of using just one form instead of trying to juggle two; and the possessive will never get you into trouble."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the differences between use \"would\" vs \"used to\" I used to play football when I was a child. I would play football when I was a child.","question":"What is the differences between use \"would\" vs \"used to\" I used to play football when I was a child. I would play football when I was a child.","answer":"Would is usually restricted to actions performed on specific occasions or under specific circumstances; it virtually always requires a modifier identifying these. Whenever I had trouble with schoolwork I would ask my friend Henry for help. If I wanted to be by myself I would go to the park. My parents used to read to me at bedtime. Used to is employed for these, too, but it is also employed for actions performed without any sort of circumstantial specification, only a timespan locative: OKI used to play football. OKI used to play football when I was a kid. Would is not usually employed for these: \u2217 I would play football. ? I would play football when I was a kid. However, this restriction may not apply if the circumstantial specification can be inferred from the discourse context. A: What did you do if you needed help? B: Oh, OKI would ask my friend Henry.","output":"Would is usually restricted to actions performed on specific occasions or under specific circumstances; it virtually always requires a modifier identifying these. Whenever I had trouble with schoolwork I would ask my friend Henry for help. If I wanted to be by myself I would go to the park. My parents used to read to me at bedtime. Used to is employed for these, too, but it is also employed for actions performed without any sort of circumstantial specification, only a timespan locative: OKI used to play football. OKI used to play football when I was a kid. Would is not usually employed for these: \u2217 I would play football. ? I would play football when I was a kid. However, this restriction may not apply if the circumstantial specification can be inferred from the discourse context. A: What did you do if you needed help? B: Oh, OKI would ask my friend Henry."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs there a special common name for goods sold at public events, such as T-shirts, cups, stationery, etc. being sold at conferences, concerts.","question":"Is there a special common name for goods sold at public events, such as T-shirts, cups, stationery, etc. being sold at conferences, concerts.","answer":"At music concerts, such items are often collectively called merch (short for merchandise). It might be appropriate to use the word by extension to refer to similar items sold at other large public gatherings, although I don't know whether merch is sufficiently widely known that the average person would know what you're talking about without explanation. Either way, the word merch should be considered slang or informal, and therefore not appropriate for formal communication. When branded items are given away at such events, they are typically (in the United States at least) called swag collectively, which is also slang\/informal.","output":"At music concerts, such items are often collectively called merch (short for merchandise). It might be appropriate to use the word by extension to refer to similar items sold at other large public gatherings, although I don't know whether merch is sufficiently widely known that the average person would know what you're talking about without explanation. Either way, the word merch should be considered slang or informal, and therefore not appropriate for formal communication. When branded items are given away at such events, they are typically (in the United States at least) called swag collectively, which is also slang\/informal."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCracking jokes is to me the most familiar contextual usage of this term. Why would anyone say they were cracking jokes, not just telling jokes?","question":"Cracking jokes is to me the most familiar contextual usage of this term. Why would anyone say they were cracking jokes, not just telling jokes?","answer":"There is a difference between \"Crack\" and \"Tell\" when it comes to jokes. To crack a joke is to make an original witty remark (i.e. something that, in context, is funny, but would not necessarily stand alone as humor); to tell a joke is to relate a bit of humor that is expected to be received well by your audience. A sample of the difference: Your friend says \"Hey, did you hear this news story? A bookie in Vegas was attacked by one of his customers.\" You say \"Wow, I guess they were really at odds with each other. Baaahaha!\" You have just cracked a joke. A small, lame pun-based joke, to be sure, but still. Your friend says \"How many mice does it take to screw in a light bulb? Two, but how did they get into the lightbulb in the first place?\" Your friend has just told a joke.","output":"There is a difference between \"Crack\" and \"Tell\" when it comes to jokes. To crack a joke is to make an original witty remark (i.e. something that, in context, is funny, but would not necessarily stand alone as humor); to tell a joke is to relate a bit of humor that is expected to be received well by your audience. A sample of the difference: Your friend says \"Hey, did you hear this news story? A bookie in Vegas was attacked by one of his customers.\" You say \"Wow, I guess they were really at odds with each other. Baaahaha!\" You have just cracked a joke. A small, lame pun-based joke, to be sure, but still. Your friend says \"How many mice does it take to screw in a light bulb? Two, but how did they get into the lightbulb in the first place?\" Your friend has just told a joke."}
{"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 currently having a discussion with colleagues about what this is. Basically it's kind of a cloud has rolled into to ground level. It's not raining in the sense that there are no drops of water falling from the sky, but it causes everything to be wet. What do you call this? I'm not sure I would call it drizzle either - because there doesn't appear to be distinct water drops.","question":"I'm currently having a discussion with colleagues about what this is. Basically it's kind of a cloud has rolled into to ground level. It's not raining in the sense that there are no drops of water falling from the sky, but it causes everything to be wet. What do you call this? I'm not sure I would call it drizzle either - because there doesn't appear to be distinct water drops.","answer":"I would call the weather damp: Being in a state between dry and wet; moderately wet; moist. Source: Mail Online, New Year's Eve set to be damp squib as fog and drizzle ruin fireworks celebrations.","output":"I would call the weather damp: Being in a state between dry and wet; moderately wet; moist. Source: Mail Online, New Year's Eve set to be damp squib as fog and drizzle ruin fireworks celebrations."}
{"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've tried to search whether I should use \"outshined\" or \"outshone\". My spellcheck underlines \"outshined\", but dictionary.com suggests I can use either. Which one should it be? http:\/\/dictionary.reference.com\/browse\/outshined","question":"I've tried to search whether I should use \"outshined\" or \"outshone\". My spellcheck underlines \"outshined\", but dictionary.com suggests I can use either. Which one should it be? http:\/\/dictionary.reference.com\/browse\/outshined","answer":"I would use \"outshone\" as it is used more often than \"outshined\". EDIT: However this ngram may be inaccurate as there is a song called \"Outshined\".","output":"I would use \"outshone\" as it is used more often than \"outshined\". EDIT: However this ngram may be inaccurate as there is a song called \"Outshined\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI can understand the meaning of the phrase off to hell..., but I was wondering why, of all the possible vehicles that may have been chosen, it came to be in a handcart?","question":"I can understand the meaning of the phrase off to hell..., but I was wondering why, of all the possible vehicles that may have been chosen, it came to be in a handcart?","answer":"This is mainly due to the alliteration of the phrase: \"Going to hell in a handbasket\", \"going to hell in a handcart\",\"going to hell on a Harley\", \"going to hell in a handbag\" and '\"sending something to hell in a handbasket\" are variations on an American alliterative locution of unclear origin, which describes a situation headed for disaster without effort or in great haste. You can see that all of the objects above begin with the letter h. To say \"going to hell in a VW\" or \"going to hell in an ice cream truck\" would have less impact. Pithy sayings of this sort often involve either alliteration or rhyme (\"In like Flynn,\" \"wake and bake\"), which give them a tag-like quality that's easy to remember and rhetorically more emphatic.","output":"This is mainly due to the alliteration of the phrase: \"Going to hell in a handbasket\", \"going to hell in a handcart\",\"going to hell on a Harley\", \"going to hell in a handbag\" and '\"sending something to hell in a handbasket\" are variations on an American alliterative locution of unclear origin, which describes a situation headed for disaster without effort or in great haste. You can see that all of the objects above begin with the letter h. To say \"going to hell in a VW\" or \"going to hell in an ice cream truck\" would have less impact. Pithy sayings of this sort often involve either alliteration or rhyme (\"In like Flynn,\" \"wake and bake\"), which give them a tag-like quality that's easy to remember and rhetorically more emphatic."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am an indian. Today I called a receptionist. She told me that I must submit my form by today. I was shocked and so I said \"What?Today itself?\" She said \"Yes today only\" I know both of us are wrong grammatically.Natives dont say today itself\/today only.So what I(and She) should have said?","question":"I am an indian. Today I called a receptionist. She told me that I must submit my form by today. I was shocked and so I said \"What?Today itself?\" She said \"Yes today only\" I know both of us are wrong grammatically.Natives dont say today itself\/today only.So what I(and She) should have said?","answer":"I would think any of these would work: \"Really? By the end of today?\" \"Really? Tomorrow will be too late?\" \"Really? Before the end of the day?\" Of course, this opens another can of worms; namely, when is the end of the day? Midnight is one valid answer, but before closing time might also be correct, particularly in an office setting. When the latter applies, you can also use: \"Really? Before close of business?\" In email exchanges, you might see that written as \"before COB today.\"","output":"I would think any of these would work: \"Really? By the end of today?\" \"Really? Tomorrow will be too late?\" \"Really? Before the end of the day?\" Of course, this opens another can of worms; namely, when is the end of the day? Midnight is one valid answer, but before closing time might also be correct, particularly in an office setting. When the latter applies, you can also use: \"Really? Before close of business?\" In email exchanges, you might see that written as \"before COB today.\""}
{"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\nIs there a noun that means the piece of cloth that some women wear around their waist when they are in bikini?","question":"Is there a noun that means the piece of cloth that some women wear around their waist when they are in bikini?","answer":"In Britain they are known variously as a sarong (from Malay national garment), pareo (from pareu - Tahitian national language, first used in English in 1769), kimono (from Japanese), or simply as wrap, or cover-up. All those terms appear on Amazon The Marks & Spencers word seems to be sarong, which suggests it is the more usual term in Britain. They don't seem to have heard of a pareo. These are pictures of the real Sarong Kebaya which is a Malay national dress. It is the uniform of the female flight attendants on both MAS (Malaysian Airlines) and SIA (Singapore Airlines). They are as different from beach wraps as are Japanese kimonos.","output":"In Britain they are known variously as a sarong (from Malay national garment), pareo (from pareu - Tahitian national language, first used in English in 1769), kimono (from Japanese), or simply as wrap, or cover-up. All those terms appear on Amazon The Marks & Spencers word seems to be sarong, which suggests it is the more usual term in Britain. They don't seem to have heard of a pareo. These are pictures of the real Sarong Kebaya which is a Malay national dress. It is the uniform of the female flight attendants on both MAS (Malaysian Airlines) and SIA (Singapore Airlines). They are as different from beach wraps as are Japanese kimonos."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the difference between usually and often? For example, I don't understand what is the difference between then in the following sentences: \"I go there often\" \"I go there usually\"","question":"What is the difference between usually and often? For example, I don't understand what is the difference between then in the following sentences: \"I go there often\" \"I go there usually\"","answer":"The nuance can be demonstrated with a couple of examples: I usually have a cup of coffee in the morning. I've often heard that pop song on the radio. often expresses frequency. usually expresses the customary. What is customary occurs with some frequency, but what is frequent is not necessarily customary.","output":"The nuance can be demonstrated with a couple of examples: I usually have a cup of coffee in the morning. I've often heard that pop song on the radio. often expresses frequency. usually expresses the customary. What is customary occurs with some frequency, but what is frequent is not necessarily customary."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYour shoes are shining: You must have mended your shoes. You must have your shoes mended. This was the question given in an examination. Most students and some teachers found the question difficult because of the structure. I don't think this is a difficult question for students whose mother-tongue is English. However, I would like to clarify my doubt. My question is: Do students of native English speaking countries find the sentences difficult like the students In India unless the structure is explained?","question":"Your shoes are shining: You must have mended your shoes. You must have your shoes mended. This was the question given in an examination. Most students and some teachers found the question difficult because of the structure. I don't think this is a difficult question for students whose mother-tongue is English. However, I would like to clarify my doubt. My question is: Do students of native English speaking countries find the sentences difficult like the students In India unless the structure is explained?","answer":"I'm an Indian student studying in 8th Grade, and this question is very obvious to me. You must have mended your shoes Means that you have mended you shoes in the past and that's why they're shining. You must have your shoes mended Means that you must have your shoes mended by someone else in the future. They shouldn't be shining yet. According to me this is something a 6th Grader should understand, however you haven't mentioned your students' grade.","output":"I'm an Indian student studying in 8th Grade, and this question is very obvious to me. You must have mended your shoes Means that you have mended you shoes in the past and that's why they're shining. You must have your shoes mended Means that you must have your shoes mended by someone else in the future. They shouldn't be shining yet. According to me this is something a 6th Grader should understand, however you haven't mentioned your students' grade."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI just ran across the following sentence: I doubt ordinary civilians would hardly ever die from gunshots. And in context and from a quick skim-reading I'd guess it's trying to say, \"Ordinary citizens will rarely die from gunshots\" but upon re-reading I'm not certain that the sentence actually means that. I suspect this is because I translate \"hardly ever\" to \"rarely\" which then suggests that the \"doubt\" refers to the rarity, indicating that they believe deaths wouldn't be rare. Ignoring the author's actual intent, what does this sentence say?","question":"I just ran across the following sentence: I doubt ordinary civilians would hardly ever die from gunshots. And in context and from a quick skim-reading I'd guess it's trying to say, \"Ordinary citizens will rarely die from gunshots\" but upon re-reading I'm not certain that the sentence actually means that. I suspect this is because I translate \"hardly ever\" to \"rarely\" which then suggests that the \"doubt\" refers to the rarity, indicating that they believe deaths wouldn't be rare. Ignoring the author's actual intent, what does this sentence say?","answer":"The default reading is that the speaker does not believe, or at least finds it very unlikely that \"civilians hardly ever die from gunshots\". However, the presence of the \"implied double negative\" (doubt + hardly ever) also triggers the native speaker's \"slip-of-the-tongue\" detector; the way it is written clearly implies that the person started out to say one thing and got his phrasing slightly confused as he progressed.","output":"The default reading is that the speaker does not believe, or at least finds it very unlikely that \"civilians hardly ever die from gunshots\". However, the presence of the \"implied double negative\" (doubt + hardly ever) also triggers the native speaker's \"slip-of-the-tongue\" detector; the way it is written clearly implies that the person started out to say one thing and got his phrasing slightly confused as he progressed."}
{"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 translating a text from Sanskrit, which has a singular\/plural (and, actually, dual) distinction in the second person. It has long been the custom in English translation to render the 2nd singular with 'thou', etc. and the 2nd plural with 'ye\/you', etc., as in Early Modern English (EModE). This creates a suitably archaic and liturgical feel to the translation. But I've come unstuck with the phrase 'may you be covered'. If I want to replace 'you' with 'thou', should 'may' become 'mayest' or not? My feeling is that 'may' is functioning as an auxiliary here. In Modern English, we say 'he likes it', but 'may he like it'. We do not say 'mays he like it', the 'may' is not a finite verb. So I would expect the same to apply to EModE. However, we would also apply the same logic to 'should'. We would say 'Has he eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded him that he should not eat?', not '... that he shoulds not eat?'. And so I would have expected, applying that logic, to find '... that thou should not eat?'. And yet we have in Genesis: And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? (Genesis 3:11) Which leads me to question whether the may would be finite and agree with thou, or not. Should it be 'mayest thou be covered' or 'may thou be covered', and why? This, to be clear, is in the sense of an imperative: 'Be covered!' - only softer.","question":"I'm translating a text from Sanskrit, which has a singular\/plural (and, actually, dual) distinction in the second person. It has long been the custom in English translation to render the 2nd singular with 'thou', etc. and the 2nd plural with 'ye\/you', etc., as in Early Modern English (EModE). This creates a suitably archaic and liturgical feel to the translation. But I've come unstuck with the phrase 'may you be covered'. If I want to replace 'you' with 'thou', should 'may' become 'mayest' or not? My feeling is that 'may' is functioning as an auxiliary here. In Modern English, we say 'he likes it', but 'may he like it'. We do not say 'mays he like it', the 'may' is not a finite verb. So I would expect the same to apply to EModE. However, we would also apply the same logic to 'should'. We would say 'Has he eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded him that he should not eat?', not '... that he shoulds not eat?'. And so I would have expected, applying that logic, to find '... that thou should not eat?'. And yet we have in Genesis: And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? (Genesis 3:11) Which leads me to question whether the may would be finite and agree with thou, or not. Should it be 'mayest thou be covered' or 'may thou be covered', and why? This, to be clear, is in the sense of an imperative: 'Be covered!' - only softer.","answer":"Even in Early Modern English, the subjunctive uses the infinitive form of the verb. One example (which is a recent construction, but in EModE) is: We proclaim thy death, O Lord, and profess thy resurrection, until thou come again. Divine Worship Missal; see no. 23 of this analysis The example shouldest does not form the subjunctive mood; it's indicative. Thus, where may is expressing a wish, it is indeed May thou.","output":"Even in Early Modern English, the subjunctive uses the infinitive form of the verb. One example (which is a recent construction, but in EModE) is: We proclaim thy death, O Lord, and profess thy resurrection, until thou come again. Divine Worship Missal; see no. 23 of this analysis The example shouldest does not form the subjunctive mood; it's indicative. Thus, where may is expressing a wish, it is indeed May thou."}
{"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 thought we can use perfect infinitive construction to talk about plans which didn't happen. For instance: I was to have started work last week, but I changed my mind. But what about that construction: I'm sorry to have disturbed you. Both two these examples were taken from M. Swan from the regarding sections.","question":"I thought we can use perfect infinitive construction to talk about plans which didn't happen. For instance: I was to have started work last week, but I changed my mind. But what about that construction: I'm sorry to have disturbed you. Both two these examples were taken from M. Swan from the regarding sections.","answer":"The most important thing to know about verbs The role of the verb in a sentence is to indicate what the sentence claims or denies about its subject. For example, in \"The cat sat on the mat\", the subject is the cat, and the sentence makes a claim about the cat: that in the past, the cat sat on the mat. The words \"sat on the mat\" form the predicate of the sentence: what is being claimed or denied about the subject. A verb has person, number, and tense in order to serve the role of predication. The verb's person and number \"agree\" with the subject in order to indicate what the sentence is making a claim about. In English, verb person and number are very simple, but in other languages (including Russian), they're more complex and their role is more obvious. The verb's tense indicates the time that the sentence makes a claim about. Because \"sat\" is in the past tense, \"The cat sat on the mat\" makes a claim about what the cat did in the past; it claims nothing about what the cat is doing now or will do in the future. The most important thing to know about infinitives The main function of the infinitive is to let you use a verb without predicating anything\u2014that is, separately from making a claim. For example, in \"The cat wishes to sit on the mat\", the verb is \"wishes\", and the sentence claims that the cat is wishing something. \"Sit\" is in its infinitive form because it doesn't claim or deny that the cat is sitting. It only describes the cat's wish, which may or may not be fulfilled. This is why an infinitive doesn't have person, number, or tense. The word \"infinitive\" comes from Latin roots meaning \"unfinished\". An infinitive verb doesn't perform the full role of a verb; it doesn't make a claim about a subject. It just helps describe a claim which some other verb in the sentence makes. The infinitive provides a way to use a verb separately from claiming or denying that the verb's meaning is true of a subject. Perfect infinitives Now you can probably guess what perfect infinitives do. They describe a situation where a verb's action was complete, without using that verb to claim something about the subject. I'm sorry to have disturbed you. In this sentence, the main verb is \"am\" (which is contracted with \"I\"). The subject is \"I\". The sentence claims that I am sorry. What am I sorry about? The fact that I disturbed you. You could also say \"I'm sorry I disturbed you\", which uses a subordinate clause to claim that I disturbed you. In \"I'm sorry to have disturbed you\", the completed action of disturbing you is wrapped up in an infinitive. The fact that I disturbed you is left to implication. An infinitive can describe a situation that exists or really did happen. It doesn't have to describe a situation that doesn't exist or didn't happen. The infinitive just lets another verb do the predicating. One reason people say \"I'm sorry to have disturbed you\" is to emphasize that the disturbance has already happened and can't be undone. That phrasing contrasts with \"I'm sorry to disturb you\", which doesn't suggest that the disturbance is complete. You might say either sentence after opening someone's office door while they're in the middle of work, before you ask them for some assistance. \"I'm sorry to disturb you\" emphasizes that the disturbance is still in progress, and you have more to say. \"I'm sorry to have disturbed you\" emphasizes that the disturbance can't be undone (and you might have more to say, or perhaps opening the door was a mistake, and you'll close it and back out now). Common uses are not rules It's natural to try to simplify and organize what you're learning about a new language. Memorizing rules can be a tempting way to simplify what you're learning. But most \"rules\" are wrong, especially \"rules\" that are really just common uses. It is not a rule that \"the perfect infinitive can only be used for plans that didn't happen.\" That is just one of many uses of the perfect infinitive. It can also be used for plans that did happen: \"I am glad to have started work last week, as planned.\" The perfect aspect emphasizes that I am glad that my start of work is now in the past, behind me, complete. Infinitives have many, many uses in English. They can hook up with other words in a sentence in many different ways, far more than I can explain in one message. What they all have in common is that the infinitive lets another verb make the sentence's claim. The infinitive just fits into that claim in some way. It's not even a rule that if you want to use a verb without using it to designate the predicate of the sentence, you must use an infinitive. English also uses gerunds for that (as in \"I'm sorry for disturbing you\"). When to use a gerund and when to use an infinitive is one of the most confusing parts of English grammar, because it doesn't follow any clear rules.","output":"The most important thing to know about verbs The role of the verb in a sentence is to indicate what the sentence claims or denies about its subject. For example, in \"The cat sat on the mat\", the subject is the cat, and the sentence makes a claim about the cat: that in the past, the cat sat on the mat. The words \"sat on the mat\" form the predicate of the sentence: what is being claimed or denied about the subject. A verb has person, number, and tense in order to serve the role of predication. The verb's person and number \"agree\" with the subject in order to indicate what the sentence is making a claim about. In English, verb person and number are very simple, but in other languages (including Russian), they're more complex and their role is more obvious. The verb's tense indicates the time that the sentence makes a claim about. Because \"sat\" is in the past tense, \"The cat sat on the mat\" makes a claim about what the cat did in the past; it claims nothing about what the cat is doing now or will do in the future. The most important thing to know about infinitives The main function of the infinitive is to let you use a verb without predicating anything\u2014that is, separately from making a claim. For example, in \"The cat wishes to sit on the mat\", the verb is \"wishes\", and the sentence claims that the cat is wishing something. \"Sit\" is in its infinitive form because it doesn't claim or deny that the cat is sitting. It only describes the cat's wish, which may or may not be fulfilled. This is why an infinitive doesn't have person, number, or tense. The word \"infinitive\" comes from Latin roots meaning \"unfinished\". An infinitive verb doesn't perform the full role of a verb; it doesn't make a claim about a subject. It just helps describe a claim which some other verb in the sentence makes. The infinitive provides a way to use a verb separately from claiming or denying that the verb's meaning is true of a subject. Perfect infinitives Now you can probably guess what perfect infinitives do. They describe a situation where a verb's action was complete, without using that verb to claim something about the subject. I'm sorry to have disturbed you. In this sentence, the main verb is \"am\" (which is contracted with \"I\"). The subject is \"I\". The sentence claims that I am sorry. What am I sorry about? The fact that I disturbed you. You could also say \"I'm sorry I disturbed you\", which uses a subordinate clause to claim that I disturbed you. In \"I'm sorry to have disturbed you\", the completed action of disturbing you is wrapped up in an infinitive. The fact that I disturbed you is left to implication. An infinitive can describe a situation that exists or really did happen. It doesn't have to describe a situation that doesn't exist or didn't happen. The infinitive just lets another verb do the predicating. One reason people say \"I'm sorry to have disturbed you\" is to emphasize that the disturbance has already happened and can't be undone. That phrasing contrasts with \"I'm sorry to disturb you\", which doesn't suggest that the disturbance is complete. You might say either sentence after opening someone's office door while they're in the middle of work, before you ask them for some assistance. \"I'm sorry to disturb you\" emphasizes that the disturbance is still in progress, and you have more to say. \"I'm sorry to have disturbed you\" emphasizes that the disturbance can't be undone (and you might have more to say, or perhaps opening the door was a mistake, and you'll close it and back out now). Common uses are not rules It's natural to try to simplify and organize what you're learning about a new language. Memorizing rules can be a tempting way to simplify what you're learning. But most \"rules\" are wrong, especially \"rules\" that are really just common uses. It is not a rule that \"the perfect infinitive can only be used for plans that didn't happen.\" That is just one of many uses of the perfect infinitive. It can also be used for plans that did happen: \"I am glad to have started work last week, as planned.\" The perfect aspect emphasizes that I am glad that my start of work is now in the past, behind me, complete. Infinitives have many, many uses in English. They can hook up with other words in a sentence in many different ways, far more than I can explain in one message. What they all have in common is that the infinitive lets another verb make the sentence's claim. The infinitive just fits into that claim in some way. It's not even a rule that if you want to use a verb without using it to designate the predicate of the sentence, you must use an infinitive. English also uses gerunds for that (as in \"I'm sorry for disturbing you\"). When to use a gerund and when to use an infinitive is one of the most confusing parts of English grammar, because it doesn't follow any clear rules."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the difference between ambition and aspiration? I found this question in the schoolbook and cannot figure out why the only possible answer is aspirations. Do you agree that children having ________ to become rich and famous is a negative thing? Why can't ambitions work as an answer?","question":"What is the difference between ambition and aspiration? I found this question in the schoolbook and cannot figure out why the only possible answer is aspirations. Do you agree that children having ________ to become rich and famous is a negative thing? Why can't ambitions work as an answer?","answer":"The best quote I can find which demonstrates the difference between the two words is : 1866 W. R. Alger Solitudes Nat. & Man iii. 120 Aspiration is a pure upward desire for excellence, without side-references; ambition is an inflamed desire to surpass others.. . . OED-3 The above quote is from the OED entry for 'ambition' which defines it as : The ardent (in early usage, inordinate) desire to rise to high position, or to attain rank, influence, distinction or other preferment. Whereas the OED makes clear that 'aspiration' originally comes from the the concept of breathing, aspiring and so an 'aspiration' is not a matter of striving for a place above others or to gain more than one has, it is the breathings of a human after something with purpose, for its own sake : The action of aspiring; steadfast desire or longing for something above one.. . OED-3 1866 W. R. Alger Solitudes Nature & Man iii. 120 Aspiration is a pure upward desire for excellence. I have an ambition to gain reputation points on EL&U. But I also have an aspiration to be genuinely competent in English, that I may, effectively, communicate with my fellow humans. There is nothing wrong with either as long as they are in harmony, I would say. If not, I become an unbalanced human being.","output":"The best quote I can find which demonstrates the difference between the two words is : 1866 W. R. Alger Solitudes Nat. & Man iii. 120 Aspiration is a pure upward desire for excellence, without side-references; ambition is an inflamed desire to surpass others.. . . OED-3 The above quote is from the OED entry for 'ambition' which defines it as : The ardent (in early usage, inordinate) desire to rise to high position, or to attain rank, influence, distinction or other preferment. Whereas the OED makes clear that 'aspiration' originally comes from the the concept of breathing, aspiring and so an 'aspiration' is not a matter of striving for a place above others or to gain more than one has, it is the breathings of a human after something with purpose, for its own sake : The action of aspiring; steadfast desire or longing for something above one.. . OED-3 1866 W. R. Alger Solitudes Nature & Man iii. 120 Aspiration is a pure upward desire for excellence. I have an ambition to gain reputation points on EL&U. But I also have an aspiration to be genuinely competent in English, that I may, effectively, communicate with my fellow humans. There is nothing wrong with either as long as they are in harmony, I would say. If not, I become an unbalanced human being."}
{"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"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\nFrom the crystal-clear trout streams of the Cascades and Olympics to the deep-water sport-fishing waters of Washington's Pacific Coast, the Evergreen State offers up an array of angling opportunities that ranks among the nation's best. Are the Cascades and Olympics of mountains? How to understand the phrase \"trout streams of the Cascades and Olympics\"?","question":"From the crystal-clear trout streams of the Cascades and Olympics to the deep-water sport-fishing waters of Washington's Pacific Coast, the Evergreen State offers up an array of angling opportunities that ranks among the nation's best. Are the Cascades and Olympics of mountains? How to understand the phrase \"trout streams of the Cascades and Olympics\"?","answer":"In this sentence, \u201cstream\u201d means a small river. A \u201ctrout stream\u201d is a stream where you can find trouts (a species of fish). \u201cCrystal-clear\u201d is a laudative adjective meaning that the river is not polluted or muddy. \u201cThe Cascades and Olympics\u201d stand for a part of the state of Washington, like \u201cWashington's Pacific Coast\u201d. \u201cCascades\u201d refer to the part of the Cascade Range that is in Washington, and \u201cOlympics\u201d refers to the Olympic Mountains. In both cases, the proper noun is plural because it implicitly refers to a mountain range, which is a set of mountains, so it's plural. \u201cCascades\u201d is short for \u201cCascade mountains\u201d (the usual formal name is \u201dCascade Range\u201c) and \u201cOlympics\u201d is short for \u201cOlympic mountains\u201d (the usual formal name is \u201dOlympics Mountains\u201c). Thus the \u201ccrystal-clear trout streams of the Cascades and Olympics\u201d are some rivers located in some specific parts of Washington. The overall construction of the sentence is \u201cFrom X to Y, [something about] C\u201d, where C is a category and X and Y are examples of things in this category. This is a fairly common way to phrase this kind of sentence.","output":"In this sentence, \u201cstream\u201d means a small river. A \u201ctrout stream\u201d is a stream where you can find trouts (a species of fish). \u201cCrystal-clear\u201d is a laudative adjective meaning that the river is not polluted or muddy. \u201cThe Cascades and Olympics\u201d stand for a part of the state of Washington, like \u201cWashington's Pacific Coast\u201d. \u201cCascades\u201d refer to the part of the Cascade Range that is in Washington, and \u201cOlympics\u201d refers to the Olympic Mountains. In both cases, the proper noun is plural because it implicitly refers to a mountain range, which is a set of mountains, so it's plural. \u201cCascades\u201d is short for \u201cCascade mountains\u201d (the usual formal name is \u201dCascade Range\u201c) and \u201cOlympics\u201d is short for \u201cOlympic mountains\u201d (the usual formal name is \u201dOlympics Mountains\u201c). Thus the \u201ccrystal-clear trout streams of the Cascades and Olympics\u201d are some rivers located in some specific parts of Washington. The overall construction of the sentence is \u201cFrom X to Y, [something about] C\u201d, where C is a category and X and Y are examples of things in this category. This is a fairly common way to phrase this kind of sentence."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nEllen probably wouldn't have survived, let alone broken the record, if she didn't have such extreme mental toughness. Is it the third conditional? I guess, they talking about past events that didn't happen. Then why \"if part\" of the sentence contains the past simple verb and not the past perfect? Also this sentence from the same text But if she hadn't endured such tough experiences herself, she wouldn't understand nearly as much about what these young people have to face. Text","question":"Ellen probably wouldn't have survived, let alone broken the record, if she didn't have such extreme mental toughness. Is it the third conditional? I guess, they talking about past events that didn't happen. Then why \"if part\" of the sentence contains the past simple verb and not the past perfect? Also this sentence from the same text But if she hadn't endured such tough experiences herself, she wouldn't understand nearly as much about what these young people have to face. Text","answer":"The uses of tense here are possible. Both sentences have a past irrealis in the in the condition clause and present irrealis in the consequence clause. The first sentence implies that Ellen's past survival was attributable to a toughness which she still possesses. The second implies that her present understanding is attributable to her past endurance. However, these are rather borderline uses; and such tough experience and this young people in the second sentence suggests that the sentences were probably written by a non-native speaker. In any case, you clearly have sufficient knowledge of English syntax to discard the \u201cnth conditional\u201d framework, which is merely a pedagogical device for introducing learners to conditional constructions and bears no relationship to the realities of English syntax.","output":"The uses of tense here are possible. Both sentences have a past irrealis in the in the condition clause and present irrealis in the consequence clause. The first sentence implies that Ellen's past survival was attributable to a toughness which she still possesses. The second implies that her present understanding is attributable to her past endurance. However, these are rather borderline uses; and such tough experience and this young people in the second sentence suggests that the sentences were probably written by a non-native speaker. In any case, you clearly have sufficient knowledge of English syntax to discard the \u201cnth conditional\u201d framework, which is merely a pedagogical device for introducing learners to conditional constructions and bears no relationship to the realities of English syntax."}
{"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 plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nFor example in a simple sentence such as: Jim saw another man eat a cow. I know that \"Jim\" is the subject, and \"another man\" is the direct object. But then is \"another man\" a subject as well because it \"eats\" the cow (making the cow a direct object as well)?","question":"For example in a simple sentence such as: Jim saw another man eat a cow. I know that \"Jim\" is the subject, and \"another man\" is the direct object. But then is \"another man\" a subject as well because it \"eats\" the cow (making the cow a direct object as well)?","answer":"If you mean: can a person that is referred to by a direct object noun phrase of some verb also be referred to by a subject noun phrase of another verb, then sure. Why not? But if you mean: can a noun phrase simultaneously be the direct object of one verb and the subject of another verb, the answer is unclear. This is possible in Relational Grammar (and probably also in some other theories), but it's not allowed in Transformational Grammar. For your example, \"Jim saw another man eat a cow\", if we decide that it is true that \"another man\" is the object of \"saw\", and it is also true that \"another man\" is the subject of \"eat\" (which isn't obvious), then we'd have to either (1) have a deeper level of representation in which \"another man\" is subject of \"eat\" and suppose that it is moved from that position into object position of \"saw\", or (2) begin with a deeper level of representation that has two instances of the noun phrase \"another man\", one instance to be object of \"saw\" and another to be subject of \"eat\". (1) Jim saw [ another man eat a cow ] ==> Jim saw another man [ eat a cow ] (2) Jim saw another man [ another man eat a cow ] ==> Jim saw another man [ eat a cow ] In TG, (1) is called a raising analysis, and (2) is called an equi analysis (after the names given to the transformations that were supposed to perform these changes).","output":"If you mean: can a person that is referred to by a direct object noun phrase of some verb also be referred to by a subject noun phrase of another verb, then sure. Why not? But if you mean: can a noun phrase simultaneously be the direct object of one verb and the subject of another verb, the answer is unclear. This is possible in Relational Grammar (and probably also in some other theories), but it's not allowed in Transformational Grammar. For your example, \"Jim saw another man eat a cow\", if we decide that it is true that \"another man\" is the object of \"saw\", and it is also true that \"another man\" is the subject of \"eat\" (which isn't obvious), then we'd have to either (1) have a deeper level of representation in which \"another man\" is subject of \"eat\" and suppose that it is moved from that position into object position of \"saw\", or (2) begin with a deeper level of representation that has two instances of the noun phrase \"another man\", one instance to be object of \"saw\" and another to be subject of \"eat\". (1) Jim saw [ another man eat a cow ] ==> Jim saw another man [ eat a cow ] (2) Jim saw another man [ another man eat a cow ] ==> Jim saw another man [ eat a cow ] In TG, (1) is called a raising analysis, and (2) is called an equi analysis (after the names given to the transformations that were supposed to perform these changes)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCan't find it in google, but there must be something English speakers use to describe a shoe one started to lace up and left unfinished?","question":"Can't find it in google, but there must be something English speakers use to describe a shoe one started to lace up and left unfinished?","answer":"Just half is sufficient. A half-eaten apple. You left it half finished.","output":"Just half is sufficient. A half-eaten apple. You left it half finished."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am not a native English speaker. Anyways, there's this girl in my class who quite frequently bunks and she relies on me for notes. I am basically her asset who does all her assignments and other stuffs like doing completing her algorithm and Program assignments\/projects. I don't mind, but, I have noticed that she always uses the word muwaah or something like that at the end of our conversations\/messages. What does that even mean? I tried asking her once but she just laughed so hard and told muwaah and went away.In my years of learning English I have never come across of this word. Sorry, my native is not English language so I don't have that great vocabulary. Also, How do you even pronounce that word !?!?","question":"I am not a native English speaker. Anyways, there's this girl in my class who quite frequently bunks and she relies on me for notes. I am basically her asset who does all her assignments and other stuffs like doing completing her algorithm and Program assignments\/projects. I don't mind, but, I have noticed that she always uses the word muwaah or something like that at the end of our conversations\/messages. What does that even mean? I tried asking her once but she just laughed so hard and told muwaah and went away.In my years of learning English I have never come across of this word. Sorry, my native is not English language so I don't have that great vocabulary. Also, How do you even pronounce that word !?!?","answer":"It is onomatopoeia for the sound of kissing. A sign of affection which can sometimes be considered flirting. Oxford dictionary definition: Used to represent the sound of a kiss, typically one given in an exaggerated or theatrical way: 'Mwah, mwah! How are you, dahling?' As Hot Licks mentions in the comments, it is pronounced similarly to the French pronoun \"moi\" (i.e. \"mwah\").","output":"It is onomatopoeia for the sound of kissing. A sign of affection which can sometimes be considered flirting. Oxford dictionary definition: Used to represent the sound of a kiss, typically one given in an exaggerated or theatrical way: 'Mwah, mwah! How are you, dahling?' As Hot Licks mentions in the comments, it is pronounced similarly to the French pronoun \"moi\" (i.e. \"mwah\")."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat are the differences in usage between the verbs bedevil and torment? For Example: Hilda has been tormented by girls Hilda has been bedeviled by girls. Please advise whether the use of the verb 'bedevil' can mean torment when a person is the subject.","question":"What are the differences in usage between the verbs bedevil and torment? For Example: Hilda has been tormented by girls Hilda has been bedeviled by girls. Please advise whether the use of the verb 'bedevil' can mean torment when a person is the subject.","answer":"\"Hilda has been tormented by girls\" would be more usual. Bedeviled is rarer and it tends to be more abstract or metaphorical. Looking at the examples from Merriam-Webster, one they give is a common usage \"bedevilled by problems\"; they also quote \"The theory bedevils scientists, none of whom have been able to prove it true or false.\" In both these cases it's not tormenting in the sense of directly causing physical discomfort, rather it is either niggling questions or problems occuring, and it's not done by a person. Instead it's a state of affairs causing distress. In contrast \"torment\" is used as a stronger version of \"annoy\" or \"tease\": it often refers to the action of people, although you can be \"tormented by guilt\" or doubt. It also suggests are more painful and physical suffering than \"bedevil\". M-W quotes an example from Dickens that describes a persistent, unpleasant teasing: \"She liked me, but she laughed at me, and tormented me\". Torment can be used like this of children, but often refers to a more severe form of harassment or violence. Hence, if Hilda is being harassed by girls calling her names, playing pranks, mocking her, and making her life miserable, then \"torment\" is better. Saying \"bedevilled by girls\" suggests to me not the same sort of bullying, but rather someone who may be inconvenienced by getting the attention of too many girls or something like that.","output":"\"Hilda has been tormented by girls\" would be more usual. Bedeviled is rarer and it tends to be more abstract or metaphorical. Looking at the examples from Merriam-Webster, one they give is a common usage \"bedevilled by problems\"; they also quote \"The theory bedevils scientists, none of whom have been able to prove it true or false.\" In both these cases it's not tormenting in the sense of directly causing physical discomfort, rather it is either niggling questions or problems occuring, and it's not done by a person. Instead it's a state of affairs causing distress. In contrast \"torment\" is used as a stronger version of \"annoy\" or \"tease\": it often refers to the action of people, although you can be \"tormented by guilt\" or doubt. It also suggests are more painful and physical suffering than \"bedevil\". M-W quotes an example from Dickens that describes a persistent, unpleasant teasing: \"She liked me, but she laughed at me, and tormented me\". Torment can be used like this of children, but often refers to a more severe form of harassment or violence. Hence, if Hilda is being harassed by girls calling her names, playing pranks, mocking her, and making her life miserable, then \"torment\" is better. Saying \"bedevilled by girls\" suggests to me not the same sort of bullying, but rather someone who may be inconvenienced by getting the attention of too many girls or something like that."}
{"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\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nBorat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, is this title grammatically correct ? It seems wrong to me but I was wondering if there was any such kind of use of \"make benefit\" that I didn't know. Let me know if this question doesn't belong here.","question":"Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, is this title grammatically correct ? It seems wrong to me but I was wondering if there was any such kind of use of \"make benefit\" that I didn't know. Let me know if this question doesn't belong here.","answer":"No, it isn't. That's part of the joke. A grammatically correct version would be something like \"Learning about the culture of America in order to benefit the glorious nation of Kazakhstan\", which is nowhere near as funny.","output":"No, it isn't. That's part of the joke. A grammatically correct version would be something like \"Learning about the culture of America in order to benefit the glorious nation of Kazakhstan\", which is nowhere near as funny."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nConsider: clich\u00e9 = a phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought. blas\u00e9 = unimpressed with or indifferent to something because one has experienced or seen it so often before. I wanted to learn how to type that sign, the sign on the top of the ending e in above examples, by computer keyboard. I started to search about it, but soon I faced the problem that I do not know what is that sign called in English.","question":"Consider: clich\u00e9 = a phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought. blas\u00e9 = unimpressed with or indifferent to something because one has experienced or seen it so often before. I wanted to learn how to type that sign, the sign on the top of the ending e in above examples, by computer keyboard. I started to search about it, but soon I faced the problem that I do not know what is that sign called in English.","answer":"Technically, it's part of a group of marks termed \"diacritics\". That one is an acute diacritic. More simply, they're called \"accent marks\" or simply \"accents\". Diacritic is primarily an adjective, though sometimes used as a noun, whereas diacritical is only ever an adjective. Some diacritical marks, such as the acute ( \u00b4 ) and grave ( ` ), are often called accents. Diacritical marks may appear above or below a letter, or in some other position such as within the letter or between two letters.","output":"Technically, it's part of a group of marks termed \"diacritics\". That one is an acute diacritic. More simply, they're called \"accent marks\" or simply \"accents\". Diacritic is primarily an adjective, though sometimes used as a noun, whereas diacritical is only ever an adjective. Some diacritical marks, such as the acute ( \u00b4 ) and grave ( ` ), are often called accents. Diacritical marks may appear above or below a letter, or in some other position such as within the letter or between two letters."}
{"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 am aware that \"gamble\" means to risk or bet, bur I am puzzled by \"gamble one's way.\" here it goes in context: \"We are going to gamble our way to belief in God.\" Maybe the speaker left out \"on\" like \"gamble on our wat,\" I am not sure. Tell me please what you think of this.","question":"I am aware that \"gamble\" means to risk or bet, bur I am puzzled by \"gamble one's way.\" here it goes in context: \"We are going to gamble our way to belief in God.\" Maybe the speaker left out \"on\" like \"gamble on our wat,\" I am not sure. Tell me please what you think of this.","answer":"VERB one's way to GOAL is a fixed English construction (in fact it is one of the 'parade' examples analyzed by Construction Grammar) with the primary sense proceed to GOAL by VERBing\u2014the action designated by VERB is the means or method of achieving GOAL Go thrust him out at gates and let him smell his way to Dover\u2014said by Goneril in Shakespeare's King Lear after her husband has put out Gloucester's eyes; since Gloucester can no longer see he will have to discern his route by smell. This Arkansas football player danced his way to an NYU scholarship\u2014a news story about a high school athlete who achieved a scholarship at a prestigious New York university through his study of dance. The construction is also employed in a 'non-causative' sense proceed to GOAL while VERBing\u2014the action designated by VERB accompanies progress toward GOAL J. L. cheerfully whistled his way to the elevator. No sense in worrying about things that hadn't happened yet. \u2014Cara Saylor Polk, Code Koral In your quotation the first, causative sense is probably what is meant: it seems to echo Pascal's wager and Samuel Butler's comment on Job 19:25, I know that my Redeemer liveth: What is faith but a kind of betting or speculation after all? It should be \u201cI bet that my Redeemer liveth.\u201d That is, belief in God can only be achieved by making a concrete commitment to belief\u2014a \u2018bet\u2019 which accepts the risk of losing.","output":"VERB one's way to GOAL is a fixed English construction (in fact it is one of the 'parade' examples analyzed by Construction Grammar) with the primary sense proceed to GOAL by VERBing\u2014the action designated by VERB is the means or method of achieving GOAL Go thrust him out at gates and let him smell his way to Dover\u2014said by Goneril in Shakespeare's King Lear after her husband has put out Gloucester's eyes; since Gloucester can no longer see he will have to discern his route by smell. This Arkansas football player danced his way to an NYU scholarship\u2014a news story about a high school athlete who achieved a scholarship at a prestigious New York university through his study of dance. The construction is also employed in a 'non-causative' sense proceed to GOAL while VERBing\u2014the action designated by VERB accompanies progress toward GOAL J. L. cheerfully whistled his way to the elevator. No sense in worrying about things that hadn't happened yet. \u2014Cara Saylor Polk, Code Koral In your quotation the first, causative sense is probably what is meant: it seems to echo Pascal's wager and Samuel Butler's comment on Job 19:25, I know that my Redeemer liveth: What is faith but a kind of betting or speculation after all? It should be \u201cI bet that my Redeemer liveth.\u201d That is, belief in God can only be achieved by making a concrete commitment to belief\u2014a \u2018bet\u2019 which accepts the risk of losing."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs the preposition in universal in conjunction with the verb \u2018to work\u2019 and can it be used with any organizations and businesses? For example: He works as a cook in a local hotel near here. He works in an office in Chicago. She works in a big company. She works in the emergency unit at the hospital. She works in a shoe repair shop. After leaving school, he worked in a restaurant for a year. military hospital. His sister works in a bank. She works in a shoe factory. He works in a steel plant. She works in a gift store on weekends. Ann works in a research institute. When should the prepositions at and for be used? For example: Barbara works at a travel agency. She works at the local supermarket. Now he works for a bank. I work for a small non-profit organization. I\u2019ve never heard: She works for a shoe factory. But with a law firm it\u2019s OK: She works for a law firm. Why?","question":"Is the preposition in universal in conjunction with the verb \u2018to work\u2019 and can it be used with any organizations and businesses? For example: He works as a cook in a local hotel near here. He works in an office in Chicago. She works in a big company. She works in the emergency unit at the hospital. She works in a shoe repair shop. After leaving school, he worked in a restaurant for a year. military hospital. His sister works in a bank. She works in a shoe factory. He works in a steel plant. She works in a gift store on weekends. Ann works in a research institute. When should the prepositions at and for be used? For example: Barbara works at a travel agency. She works at the local supermarket. Now he works for a bank. I work for a small non-profit organization. I\u2019ve never heard: She works for a shoe factory. But with a law firm it\u2019s OK: She works for a law firm. Why?","answer":"As a guide, you work for an employer, in a department, at a location. For example, you could work for Airbus, in the finance department, at the research facility. It can get quite fuzzy though, because there is a lot of overlap. An employer name can be used to point to both the employer and the premises, at least locally where everybody knows the name, so \"I work for\/at Airbus\" would both work. Similarly, where a business has only one function, the employer and the 'department' overlap - \"I work for\/in a restaurant\". This is why you have never heard \"She works for a shoe factory\" but you have heard \"She works for a law firm.\" 'Law firm' points to both the employer and the premises (\"There's a law firm on the 4th floor\"), but 'shoe factory' points only to the premises.","output":"As a guide, you work for an employer, in a department, at a location. For example, you could work for Airbus, in the finance department, at the research facility. It can get quite fuzzy though, because there is a lot of overlap. An employer name can be used to point to both the employer and the premises, at least locally where everybody knows the name, so \"I work for\/at Airbus\" would both work. Similarly, where a business has only one function, the employer and the 'department' overlap - \"I work for\/in a restaurant\". This is why you have never heard \"She works for a shoe factory\" but you have heard \"She works for a law firm.\" 'Law firm' points to both the employer and the premises (\"There's a law firm on the 4th floor\"), but 'shoe factory' points only to the premises."}
{"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\nThis came up in an email discussion - we are arguing about the merits and demerits of a certain approach, and I mentioned what I thought was a drawback to a scheme. To that, my colleague replied : \"Okay, we can table this, but I just want to clarify something...\" after which he went on to elucidate his views.... Does that mean that the discussion is closed on this ? If so, did he mean to say \"I agree to what you say, but I wasn't totally wrong either\" or something similar, or is it the reverse ?","question":"This came up in an email discussion - we are arguing about the merits and demerits of a certain approach, and I mentioned what I thought was a drawback to a scheme. To that, my colleague replied : \"Okay, we can table this, but I just want to clarify something...\" after which he went on to elucidate his views.... Does that mean that the discussion is closed on this ? If so, did he mean to say \"I agree to what you say, but I wasn't totally wrong either\" or something similar, or is it the reverse ?","answer":"In American English, to table something means to postpone discussion on something. It might mean to postpone it indefinitely, but usually it just means that the discussion should be resumed at a later date. (As others have pointed out, in British English it means the exact opposite. Two countries divided by a common language, as someone said.) Edit: Etymonline notes: table (v.) in parliamentary sense, 1718, originally \"to lay on the (speaker's) table for discussion,\" from table (n.). But in U.S. political jargon it has the sense of \"to postpone indefinitely\" (1866). Related: Tabled; tabling. That may be true for political jargon, but in every business meeting I've ever been involved with, to \"table\" something usually means the issue wasn't going to go away but that we were agreeing not to talk about it during the current meeting.","output":"In American English, to table something means to postpone discussion on something. It might mean to postpone it indefinitely, but usually it just means that the discussion should be resumed at a later date. (As others have pointed out, in British English it means the exact opposite. Two countries divided by a common language, as someone said.) Edit: Etymonline notes: table (v.) in parliamentary sense, 1718, originally \"to lay on the (speaker's) table for discussion,\" from table (n.). But in U.S. political jargon it has the sense of \"to postpone indefinitely\" (1866). Related: Tabled; tabling. That may be true for political jargon, but in every business meeting I've ever been involved with, to \"table\" something usually means the issue wasn't going to go away but that we were agreeing not to talk about it during the current meeting."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat rule of grammar does this sentence break? (I mean the \"does\" part of the following sentence) What does the status indicators mean? Also, why does english.stackexchange.com have a code option for formatting... Maybe BASIC or Apple script qualifies as English.","question":"What rule of grammar does this sentence break? (I mean the \"does\" part of the following sentence) What does the status indicators mean? Also, why does english.stackexchange.com have a code option for formatting... Maybe BASIC or Apple script qualifies as English.","answer":"Does is singular. Indicators is plural. To use them together, as in your example, is to violate the subject-verb agreement of the sentence. To create proper subject-verb agreement here would entail either changing the \"does\" to plural (\"do\"), or changing the \"indicators\" to singular (\"indicator\"). What do the status indicators mean? What does the status indicator mean? The first would probably be your choice, since I gather from the original example that there are in fact more than one indicator. However (this is important), if the example question is asking what the phrase the status indicators means, the grammar is correct, but the phrase in question should be inside quotes or italicized: What does the status indicators mean?","output":"Does is singular. Indicators is plural. To use them together, as in your example, is to violate the subject-verb agreement of the sentence. To create proper subject-verb agreement here would entail either changing the \"does\" to plural (\"do\"), or changing the \"indicators\" to singular (\"indicator\"). What do the status indicators mean? What does the status indicator mean? The first would probably be your choice, since I gather from the original example that there are in fact more than one indicator. However (this is important), if the example question is asking what the phrase the status indicators means, the grammar is correct, but the phrase in question should be inside quotes or italicized: What does the status indicators mean?"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIt occurs to me all the time, when I encounter a new word like a name\/surname (say, SUE VERTUE) I ask myself, how do English native speakers know what to pronounce this new word even if they've never heard of it before? Accordingly, I thought there must be a sort of knowledge to help gaining such an ability. Therefore, here the question arises is: How we as ESL\/EFL people could learn about it and what materials\/knowledge could be helpful throughout obtaining it?","question":"It occurs to me all the time, when I encounter a new word like a name\/surname (say, SUE VERTUE) I ask myself, how do English native speakers know what to pronounce this new word even if they've never heard of it before? Accordingly, I thought there must be a sort of knowledge to help gaining such an ability. Therefore, here the question arises is: How we as ESL\/EFL people could learn about it and what materials\/knowledge could be helpful throughout obtaining it?","answer":"It's likely the same in English as in any other language. You make your best guess from a set of rules: Does the word\/name look similar to other words which you know how to pronounce? Here, for example, \"Vertue\" looks like \"virtue\" so I would choose to pronounce it similarly, with a slight emphasis on \"e\" not \"i\". Sound the name out phonetically using common English pronunciation rules. For example, the American politician \"John Boehner\", whose last name I would (incorrectly) pronounce \"BOW-ner\" (it's actually \"BAY-ner\"). Which leads us to: Does this look like a \"borrowed\" word from a foreign language? If that is so, pronounce using the rules of that language. Example, \"L'Ardoise\" is pronounced as it would be in French, \"l'ardwah\". Meanwhile \"Boehner\" derives from one of the Germanic languages, and so you could go with the standard \"oeh\" pronunciation from that (\"BEH-ner\") -- which is still wrong, so: Listen to the person pronounce it themselves and copy that. For example the actress Demi Moore is frequently called \"DEH-mi\", but she actually pronounces her name with the accent on the second syllable, \"duh-MI\". And finally. If it's a proper name in Wales, give up.","output":"It's likely the same in English as in any other language. You make your best guess from a set of rules: Does the word\/name look similar to other words which you know how to pronounce? Here, for example, \"Vertue\" looks like \"virtue\" so I would choose to pronounce it similarly, with a slight emphasis on \"e\" not \"i\". Sound the name out phonetically using common English pronunciation rules. For example, the American politician \"John Boehner\", whose last name I would (incorrectly) pronounce \"BOW-ner\" (it's actually \"BAY-ner\"). Which leads us to: Does this look like a \"borrowed\" word from a foreign language? If that is so, pronounce using the rules of that language. Example, \"L'Ardoise\" is pronounced as it would be in French, \"l'ardwah\". Meanwhile \"Boehner\" derives from one of the Germanic languages, and so you could go with the standard \"oeh\" pronunciation from that (\"BEH-ner\") -- which is still wrong, so: Listen to the person pronounce it themselves and copy that. For example the actress Demi Moore is frequently called \"DEH-mi\", but she actually pronounces her name with the accent on the second syllable, \"duh-MI\". And finally. If it's a proper name in Wales, give up."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was watching the movie \"As good as it gets\" and came across the phrase \"never a break\" in reference to a car. What does it mean? Also, what does the movie title itself mean? edit: replaced brake with break.","question":"I was watching the movie \"As good as it gets\" and came across the phrase \"never a break\" in reference to a car. What does it mean? Also, what does the movie title itself mean? edit: replaced brake with break.","answer":"It was probably \"never a break\" meaning \"never any time to rest\": break 78. a brief rest, as from work: The actors took a ten-minute break from rehearsal. This would mean that the speaker is saying he never gets time to rest (or time for himself). \"As good as it gets\" means the best it will ever become.","output":"It was probably \"never a break\" meaning \"never any time to rest\": break 78. a brief rest, as from work: The actors took a ten-minute break from rehearsal. This would mean that the speaker is saying he never gets time to rest (or time for himself). \"As good as it gets\" means the best it will ever become."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am currently stuck with the following situation. Imagine that there is a website which offers premium content that only paying members can access. However, there are a few pages which is available for everyone. Which word can be used to describe those public available pages? Problem is, that I cannot use \u201epublic\u201c because this word is an identifier in the programming language I am using.","question":"I am currently stuck with the following situation. Imagine that there is a website which offers premium content that only paying members can access. However, there are a few pages which is available for everyone. Which word can be used to describe those public available pages? Problem is, that I cannot use \u201epublic\u201c because this word is an identifier in the programming language I am using.","answer":"Since the content is not subject to a premium, perhaps you could use freely available instead.","output":"Since the content is not subject to a premium, perhaps you could use freely available instead."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI once read a phrase (or idiom) like He has his heart in the right place although the context seemed to be a bit harsh. My understanding is: though he might have sounded harsh, he means well or is making the comment in good faith. Did I get it right? However, it seems to me the idiom could be used in other contexts as well, such as: \"he is focused on the situation as expected, no matter how it seems\". Is this right? Are there any other uses of the idiom?","question":"I once read a phrase (or idiom) like He has his heart in the right place although the context seemed to be a bit harsh. My understanding is: though he might have sounded harsh, he means well or is making the comment in good faith. Did I get it right? However, it seems to me the idiom could be used in other contexts as well, such as: \"he is focused on the situation as expected, no matter how it seems\". Is this right? Are there any other uses of the idiom?","answer":"It means that he meant well, but it also invites the inference that what he tried to do didn't work out well. In English, the heart is the seat of the emotions, and the brain is the seat of logical thought (metaphorically, of course). So Grice's Maxim of Quantity would then suggest that if all you can say about him is that his heart is in the right place, then his brain is likely somewhere else.","output":"It means that he meant well, but it also invites the inference that what he tried to do didn't work out well. In English, the heart is the seat of the emotions, and the brain is the seat of logical thought (metaphorically, of course). So Grice's Maxim of Quantity would then suggest that if all you can say about him is that his heart is in the right place, then his brain is likely somewhere else."}
{"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\nSay you're writing a book, and a character calls another character this nickname for Adelaide. How should it be spelled? Lady Laidy Laidey Laidie Addelaide is an old name, so wondering if there's a historical way it was spelled or even just instances of any 1800s spellings of it. My own research has found no consensus amongst modern usage and cannot find old text containing the nickname.","question":"Say you're writing a book, and a character calls another character this nickname for Adelaide. How should it be spelled? Lady Laidy Laidey Laidie Addelaide is an old name, so wondering if there's a historical way it was spelled or even just instances of any 1800s spellings of it. My own research has found no consensus amongst modern usage and cannot find old text containing the nickname.","answer":"In Google Books, I can find Rose Gurney's Discovery, by Mrs. G.S. Reaney, written in 1880. One of the characters is named Adelaide, and goes by Laidey: And Adelaide, more generally called \"Laidey,\" yawned languidly. This doesn't mean that \"Laidey\" was the only way to spell that abbreviation for Adelaide. It would be almost impossible to search for an abbreviation of Adelaide spelled \"Lady,\" and there could easily have been other spellings which I was unable to find. But \"Laidey\" is certainly an authentic way to spell it.","output":"In Google Books, I can find Rose Gurney's Discovery, by Mrs. G.S. Reaney, written in 1880. One of the characters is named Adelaide, and goes by Laidey: And Adelaide, more generally called \"Laidey,\" yawned languidly. This doesn't mean that \"Laidey\" was the only way to spell that abbreviation for Adelaide. It would be almost impossible to search for an abbreviation of Adelaide spelled \"Lady,\" and there could easily have been other spellings which I was unable to find. But \"Laidey\" is certainly an authentic way to spell it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn the book Eats, Shoots and Leaves, in order to show how punctuation changes meaning and can be used for jokes, it says: Instead of \u201cWhat would you with the king?\u201d you can have someone say in Marlowe\u2019s Edward II, \u201cWhat? Would you? With the king?\" I understand the innuendo but I don't understand the sentence in bold. It sounds like there is a word missing? Or is it grammatically correct and I'm missing something here? Thanks","question":"In the book Eats, Shoots and Leaves, in order to show how punctuation changes meaning and can be used for jokes, it says: Instead of \u201cWhat would you with the king?\u201d you can have someone say in Marlowe\u2019s Edward II, \u201cWhat? Would you? With the king?\" I understand the innuendo but I don't understand the sentence in bold. It sounds like there is a word missing? Or is it grammatically correct and I'm missing something here? Thanks","answer":"\"What would you with the king?\" is an archaic construct (but of course common in Marlowe's time), meaning \"what do you want with the king?\", or \"what is your reason for wanting to talk to the king?\"","output":"\"What would you with the king?\" is an archaic construct (but of course common in Marlowe's time), meaning \"what do you want with the king?\", or \"what is your reason for wanting to talk to the king?\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI quote from An Evening in Dandaloo (1891) by Banjo Paterson: It was while we held our races -- Hurdles, sprints and steplechases -- Up in Dandaloo, That a crowd of Sydney stealers, Jockeys, pugilists and spielers Brought some horses, real heelers, Came and put us through. I wonder what is the meaning of the word \"heeler\" here. It seem to refer to \"horses\". My initial guess had been \"someone who is able to hit it (i.e. run) very fast, striking the road with their heels\". But I doubt this sense. \"To heel\" may also mean \"to follow one closely, keeping at one's heels\". Then I've read that in Australia it may mean \"a cattle dog\", possibly a derivation from the previous sense. I'd like to read your guesses.","question":"I quote from An Evening in Dandaloo (1891) by Banjo Paterson: It was while we held our races -- Hurdles, sprints and steplechases -- Up in Dandaloo, That a crowd of Sydney stealers, Jockeys, pugilists and spielers Brought some horses, real heelers, Came and put us through. I wonder what is the meaning of the word \"heeler\" here. It seem to refer to \"horses\". My initial guess had been \"someone who is able to hit it (i.e. run) very fast, striking the road with their heels\". But I doubt this sense. \"To heel\" may also mean \"to follow one closely, keeping at one's heels\". Then I've read that in Australia it may mean \"a cattle dog\", possibly a derivation from the previous sense. I'd like to read your guesses.","answer":"OED1 (1901) shows the sense \u201c3. One who has light heels; a quick runner\u201d, which fits the context well. Another sense, \u201c4. One who catches by the heels; one who trips up, undermines, or supplants\u201d apparently is behind the name of dogs like red or blue heelers, which are called \u201c\u2019Red Heeler\u2019 or \u2018Blue Heeler\u2019 on the basis of this colouring and its practice of moving reluctant cattle by nipping at their heels\u201d.","output":"OED1 (1901) shows the sense \u201c3. One who has light heels; a quick runner\u201d, which fits the context well. Another sense, \u201c4. One who catches by the heels; one who trips up, undermines, or supplants\u201d apparently is behind the name of dogs like red or blue heelers, which are called \u201c\u2019Red Heeler\u2019 or \u2018Blue Heeler\u2019 on the basis of this colouring and its practice of moving reluctant cattle by nipping at their heels\u201d."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the term for when a word begins with the same sound as the previous word's ending sound? For example, there are three instances of this in one line of the lyrics to For the First Time in Forever (Reprise) in the Frozen movie soundtrack, where Elsa sings: Just stay away and you'll be safe from me. Just stay safe from from me I don't think elision is the correct term, since all references I've found to elision show that letters are omitted when written, e.g., \"going to\" -> \"gonna.\"","question":"What is the term for when a word begins with the same sound as the previous word's ending sound? For example, there are three instances of this in one line of the lyrics to For the First Time in Forever (Reprise) in the Frozen movie soundtrack, where Elsa sings: Just stay away and you'll be safe from me. Just stay safe from from me I don't think elision is the correct term, since all references I've found to elision show that letters are omitted when written, e.g., \"going to\" -> \"gonna.\"","answer":"The term is called haplology. Where one sound is omitted and the words are pronounced together. Newspaper route becomes newspaperout, for example. Often times haplology refers to repeated sounds within a single word, but in English (and possibly some other languages) it happens with multiple words.","output":"The term is called haplology. Where one sound is omitted and the words are pronounced together. Newspaper route becomes newspaperout, for example. Often times haplology refers to repeated sounds within a single word, but in English (and possibly some other languages) it happens with multiple words."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat are some synonyms of caveat? Interestingly, I wasn't able to find any in the four (approximately) thesauruses which I searched. I'm trying to use it in the following context: The emperor did further women's rights, however, his new laws contained certain ___ (caveats) which favored men.","question":"What are some synonyms of caveat? Interestingly, I wasn't able to find any in the four (approximately) thesauruses which I searched. I'm trying to use it in the following context: The emperor did further women's rights, however, his new laws contained certain ___ (caveats) which favored men.","answer":"First, I don't think you are using caveat correctly, if we agree that it means: a warning of the limits of a particular agreement or statement then your example is awkward and ambiguous. The emperor did further women's rights, however, his new laws contained certain warnings of the limits which favored men. So, it is not really clear what you want there. I will propose a very common word as a substitute in this specific sentence The emperor did further women's rights, however, his new laws contained certain limitations which favored men. (stipulations, clauses and conditions would work, too)","output":"First, I don't think you are using caveat correctly, if we agree that it means: a warning of the limits of a particular agreement or statement then your example is awkward and ambiguous. The emperor did further women's rights, however, his new laws contained certain warnings of the limits which favored men. So, it is not really clear what you want there. I will propose a very common word as a substitute in this specific sentence The emperor did further women's rights, however, his new laws contained certain limitations which favored men. (stipulations, clauses and conditions would work, too)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen should one use the word \"coming\" vs. \"going\"? For example, is it \"I'm coming home.\" or \"I'm going home.\"? (Ehhh maybe that was a bad example). \"Are you coming?\" vs. \"Are you going?\" may be a better example. I always get confused by this expression but most people I notice use the word \"coming\".","question":"When should one use the word \"coming\" vs. \"going\"? For example, is it \"I'm coming home.\" or \"I'm going home.\"? (Ehhh maybe that was a bad example). \"Are you coming?\" vs. \"Are you going?\" may be a better example. I always get confused by this expression but most people I notice use the word \"coming\".","answer":"Coming is from the viewpoint of the destination. You might say to your colleagues \"I'm going home\" then phone your partner and, if they are already there, say \"I'm coming home\". While you are home you might say \"I came home\", though you could also say \"I went home\" positioning your speech relative to where you were at the time you set out on your journey. In the imperative, you can ask someone to come to where you currently are, \"please come home\". You can use either come in terms of where you will also be later, \"come to the club with me\", though you can also use go to ask them to join you in your act of going, \"go to the club with me\".","output":"Coming is from the viewpoint of the destination. You might say to your colleagues \"I'm going home\" then phone your partner and, if they are already there, say \"I'm coming home\". While you are home you might say \"I came home\", though you could also say \"I went home\" positioning your speech relative to where you were at the time you set out on your journey. In the imperative, you can ask someone to come to where you currently are, \"please come home\". You can use either come in terms of where you will also be later, \"come to the club with me\", though you can also use go to ask them to join you in your act of going, \"go to the club with me\"."}
{"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":"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\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat Lemon tastes like? salty? or lemoney? Edit: Thanks for the answers guys, I know sour is one of the basic tastes but I thought gooseberry tastes sour. If Lemon tastes sour then what does gooseberry taste like? In our native language Telugu, both has different tastes and meanings.","question":"What Lemon tastes like? salty? or lemoney? Edit: Thanks for the answers guys, I know sour is one of the basic tastes but I thought gooseberry tastes sour. If Lemon tastes sour then what does gooseberry taste like? In our native language Telugu, both has different tastes and meanings.","answer":"Lemons taste sour. sour (comparative sourer, superlative sourest) 1. Having an acidic, sharp or tangy taste. Lemons have a sour taste.","output":"Lemons taste sour. sour (comparative sourer, superlative sourest) 1. Having an acidic, sharp or tangy taste. Lemons have a sour taste."}
{"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\nThis challenges the very essence of who Americans are as a people. What does \"of who Americans\" mean? This sentence originates from the newspaper The Economist.","question":"This challenges the very essence of who Americans are as a people. What does \"of who Americans\" mean? This sentence originates from the newspaper The Economist.","answer":"The way to understand the sentence is this. The object of the sentence is \"who Americans are\", a phrase similar to \"who I am\", and meaning 'the identify of Americans'. Specifically it is \"who Americans are as a people\", i.e. the American national identity.More specifically it is \"the very essence\" of that, i.e. the fundamental nature of American identity. 'This' (whatever it is) challenges that.","output":"The way to understand the sentence is this. The object of the sentence is \"who Americans are\", a phrase similar to \"who I am\", and meaning 'the identify of Americans'. Specifically it is \"who Americans are as a people\", i.e. the American national identity.More specifically it is \"the very essence\" of that, i.e. the fundamental nature of American identity. 'This' (whatever it is) challenges that."}
{"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\nWhen we tell a story that happened in the past should we use 'used to' and 'would' for actions that happened regularly in that story. For example in the following what differences do the five forms have? And which one seem the most suitable candidate? When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who used to draw scorpions on a paper and showed it off to students to scare them off. When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who drew scorpions on a paper and showed it off to students to scare them off. When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who would draw scorpions on a paper and showed it off to students to scare them off. When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who used to draw scorpions on a paper and would show it off to students to scare them off. When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who would draw scorpions on a paper and would show it off to students to scare them off.","question":"When we tell a story that happened in the past should we use 'used to' and 'would' for actions that happened regularly in that story. For example in the following what differences do the five forms have? And which one seem the most suitable candidate? When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who used to draw scorpions on a paper and showed it off to students to scare them off. When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who drew scorpions on a paper and showed it off to students to scare them off. When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who would draw scorpions on a paper and showed it off to students to scare them off. When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who used to draw scorpions on a paper and would show it off to students to scare them off. When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who would draw scorpions on a paper and would show it off to students to scare them off.","answer":"When choosing between used to and would, they often mean the same thing. When that's the case, my advice is to go with the more direct option. In other words: When I was a child, we would go to the beach. is better than When I was a child, we used to go to the beach. For one thing, the word \"used\" can trip up the reader, because we use it in different ways: We used plastic pails to build sand castles. We used to go to the beach. So, in your case, I would use would, not used to. As far as differentiating between would draw and drew, that depends. If you are referring to a particular event, then say: When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who drew scorpions on paper, then showed it to students to scare them off. But if this was something your friend did regularly, you might say: When I was in junior high, I had one classmate who would draw scorpions on paper, and then show it to students to scare them off. (I don't think you need a second would, because the first would can apply to both verbs. Saying: When I was in junior high, I had one classmate who would draw scorpions on paper, and then would show it to students to scare them off. sounds a bit verbose.) As a side note, you might want to be careful with the word \"off.\" Sure, scare off has a slightly different meaning than scare, and show off has a slightly different meaning than show. But, using two offs so close together sounds off, and makes the reader wonder if either was necessary in the first place. So: When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who drew scorpions on a paper and showed it off to students to scare them off. becomes: When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who drew scorpions on paper, then showed it to students to scare them. (A good way to improve your writing is to remove unnecessary words, then reread your sentences. If you haven't lost any meaning from the edit, then you should probably leave the words omitted.) P.S. Your junior high classmate sounds like one twisted individual.","output":"When choosing between used to and would, they often mean the same thing. When that's the case, my advice is to go with the more direct option. In other words: When I was a child, we would go to the beach. is better than When I was a child, we used to go to the beach. For one thing, the word \"used\" can trip up the reader, because we use it in different ways: We used plastic pails to build sand castles. We used to go to the beach. So, in your case, I would use would, not used to. As far as differentiating between would draw and drew, that depends. If you are referring to a particular event, then say: When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who drew scorpions on paper, then showed it to students to scare them off. But if this was something your friend did regularly, you might say: When I was in junior high, I had one classmate who would draw scorpions on paper, and then show it to students to scare them off. (I don't think you need a second would, because the first would can apply to both verbs. Saying: When I was in junior high, I had one classmate who would draw scorpions on paper, and then would show it to students to scare them off. sounds a bit verbose.) As a side note, you might want to be careful with the word \"off.\" Sure, scare off has a slightly different meaning than scare, and show off has a slightly different meaning than show. But, using two offs so close together sounds off, and makes the reader wonder if either was necessary in the first place. So: When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who drew scorpions on a paper and showed it off to students to scare them off. becomes: When I was in junior high, I had a classmate who drew scorpions on paper, then showed it to students to scare them. (A good way to improve your writing is to remove unnecessary words, then reread your sentences. If you haven't lost any meaning from the edit, then you should probably leave the words omitted.) P.S. Your junior high classmate sounds like one twisted individual."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"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 takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nLet's say I want to say 'X team did not win and that was my hunch. I want to write this expression in the form of as I said, as I expected, 1 : As was my hunch, X team did not win. 2: As my hunch was, X team did not win. Which of these expressions is correct? If neither, then what would be correct construct?","question":"Let's say I want to say 'X team did not win and that was my hunch. I want to write this expression in the form of as I said, as I expected, 1 : As was my hunch, X team did not win. 2: As my hunch was, X team did not win. Which of these expressions is correct? If neither, then what would be correct construct?","answer":"Of the two choices you provide, I'd go with the first; As my hunch was reads as an incomplete sentence, while As was my hunch at least does make it clear that you are about to say something that happened that was in line with your expectation. In general, however, I would say that neither of the choices given is very natural; the most common construction that mentions \"hunch\" would be I had a hunch that they were going to lose.","output":"Of the two choices you provide, I'd go with the first; As my hunch was reads as an incomplete sentence, while As was my hunch at least does make it clear that you are about to say something that happened that was in line with your expectation. In general, however, I would say that neither of the choices given is very natural; the most common construction that mentions \"hunch\" would be I had a hunch that they were going to lose."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe can say \"Thank you both for coming\" or \"How did you two meet?\" but the other way around just seems wrong: \"Thank you two for coming\" or \"How did you both meet?\". I'm having difficulty in explaining the difference between these two phrases.","question":"We can say \"Thank you both for coming\" or \"How did you two meet?\" but the other way around just seems wrong: \"Thank you two for coming\" or \"How did you both meet?\". I'm having difficulty in explaining the difference between these two phrases.","answer":"The word both is not reflexive; it's used for two people doing something individually, and not mutually doing something to each other. So if you say they both fought, you're not saying that they fought with each other. On the other hand, if you say those two fought, it's reasonably likely that they fought with each other (although it's not certain). Thus, you can't say how did both of you meet? or how did you both meet? I don't think there's anything grammatically wrong with thank you two for coming, the way there is with how did both of you meet; it's merely unidiomatic.","output":"The word both is not reflexive; it's used for two people doing something individually, and not mutually doing something to each other. So if you say they both fought, you're not saying that they fought with each other. On the other hand, if you say those two fought, it's reasonably likely that they fought with each other (although it's not certain). Thus, you can't say how did both of you meet? or how did you both meet? I don't think there's anything grammatically wrong with thank you two for coming, the way there is with how did both of you meet; it's merely unidiomatic."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI recently saw someone write Married and two beautiful girls when he meant that he was married and had two children (girls). I would have rather have written \"Married with two beautiful girls\" which for a non-native speaker seems really weird (at least in France and the other languages I know more or less) but I know this is the correct wording in English to indicate that you have two children (girls) and not that you practice polygamy. This said, does \"Married and two beautiful girls\" immediately conveys the message \"I am married and I have two children (girls)\"? I would like to stress the \"immediately\" part - that is the reaction of a native speaker to this sentence, without analyzing it in details. The correctness of the phrase is also interesting (I do not think it is really correct), though the perceived meaning is more important to me.","question":"I recently saw someone write Married and two beautiful girls when he meant that he was married and had two children (girls). I would have rather have written \"Married with two beautiful girls\" which for a non-native speaker seems really weird (at least in France and the other languages I know more or less) but I know this is the correct wording in English to indicate that you have two children (girls) and not that you practice polygamy. This said, does \"Married and two beautiful girls\" immediately conveys the message \"I am married and I have two children (girls)\"? I would like to stress the \"immediately\" part - that is the reaction of a native speaker to this sentence, without analyzing it in details. The correctness of the phrase is also interesting (I do not think it is really correct), though the perceived meaning is more important to me.","answer":"Yes, the phrase Married and two beautiful girls immediately conveys the message \"I am married and have two children (girls). Although, you are right and Married with two beautiful girls would have been a better way to structure the phrase.","output":"Yes, the phrase Married and two beautiful girls immediately conveys the message \"I am married and have two children (girls). Although, you are right and Married with two beautiful girls would have been a better way to structure the phrase."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow come the words monkey \/\u02c8m\u028c\u014bki\/ and donkey \/\u02c8d\u0252\u014bki, \u02c8d\u0254\u014bki\/ don't rhyme? What is their derivation? Or perhaps they do rhyme, depending on where one is from.","question":"How come the words monkey \/\u02c8m\u028c\u014bki\/ and donkey \/\u02c8d\u0252\u014bki, \u02c8d\u0254\u014bki\/ don't rhyme? What is their derivation? Or perhaps they do rhyme, depending on where one is from.","answer":"The Oxford English Dictionary has this to say about donkey: A recent word, apparently of dialect or slang origin. As the original pronunciation apparently rimed with monkey (whence the spelling), suggestions have been made that the word is a derivative of dun adj. (cf. dunnock hedge-sparrow), or more probably, a familiar form of Duncan (cf. the other colloquial appellations, Dicky, Neddy). I'm inclined to accept dun as the source. Again the OED on dun: Of a dull or dingy brown colour... like the hair of an ass... The OED quotes sources for dun, such as: 1562 J. heywoord Proverbs and Epigrams (1867) 139 The dun Asse hath trode on both thy feete. But dun was also what the OED calls a quasi-proper name for any horse and quotes Chaucer: c.1386 Manciple's Prologue 5 Ther gan our hoost for to Iape and pleye, And seyde, sires, what Dun is in the Myre. Turning to the OED on the word monkey: Of uncertain origin. .. it is not unlikely that the proper name may represent an otherwise unrecorded Middle Low German (1100-1600AD) moneke, Middle Dutch (1150-1500AD) monekijn, a collquial word for monkey and that this may have been brought to England by show-men from the continent. The MLG and MDu word would appear to be a diminutive of (with suffix -ke, -kijn (see -kin)) some form of the Roman word which appears as early modern French monne (16-17th century), Italian monna (earlier mona)... The OED doesn't speculate where the Roman\/Italian word came from, but it has carried down into modern Spanish where the word for monkey is mono. The word man according to the OED includes old forms such as mon and monne. Whether the author of this entry didn't want to buy into Darwinian debate, or there's a good philological reason to discount any link between the words man and monkey I'll leave to the experts. The suffix -kin, which appears to be the origin for -key in both monkey and donkey simply signifies kin, as in relation, or a group having common attributes. Hence (I'd suggest) donkey is kin to dun (horse), and monkey is kin to that class of animals (apes and perhaps man) formerly described as mone, monne and mona. But yes, returning to the observation from the head of my comments here, the OED holds that donkey used to be pronounced 'done-key' rhyming with monkey as we currently say it. This assertion is based on the following verse by John Wolcot (1738-1819) in his 1790 poem (under the pseudonym Peter Pindar) 'Rowland for an Oliver': Who never dipp'd her muzzle in the Spring. Thou think'st thyself on Pegasus so steady; But, Peter, thou art mounted on a Neddy: Or in the London phrase, thou Devonshire monkey, Thy Pegasus is nothing but a Donkey. Of course the rhyme may have been 'forced' rather than natural, but I simply quote the OED source in order to throw light on the OED's assertion. As for the OED's speculation that the word donkey might have come from Duncan, a possible familiar name for an ass (but no references cited), it is interesting to speculate that the word could have actually moved in the other direction, that is to say Duncan being derived from dun-kin.","output":"The Oxford English Dictionary has this to say about donkey: A recent word, apparently of dialect or slang origin. As the original pronunciation apparently rimed with monkey (whence the spelling), suggestions have been made that the word is a derivative of dun adj. (cf. dunnock hedge-sparrow), or more probably, a familiar form of Duncan (cf. the other colloquial appellations, Dicky, Neddy). I'm inclined to accept dun as the source. Again the OED on dun: Of a dull or dingy brown colour... like the hair of an ass... The OED quotes sources for dun, such as: 1562 J. heywoord Proverbs and Epigrams (1867) 139 The dun Asse hath trode on both thy feete. But dun was also what the OED calls a quasi-proper name for any horse and quotes Chaucer: c.1386 Manciple's Prologue 5 Ther gan our hoost for to Iape and pleye, And seyde, sires, what Dun is in the Myre. Turning to the OED on the word monkey: Of uncertain origin. .. it is not unlikely that the proper name may represent an otherwise unrecorded Middle Low German (1100-1600AD) moneke, Middle Dutch (1150-1500AD) monekijn, a collquial word for monkey and that this may have been brought to England by show-men from the continent. The MLG and MDu word would appear to be a diminutive of (with suffix -ke, -kijn (see -kin)) some form of the Roman word which appears as early modern French monne (16-17th century), Italian monna (earlier mona)... The OED doesn't speculate where the Roman\/Italian word came from, but it has carried down into modern Spanish where the word for monkey is mono. The word man according to the OED includes old forms such as mon and monne. Whether the author of this entry didn't want to buy into Darwinian debate, or there's a good philological reason to discount any link between the words man and monkey I'll leave to the experts. The suffix -kin, which appears to be the origin for -key in both monkey and donkey simply signifies kin, as in relation, or a group having common attributes. Hence (I'd suggest) donkey is kin to dun (horse), and monkey is kin to that class of animals (apes and perhaps man) formerly described as mone, monne and mona. But yes, returning to the observation from the head of my comments here, the OED holds that donkey used to be pronounced 'done-key' rhyming with monkey as we currently say it. This assertion is based on the following verse by John Wolcot (1738-1819) in his 1790 poem (under the pseudonym Peter Pindar) 'Rowland for an Oliver': Who never dipp'd her muzzle in the Spring. Thou think'st thyself on Pegasus so steady; But, Peter, thou art mounted on a Neddy: Or in the London phrase, thou Devonshire monkey, Thy Pegasus is nothing but a Donkey. Of course the rhyme may have been 'forced' rather than natural, but I simply quote the OED source in order to throw light on the OED's assertion. As for the OED's speculation that the word donkey might have come from Duncan, a possible familiar name for an ass (but no references cited), it is interesting to speculate that the word could have actually moved in the other direction, that is to say Duncan being derived from dun-kin."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am using MLA 7th edition. I am citing an article published April 10th and edited April 12th. Which date should I cite? Thank you!","question":"I am using MLA 7th edition. I am citing an article published April 10th and edited April 12th. Which date should I cite? Thank you!","answer":"With an electronic source, the purpose of providing \"Date Accessed\" is to avoid confusion in articles that might be edited in an ongoing fashion. As long as you provide the date you accessed the article, as well as the original publication date, you should be adhering to MLA rules. So in your case, I would cite the publication date as April 10th and the Date Accessed as whenever you accessed it (of course). Someone following your citation will know based on access date that there may have been edits to your source. There's really no way to be certain with electronic sources that an article will be identical at different points of time, so you give the best information you can: When it was published, and when you retrieved the cited information. MLA suggests providing the following information for electronic sources: Author and\/or editor names (if available) Article name in quotation marks. Title of the website, project, or book in italics. Any version numbers available, including editions (ed.), revisions, posting dates, volumes (vol.), or issue numbers (no.). Publisher information, including the publisher name and publishing date. Take note of any page numbers (p. or pp.) or paragraph numbers (par. or pars.). URL (without the https:\/\/) DOI or permalink. Date you accessed the material (Date Accessed). [EMPHASIS MINE]","output":"With an electronic source, the purpose of providing \"Date Accessed\" is to avoid confusion in articles that might be edited in an ongoing fashion. As long as you provide the date you accessed the article, as well as the original publication date, you should be adhering to MLA rules. So in your case, I would cite the publication date as April 10th and the Date Accessed as whenever you accessed it (of course). Someone following your citation will know based on access date that there may have been edits to your source. There's really no way to be certain with electronic sources that an article will be identical at different points of time, so you give the best information you can: When it was published, and when you retrieved the cited information. MLA suggests providing the following information for electronic sources: Author and\/or editor names (if available) Article name in quotation marks. Title of the website, project, or book in italics. Any version numbers available, including editions (ed.), revisions, posting dates, volumes (vol.), or issue numbers (no.). Publisher information, including the publisher name and publishing date. Take note of any page numbers (p. or pp.) or paragraph numbers (par. or pars.). URL (without the https:\/\/) DOI or permalink. Date you accessed the material (Date Accessed). [EMPHASIS MINE]"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn the past \u2014 or at least, when I was in elementary school \u2014 periods\/full stops were followed by two spaces. Lately, it's become more and more common to see just one space. In the modern world, should we still use two spaces between sentences, or is just one okay? Does it depend on the situation? Or are both acceptable, with the choice simply coming down to personal preference?","question":"In the past \u2014 or at least, when I was in elementary school \u2014 periods\/full stops were followed by two spaces. Lately, it's become more and more common to see just one space. In the modern world, should we still use two spaces between sentences, or is just one okay? Does it depend on the situation? Or are both acceptable, with the choice simply coming down to personal preference?","answer":"Actually, I feel a few of the other answers here (and even the question) are a bit simplistic: there's more to this issue than is indicated by the latest editions of the Chicago Manual of Style or Bringhurst's The Elements of Typographic Style. In lieu of a very long answer, let me point to the (long) Wikipedia articles on exactly this issue: Sentence spacing History of sentence spacing Sentence spacing in language and style guides Sentence spacing in the digital age My (inadequate) summary would be something like the following: The traditional typesetters' convention was to use a (single) longer space between sentences than between words. For instance, CMoS 1911 still recommends a 3-em space between words and an em-quad between sentences. With the introduction of the typewriter (invented in the late 19th century), many typographical niceties were lost: the typewriters produced monospaced (fixed-width) text, and the only choice was between one space and two. Many people felt a single space wasn't sufficient to see the gap between sentences at a glance, so double spacing came into vogue. Today, with proportional (variable-width) fonts, two spaces is no longer necessary, and can look distractingly too wide. Modern tools allow more choice than between exactly \"one space\" or two. In particular, TeX and LaTeX have got it right since the 1980s: they typeset a slightly longer space between sentences (though this can be turned off). HTML ignores multiple consecutive spaces anyway. (Sometimes fonts try to be smart and have the period character itself have a wider space following it, but this isn't ideal: there can be periods within a sentence, because of abbreviations etc.) Even shorter summary (my opinion): Don't use two spaces unless you're using a fixed-width font like a typewriter. If forced to choose only between one space and two, choose one. But if your typesetting system supports it, have a wider space between sentences.","output":"Actually, I feel a few of the other answers here (and even the question) are a bit simplistic: there's more to this issue than is indicated by the latest editions of the Chicago Manual of Style or Bringhurst's The Elements of Typographic Style. In lieu of a very long answer, let me point to the (long) Wikipedia articles on exactly this issue: Sentence spacing History of sentence spacing Sentence spacing in language and style guides Sentence spacing in the digital age My (inadequate) summary would be something like the following: The traditional typesetters' convention was to use a (single) longer space between sentences than between words. For instance, CMoS 1911 still recommends a 3-em space between words and an em-quad between sentences. With the introduction of the typewriter (invented in the late 19th century), many typographical niceties were lost: the typewriters produced monospaced (fixed-width) text, and the only choice was between one space and two. Many people felt a single space wasn't sufficient to see the gap between sentences at a glance, so double spacing came into vogue. Today, with proportional (variable-width) fonts, two spaces is no longer necessary, and can look distractingly too wide. Modern tools allow more choice than between exactly \"one space\" or two. In particular, TeX and LaTeX have got it right since the 1980s: they typeset a slightly longer space between sentences (though this can be turned off). HTML ignores multiple consecutive spaces anyway. (Sometimes fonts try to be smart and have the period character itself have a wider space following it, but this isn't ideal: there can be periods within a sentence, because of abbreviations etc.) Even shorter summary (my opinion): Don't use two spaces unless you're using a fixed-width font like a typewriter. If forced to choose only between one space and two, choose one. But if your typesetting system supports it, have a wider space between sentences."}
{"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\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nBasically, sardonic and sarcastic both stand for mocking gestures, but what is the difference in their contextual use? Are there any other words that represent a similar gesture?","question":"Basically, sardonic and sarcastic both stand for mocking gestures, but what is the difference in their contextual use? Are there any other words that represent a similar gesture?","answer":"Examples: Sarcastic: Well, this meeting with the boss should be hilarious. Sardonic: Time for the monthly flogging by a twerp in a suit; I'll try not to get blood on the executive carpet. Sardonic humour is mocking, but not necessarily sarcastic; sarcasm is stating a counterfactual, whereas sardony is a moment of grim poetic humour and may or may not contain counterfactuals. The above example uses melodrama rather than sarcasm as a device.","output":"Examples: Sarcastic: Well, this meeting with the boss should be hilarious. Sardonic: Time for the monthly flogging by a twerp in a suit; I'll try not to get blood on the executive carpet. Sardonic humour is mocking, but not necessarily sarcastic; sarcasm is stating a counterfactual, whereas sardony is a moment of grim poetic humour and may or may not contain counterfactuals. The above example uses melodrama rather than sarcasm as a device."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI know that \u2026.saying \u201cboring house\u201d \u2714\ufe0f is correct, and \u2026saying \u201cbored house\u201d \u274c is incorrect cause a house cannot have the feeling of boredom. However my point is about personification, when you add a human quality to an object on purpose. In a discussion with a friend about personifying things, they claim that while you can say for example, a \u201ccruel watch\u201d you cannot say a \u201cbored pencil\u201d. It seems to me that both examples we follow the form adjective+noum Consider the following sentence: \u201ca bored pencil tapped the school desk while the cruel minute hand refused to move\u201d Their claim is that an adjective that ends in \u201c\u2013ed\u201d can\u2019t be use to personify something, but other adjectives are okay. This feels like splitting hairs.","question":"I know that \u2026.saying \u201cboring house\u201d \u2714\ufe0f is correct, and \u2026saying \u201cbored house\u201d \u274c is incorrect cause a house cannot have the feeling of boredom. However my point is about personification, when you add a human quality to an object on purpose. In a discussion with a friend about personifying things, they claim that while you can say for example, a \u201ccruel watch\u201d you cannot say a \u201cbored pencil\u201d. It seems to me that both examples we follow the form adjective+noum Consider the following sentence: \u201ca bored pencil tapped the school desk while the cruel minute hand refused to move\u201d Their claim is that an adjective that ends in \u201c\u2013ed\u201d can\u2019t be use to personify something, but other adjectives are okay. This feels like splitting hairs.","answer":"FWIW, I think the sentence: A bored pencil tapped the desk while the cruel minute hand refused to move. is a perfectly valid sentence. In fact, I think it is extremely evocative of the situation you are conveying. The implication is not that the pencil is bored, but the one tapping it is bored. So I don't agree with your friend's analysis at all. I am sure that literature is replete with such usages, but, I had a quick look and found this from Winston Churchill's \"The World In Crisis\": The new Prime Minister never had a fair chance. He succeeded only to an exhausted inheritance. In fact the specific case you mention, \"bored house\" occurs in H.G. Wells (though admittedly, he is referring specifically to the British House of commons, and, by metonymy, to the members thereof.) I remember how vividly Boon drew the picture for us: the rather bored House, a coming and going of a few inattentive Members... (From \"Boon, The Mind of the Race, the Wild Asses of the DEvil, and The Last Trump\")","output":"FWIW, I think the sentence: A bored pencil tapped the desk while the cruel minute hand refused to move. is a perfectly valid sentence. In fact, I think it is extremely evocative of the situation you are conveying. The implication is not that the pencil is bored, but the one tapping it is bored. So I don't agree with your friend's analysis at all. I am sure that literature is replete with such usages, but, I had a quick look and found this from Winston Churchill's \"The World In Crisis\": The new Prime Minister never had a fair chance. He succeeded only to an exhausted inheritance. In fact the specific case you mention, \"bored house\" occurs in H.G. Wells (though admittedly, he is referring specifically to the British House of commons, and, by metonymy, to the members thereof.) I remember how vividly Boon drew the picture for us: the rather bored House, a coming and going of a few inattentive Members... (From \"Boon, The Mind of the Race, the Wild Asses of the DEvil, and The Last Trump\")"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn a non-math context (i.e., where readers would not be expected to know the formal definitions of very advanced mathematical terminology) I am trying to express the relationship between three concepts in a precise way. Here's what I want the reader to know. X is some function of A & B X is never less than either A or B, individually Knowing the precise functional form or relationship is otherwise unimportant. In fact, the last bullet could be even stronger: it's important not to assume anything else about the relationship. The key thing is that X is at least the greater of A or B. It's never less. It may be A + B. It may be A + only part of B. It may be A * B. It may be A * only part of B. We don't know. So I'm looking for a term that basically means the whole is not less than its parts. Simply expressing this by saying \"X is a multiplicative function of A & B\" would impose too many assumptions on functional form, even if by some analysis it's mathematically correct. Writing \"X is a multiplicative or additive function of A & B\" is better but is cumbersome, still places untoward emphasis on the actual form, and introduces even more technical terminology. In researching this, I have discovered that \"arithmetic function\" may(?) cover both additive and multiplicative cases but I don't know that it explicitly excludes the possibility that X being less than A or B. Even if so, it is almost certainly too specialized a term. In any event, the sentence that I'm hung up on currently reads like this: \"The total amount of i in X is always some ______ function of the i in A and the i in B.\" My questions, then, are: 1) is there an adjective or adjectival phrase that can fill that gap for my purposes; 2) if you think \"arithmetic\" works, do people actually use and understand it in the way I'd being using it, and; 3) if you don't think it's possible to express this relationship in the form I'm currently imposing, how might you succinctly do so otherwise?","question":"In a non-math context (i.e., where readers would not be expected to know the formal definitions of very advanced mathematical terminology) I am trying to express the relationship between three concepts in a precise way. Here's what I want the reader to know. X is some function of A & B X is never less than either A or B, individually Knowing the precise functional form or relationship is otherwise unimportant. In fact, the last bullet could be even stronger: it's important not to assume anything else about the relationship. The key thing is that X is at least the greater of A or B. It's never less. It may be A + B. It may be A + only part of B. It may be A * B. It may be A * only part of B. We don't know. So I'm looking for a term that basically means the whole is not less than its parts. Simply expressing this by saying \"X is a multiplicative function of A & B\" would impose too many assumptions on functional form, even if by some analysis it's mathematically correct. Writing \"X is a multiplicative or additive function of A & B\" is better but is cumbersome, still places untoward emphasis on the actual form, and introduces even more technical terminology. In researching this, I have discovered that \"arithmetic function\" may(?) cover both additive and multiplicative cases but I don't know that it explicitly excludes the possibility that X being less than A or B. Even if so, it is almost certainly too specialized a term. In any event, the sentence that I'm hung up on currently reads like this: \"The total amount of i in X is always some ______ function of the i in A and the i in B.\" My questions, then, are: 1) is there an adjective or adjectival phrase that can fill that gap for my purposes; 2) if you think \"arithmetic\" works, do people actually use and understand it in the way I'd being using it, and; 3) if you don't think it's possible to express this relationship in the form I'm currently imposing, how might you succinctly do so otherwise?","answer":"This is a very surgical sentence you're trying to construct. To help cipher it out I used: X = a pie i = calories A = pears B = berries Thus it seems you want to convey: \"The total amount of calories in a pie is always some ______ function of the calories in pears and the calories in berries.\" To your questions: The adjective I suggest is \"compounded\" suggesting either additive or multiplicative properties which would mean X is never less than either A or B, individually. I don't think \"arithmetic\" works. It's too broad and doesn't cover your second condition (X is never less than either A or B, individually). I don't think I could construct a tighter sentence than \"The total amount of calories in a pie is always some compounded function of the calories in pears and the calories in berries.\"","output":"This is a very surgical sentence you're trying to construct. To help cipher it out I used: X = a pie i = calories A = pears B = berries Thus it seems you want to convey: \"The total amount of calories in a pie is always some ______ function of the calories in pears and the calories in berries.\" To your questions: The adjective I suggest is \"compounded\" suggesting either additive or multiplicative properties which would mean X is never less than either A or B, individually. I don't think \"arithmetic\" works. It's too broad and doesn't cover your second condition (X is never less than either A or B, individually). I don't think I could construct a tighter sentence than \"The total amount of calories in a pie is always some compounded function of the calories in pears and the calories in berries.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nDon Apolinar Moscote ventured to remind him that an unburied drowned man was a danger to public health. \"None of that, because he's alive,\" was the answer of Jose Arcadio Buendia, who finished the seventy-two hours with the mercurial incense as the body was already beginning to burst with a livid fluorescence, the soft whistles of which impregnated the house with a pestilential vapor. Only then did he permit them to bury him, not in any ordinary way, but with the honors reserved for Macondo\u2019s greatest benefactor. (One Hundred Years of Solitude, tr. by Gregory Rabassa) I guess that without of the highlighted part looks all right. Why is of used?","question":"Don Apolinar Moscote ventured to remind him that an unburied drowned man was a danger to public health. \"None of that, because he's alive,\" was the answer of Jose Arcadio Buendia, who finished the seventy-two hours with the mercurial incense as the body was already beginning to burst with a livid fluorescence, the soft whistles of which impregnated the house with a pestilential vapor. Only then did he permit them to bury him, not in any ordinary way, but with the honors reserved for Macondo\u2019s greatest benefactor. (One Hundred Years of Solitude, tr. by Gregory Rabassa) I guess that without of the highlighted part looks all right. Why is of used?","answer":"Of is used to tell you what was the source of soft whistles, which in this case is the fluorescence which was being emitted from a dead man's body. If of is omitted, the last sentence starting from \"the soft whistles\" will look incomplete and look more like a prelude for a coming-up sentence.","output":"Of is used to tell you what was the source of soft whistles, which in this case is the fluorescence which was being emitted from a dead man's body. If of is omitted, the last sentence starting from \"the soft whistles\" will look incomplete and look more like a prelude for a coming-up sentence."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI know that to describe which year you're in, with American English, people usually use words like: Freshmen - 1st year college\/university student Sophomore - 2nd year Junior - 3rd year Senior - 4th year However, since the British universities usually have three years in total, are there any equivalent words to these American expressions? Or Does British people just say \"I'm a third-year\" instead of \"I'm a junior\"?","question":"I know that to describe which year you're in, with American English, people usually use words like: Freshmen - 1st year college\/university student Sophomore - 2nd year Junior - 3rd year Senior - 4th year However, since the British universities usually have three years in total, are there any equivalent words to these American expressions? Or Does British people just say \"I'm a third-year\" instead of \"I'm a junior\"?","answer":"As you suggest, British English tends to just go by year number for University level students: Freshmen - 1st year student or 1st year undergrad Sophomore - 2nd year student or 2nd year undergrad And so on until the final year (3rd year for Bachelor's Degree students and 4th year for Master's Degree students), the students of which are referred to as final year students. Students who have completed their degree and are attempting to achieve a PhD typically do not use year numbering at all, and are merely referred to as post-graduates, which contrasts with students who complete their degree but do not go on to further education and are normally referred to as graduates. British English never uses the terms Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior etc (in any educational context). Use of those terms is not well understood in Britain, and most British English speakers would not understand what the term means.","output":"As you suggest, British English tends to just go by year number for University level students: Freshmen - 1st year student or 1st year undergrad Sophomore - 2nd year student or 2nd year undergrad And so on until the final year (3rd year for Bachelor's Degree students and 4th year for Master's Degree students), the students of which are referred to as final year students. Students who have completed their degree and are attempting to achieve a PhD typically do not use year numbering at all, and are merely referred to as post-graduates, which contrasts with students who complete their degree but do not go on to further education and are normally referred to as graduates. British English never uses the terms Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior etc (in any educational context). Use of those terms is not well understood in Britain, and most British English speakers would not understand what the term means."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat's the meaning of the last line of this extract from Shakespeare's Two Gentlemen of Verona? Valentine. This is the gentleman I told your ladyship Had come along with me, but that his mistress Did hold his eyes lock'd in her crystal looks. Silvia. Belike that now she hath enfranchised them Upon some other pawn for fealty. Valentine. Nay, sure, I think she holds them prisoners still. Silvia. Nay, then he should be blind; and, being blind How could he see his way to seek out you? Valentine. Why, lady, Love hath twenty pair of eyes. Thurio. They say that Love hath not an eye at all. Valentine. To see such lovers, Thurio, as yourself: Upon a homely object Love can wink.","question":"What's the meaning of the last line of this extract from Shakespeare's Two Gentlemen of Verona? Valentine. This is the gentleman I told your ladyship Had come along with me, but that his mistress Did hold his eyes lock'd in her crystal looks. Silvia. Belike that now she hath enfranchised them Upon some other pawn for fealty. Valentine. Nay, sure, I think she holds them prisoners still. Silvia. Nay, then he should be blind; and, being blind How could he see his way to seek out you? Valentine. Why, lady, Love hath twenty pair of eyes. Thurio. They say that Love hath not an eye at all. Valentine. To see such lovers, Thurio, as yourself: Upon a homely object Love can wink.","answer":"Wink here has the sense close the eyes - the same sense is in play when we say that an authority winks at a violation of some regulation, pretends not to see it. To paraphrase this very \"conceited\" dialogue in More or Less Fully Modern English: Valentine: Love has twenty pairs of eyes. Thurio: What I've always heard is that Love has no eyes at all. Valentine: Well, of course when it looks at you; Love can close its eyes when it sees something ugly.","output":"Wink here has the sense close the eyes - the same sense is in play when we say that an authority winks at a violation of some regulation, pretends not to see it. To paraphrase this very \"conceited\" dialogue in More or Less Fully Modern English: Valentine: Love has twenty pairs of eyes. Thurio: What I've always heard is that Love has no eyes at all. Valentine: Well, of course when it looks at you; Love can close its eyes when it sees something ugly."}
{"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 negatif:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"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":"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\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs there a word that means \"the state of obeying a rule\". I'm thinking since it can be said that something 'adheres' to a rule that 'adherent' would fit the bill, but somehow it doesn't sound quite right. For example \"It adheres to the rule.\" -> \"It is adherent.\" or \"Does it adhere to the rule.\" -> \"Yes, it is adherent.\" Is is correct or acceptable to use the word 'adherent' in such a manner?","question":"Is there a word that means \"the state of obeying a rule\". I'm thinking since it can be said that something 'adheres' to a rule that 'adherent' would fit the bill, but somehow it doesn't sound quite right. For example \"It adheres to the rule.\" -> \"It is adherent.\" or \"Does it adhere to the rule.\" -> \"Yes, it is adherent.\" Is is correct or acceptable to use the word 'adherent' in such a manner?","answer":"Compliance --> compliant We need to comply. This setting is in compliance with rules and regulations. - We were following the rules. We were obedient. Obeying the law can get you in trouble, not obeying also. Looking up obey in the thesaurus http:\/\/thesaurus.com\/browse\/obey the following came to mind. Adherance to rules is good and necessary in order to be in adherence with the rules.","output":"Compliance --> compliant We need to comply. This setting is in compliance with rules and regulations. - We were following the rules. We were obedient. Obeying the law can get you in trouble, not obeying also. Looking up obey in the thesaurus http:\/\/thesaurus.com\/browse\/obey the following came to mind. Adherance to rules is good and necessary in order to be in adherence with the rules."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've met the phrase in this article: Never peg the needle on your spending meter. After some research I found 'What is the meaning of the phrase \u201cmoving the needle\u201d?' here. Now the original phrase I encountered is somewhat clear. Could you help say the same thing in another way so that I can understand the phrase as a whole? May be some equivalent saying?","question":"I've met the phrase in this article: Never peg the needle on your spending meter. After some research I found 'What is the meaning of the phrase \u201cmoving the needle\u201d?' here. Now the original phrase I encountered is somewhat clear. Could you help say the same thing in another way so that I can understand the phrase as a whole? May be some equivalent saying?","answer":"Never peg the needle on your spending meter. This phrase alludes to analog measuring devices, like speedometers, where pegging the needle means performing in excess of your ability to measure - implying performance (or values) which meet (or exceed) what was previously believed (or intended) to be the maximum. This is often used metaphorically; in this case, don't spend everything that you have. For reference: Top speed pegs the needle at 200 mph; test away on your private runway, seems to be the challenge. and Qantas' inflight WiFi trials peg the needle at 12Mbps per device and Chinese Air Pollution Pegs-the-Needle as Suffocating Citizens Left Gasping for Air","output":"Never peg the needle on your spending meter. This phrase alludes to analog measuring devices, like speedometers, where pegging the needle means performing in excess of your ability to measure - implying performance (or values) which meet (or exceed) what was previously believed (or intended) to be the maximum. This is often used metaphorically; in this case, don't spend everything that you have. For reference: Top speed pegs the needle at 200 mph; test away on your private runway, seems to be the challenge. and Qantas' inflight WiFi trials peg the needle at 12Mbps per device and Chinese Air Pollution Pegs-the-Needle as Suffocating Citizens Left Gasping for Air"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhile watching a football game, \"We are seven minutes in. No score yet.\" What does \"seven minutes in\" mean? And what does it mean by \"in\"?","question":"While watching a football game, \"We are seven minutes in. No score yet.\" What does \"seven minutes in\" mean? And what does it mean by \"in\"?","answer":"\"Seven minutes in\" means \"seven minutes into the game\". The game (or part of it) has lasted for 7 minutes, but nobody has scored a goal yet.","output":"\"Seven minutes in\" means \"seven minutes into the game\". The game (or part of it) has lasted for 7 minutes, but nobody has scored a goal yet."}
{"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\nSuppose these two lines ====== ============================= I say the first line is short, it's a short line! what can I say for the second line? tall line?! big line? large line? update: oops! maybe long line, I missed that. to make it a proper question what about lengthy line?!","question":"Suppose these two lines ====== ============================= I say the first line is short, it's a short line! what can I say for the second line? tall line?! big line? large line? update: oops! maybe long line, I missed that. to make it a proper question what about lengthy line?!","answer":"You can use long line, long is opposite of short. Dictionary Link Measuring a great distance from end to end: \"a long corridor\" \"long black hair\" \"the queue for tickets was long\"","output":"You can use long line, long is opposite of short. Dictionary Link Measuring a great distance from end to end: \"a long corridor\" \"long black hair\" \"the queue for tickets was long\""}
{"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":"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\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have seen shameful and shameless being used interchangeably, but it is surprising that they would mean the same. Is there a difference?","question":"I have seen shameful and shameless being used interchangeably, but it is surprising that they would mean the same. Is there a difference?","answer":"\"Shameless\" means pretty much what you'd expect: that someone should feel shame at something, but doesn't. \"Shameful\" can have two meanings that almost seem like antonyms, but they're not, depending on whether it's applied to a person or an act. If it's applied to a person, it generally means that they feel remorse. If it's applied to an act, it means that whoever is performing the action should feel shame. However, it's often used to emphasize that the person should feel shame, but doesn't. In this latter sense, it can almost seem like \"shameful\" means the same thing as \"shameless\".","output":"\"Shameless\" means pretty much what you'd expect: that someone should feel shame at something, but doesn't. \"Shameful\" can have two meanings that almost seem like antonyms, but they're not, depending on whether it's applied to a person or an act. If it's applied to a person, it generally means that they feel remorse. If it's applied to an act, it means that whoever is performing the action should feel shame. However, it's often used to emphasize that the person should feel shame, but doesn't. In this latter sense, it can almost seem like \"shameful\" means the same thing as \"shameless\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nif used (While, As, Which, If, Where, Because) Must use ! or ? or , When I did that it dropped 2% in grammarly, is there's specific conditions to put the ( ! , ? ) after this capital words? or every time? As copywriterly advised to put them, then the result on grammarly went more bad. Thank you all for answering","question":"if used (While, As, Which, If, Where, Because) Must use ! or ? or , When I did that it dropped 2% in grammarly, is there's specific conditions to put the ( ! , ? ) after this capital words? or every time? As copywriterly advised to put them, then the result on grammarly went more bad. Thank you all for answering","answer":"Computer programs are stupid. They are like bad students who look only at superficial features of words, algebra problems, exam questions, etc. to try to pass exams without learning the subject. Taking advice from one of those computer programs is like taking advice from one of those bad students. Don't worry about whether a sentence's score increases or decreases when you change something. Those numbers only reflect the numerical weights attached to the superficial criteria that the computer program considers, not clarity or meaningfulness to a human reader or appropriateness to the traditions of the language.","output":"Computer programs are stupid. They are like bad students who look only at superficial features of words, algebra problems, exam questions, etc. to try to pass exams without learning the subject. Taking advice from one of those computer programs is like taking advice from one of those bad students. Don't worry about whether a sentence's score increases or decreases when you change something. Those numbers only reflect the numerical weights attached to the superficial criteria that the computer program considers, not clarity or meaningfulness to a human reader or appropriateness to the traditions of the language."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI came across the word \u201cnon-affair\u201d in Jeffery Archer\u2019s novel Kane and Abel, which I just finished reading yesterday. The word appears in the following sentence (p. 544): \u201cShe couldn\u2019t recall another occasion when she was so aware of a first kiss. When he left her in the shadows of Fifty-Seventh Street, she realized that this time he had not mentioned tomorrow. She felt slightly wistful about the whole non-affair.\u201d I took 'non-affair' simply as the absence of any positive actions \/ events, and thought the word should be in every dictionary. But, curiously enough, Oxford, Cambridge, and Merriam-Webster don't include \u201cnon-affair\u201d as a headword despite its casual look, though they include several dozens of \u201cnon+noun\u201d compounds ranging from 'non-aggression,' 'non-appearance,' 'non-event' to 'non-stop,''non-violent,' and 'non-white.' Google's NGram Viewer neither show any instances of 'non-affair.' Is \u201cnon-affair\u201d a well-used English word, or just a coinage by the author?","question":"I came across the word \u201cnon-affair\u201d in Jeffery Archer\u2019s novel Kane and Abel, which I just finished reading yesterday. The word appears in the following sentence (p. 544): \u201cShe couldn\u2019t recall another occasion when she was so aware of a first kiss. When he left her in the shadows of Fifty-Seventh Street, she realized that this time he had not mentioned tomorrow. She felt slightly wistful about the whole non-affair.\u201d I took 'non-affair' simply as the absence of any positive actions \/ events, and thought the word should be in every dictionary. But, curiously enough, Oxford, Cambridge, and Merriam-Webster don't include \u201cnon-affair\u201d as a headword despite its casual look, though they include several dozens of \u201cnon+noun\u201d compounds ranging from 'non-aggression,' 'non-appearance,' 'non-event' to 'non-stop,''non-violent,' and 'non-white.' Google's NGram Viewer neither show any instances of 'non-affair.' Is \u201cnon-affair\u201d a well-used English word, or just a coinage by the author?","answer":"It is fairly common. I think NGram may be having an issue with the hyphenated use. The fact that it's not in the dictionary directly is not remarkable because the \"non-\" prefix is standard no matter which word it's in front of. It could be related to this definition of \"affair\": a matter occasioning public anxiety, controversy, or scandal So a non-affair is a matter that is non-controversial, non-worrisome, and lacking in scandal. In other words: dull. Or as jwpat7 pointed out, this other one: An adulterous relationship. Meaning that the kiss in the quoted passage was wholly innocent. Either way, there's not much to see here beyond the literal meaning.","output":"It is fairly common. I think NGram may be having an issue with the hyphenated use. The fact that it's not in the dictionary directly is not remarkable because the \"non-\" prefix is standard no matter which word it's in front of. It could be related to this definition of \"affair\": a matter occasioning public anxiety, controversy, or scandal So a non-affair is a matter that is non-controversial, non-worrisome, and lacking in scandal. In other words: dull. Or as jwpat7 pointed out, this other one: An adulterous relationship. Meaning that the kiss in the quoted passage was wholly innocent. Either way, there's not much to see here beyond the literal meaning."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCSS stands for Cascading Style Sheets, which is a plural phrase. One would say: Cascading Style Sheets are used to provide a central location for all of the stylings of a project. However, it seems to be the prevalent usage to say: CSS is used to provide a central location for all of the stylings of a project. Why do we do this, and is this correct? Would anyone ever say \"CSS are used to provide a central location for all of the stylings of a project\"?","question":"CSS stands for Cascading Style Sheets, which is a plural phrase. One would say: Cascading Style Sheets are used to provide a central location for all of the stylings of a project. However, it seems to be the prevalent usage to say: CSS is used to provide a central location for all of the stylings of a project. Why do we do this, and is this correct? Would anyone ever say \"CSS are used to provide a central location for all of the stylings of a project\"?","answer":"CSS here has evolved as a noun independent as to what it means as an acronym. It refers not just to \"cascading style sheets\" themselves, but to the entire system and infrastructure for styling web pages. In short, it is a singular noun that has come into existence due to common use. Here is a similar example: Imagine a company called \"Unlimited Designs.\" judging by the name, you might say something like \"Unlimited Designs is going out of business.\" It's a singular noun, even though designs is plural.","output":"CSS here has evolved as a noun independent as to what it means as an acronym. It refers not just to \"cascading style sheets\" themselves, but to the entire system and infrastructure for styling web pages. In short, it is a singular noun that has come into existence due to common use. Here is a similar example: Imagine a company called \"Unlimited Designs.\" judging by the name, you might say something like \"Unlimited Designs is going out of business.\" It's a singular noun, even though designs is plural."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm looking for an idiom or expression that would mean \"all one's efforts wasted\". I have found \"to have one's cake dough\". Can I use it for \"all my efforts wasted\" too? ( A non-native friend told me it is used for saying \" all 'my plans' failed\", not 'my efforts'.) I want to use it in: John spared no efforts to provide his son with anything he needed for going to a medical college, but his son disappointed him by going to an art college. John accepted his son's choice but was really upset and felt ----(=all those efforts were wasted). PS: In Persian we say \"one's yarns changed back into cotton\". (You know that cotton is changed into yarn by spinning, using a spindle, that takes a long time and efforts, so \"all my yarns changed back into cotton\" means \"all my efforts wasted\".)","question":"I'm looking for an idiom or expression that would mean \"all one's efforts wasted\". I have found \"to have one's cake dough\". Can I use it for \"all my efforts wasted\" too? ( A non-native friend told me it is used for saying \" all 'my plans' failed\", not 'my efforts'.) I want to use it in: John spared no efforts to provide his son with anything he needed for going to a medical college, but his son disappointed him by going to an art college. John accepted his son's choice but was really upset and felt ----(=all those efforts were wasted). PS: In Persian we say \"one's yarns changed back into cotton\". (You know that cotton is changed into yarn by spinning, using a spindle, that takes a long time and efforts, so \"all my yarns changed back into cotton\" means \"all my efforts wasted\".)","answer":"Your example works really well with in vain: John accepted his son's choice but was really upset and felt all his efforts had been in vain. More than one dictionary uses similar examples to illustrate in vain. Take Merriam-Webster (vain): \u2015in vain 1 : to no end : without success or result in vain> See Oxford Learners too, \u201cAll our efforts were in vain.\u201d The connotation is though not quite that of the Persian idiom, that one\u2019s work was undone, but that it was unsuccessful, and hence a waste of time and effort.","output":"Your example works really well with in vain: John accepted his son's choice but was really upset and felt all his efforts had been in vain. More than one dictionary uses similar examples to illustrate in vain. Take Merriam-Webster (vain): \u2015in vain 1 : to no end : without success or result in vain> See Oxford Learners too, \u201cAll our efforts were in vain.\u201d The connotation is though not quite that of the Persian idiom, that one\u2019s work was undone, but that it was unsuccessful, and hence a waste of time and effort."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have a feeling there's only one way to say this: you can be in the \u201c95th percentile\u201d. A colleague of mine says it's OK to say \u201cthe 95% percentile\u201d, which doesn't seem to make mathematical sense to me. What's correct?","question":"I have a feeling there's only one way to say this: you can be in the \u201c95th percentile\u201d. A colleague of mine says it's OK to say \u201cthe 95% percentile\u201d, which doesn't seem to make mathematical sense to me. What's correct?","answer":"Percentiles, whether we mean rank or range, are discussed using ordinal numbers: first, 50th, 95th, etc. To say \"ninety-five percent percentile\" would be considered an error in any kind of formal or academic setting, as well as being redundant. Percentile ranks are reported on an ordinal scale. Applied Statistics in Education and Psychology I","output":"Percentiles, whether we mean rank or range, are discussed using ordinal numbers: first, 50th, 95th, etc. To say \"ninety-five percent percentile\" would be considered an error in any kind of formal or academic setting, as well as being redundant. Percentile ranks are reported on an ordinal scale. Applied Statistics in Education and Psychology I"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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\nThink of a pianist who is accompanying a violonist. What would you call the act of playing music and adjusting your tune, melody and playing to the musician you are accompanying. So the word accompanying is used a lot, but it's not specific enough. Accompaniment means a vocal or instrumental part that supports another, often solo, part, but it doesn't tell you that it's done particularly well and with respect to the tune, melody, playing. For example: Her piano ___ the playing of the violonist.","question":"Think of a pianist who is accompanying a violonist. What would you call the act of playing music and adjusting your tune, melody and playing to the musician you are accompanying. So the word accompanying is used a lot, but it's not specific enough. Accompaniment means a vocal or instrumental part that supports another, often solo, part, but it doesn't tell you that it's done particularly well and with respect to the tune, melody, playing. For example: Her piano ___ the playing of the violonist.","answer":"I don't think there is such a term - an accompanist is someone who accompanies a soloist, but there's no specific word for a very good accompanist. Instead, you'd have to add an adjective or an adverb, as appropriate. Some examples, beginning with your fill-in-the-blank: Her piano accompaniment perfectly underscored the playing of the violinist. She is a skilled accompanist who is often hired by the very best violinists. She brilliantly accompanied the virtuoso as he improvised a new cadenza. It is understood that the job of an accompanist is to follow and support the soloist, so if you use words like brilliant, skilled, or perfect, to modify accompany or any of its derivative forms, then it is understood that they are doing a brilliant, skilled, or perfect job at following and supporting the soloist.","output":"I don't think there is such a term - an accompanist is someone who accompanies a soloist, but there's no specific word for a very good accompanist. Instead, you'd have to add an adjective or an adverb, as appropriate. Some examples, beginning with your fill-in-the-blank: Her piano accompaniment perfectly underscored the playing of the violinist. She is a skilled accompanist who is often hired by the very best violinists. She brilliantly accompanied the virtuoso as he improvised a new cadenza. It is understood that the job of an accompanist is to follow and support the soloist, so if you use words like brilliant, skilled, or perfect, to modify accompany or any of its derivative forms, then it is understood that they are doing a brilliant, skilled, or perfect job at following and supporting the soloist."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThere is a question in my test that makes me confused. Here is the dialogue and I need to fill in the blank: A: You are a great dancer! B: _____. I dance terribly. That is what I remember (not word by word). I was reluctant between two choices: You've got to be kidding me. and You are too kind. I knew the former can be used so I chose it. However, after thinking thoroughly I thought the correct choice might be the latter so my final decision was to choose the latter. My reasoning: the former (even though is correct) seems rude. The latter seems much nicer. When I received the test back. The answer is: You've got to be kidding me. In short, I would be grateful if anyone can point out the differences between the two phrases and show some example if possible too. Thank you!","question":"There is a question in my test that makes me confused. Here is the dialogue and I need to fill in the blank: A: You are a great dancer! B: _____. I dance terribly. That is what I remember (not word by word). I was reluctant between two choices: You've got to be kidding me. and You are too kind. I knew the former can be used so I chose it. However, after thinking thoroughly I thought the correct choice might be the latter so my final decision was to choose the latter. My reasoning: the former (even though is correct) seems rude. The latter seems much nicer. When I received the test back. The answer is: You've got to be kidding me. In short, I would be grateful if anyone can point out the differences between the two phrases and show some example if possible too. Thank you!","answer":"Depends entirely on the context. Are A&B close friends? Or are they strangers who happen to be making small-talk? Because if they are close friends, A could have said to B in a jovial way\/sarcastic manner and B could have replied with \"What? No way! You gotta be kidding me. I dance terribly.\" But if this conversation is between 2 people making small talk(strangers who are just getting introduced to each other), then \"You are too kind!\" sounds appropriate. A little more context about between whom this conversation takes place will make it easier.","output":"Depends entirely on the context. Are A&B close friends? Or are they strangers who happen to be making small-talk? Because if they are close friends, A could have said to B in a jovial way\/sarcastic manner and B could have replied with \"What? No way! You gotta be kidding me. I dance terribly.\" But if this conversation is between 2 people making small talk(strangers who are just getting introduced to each other), then \"You are too kind!\" sounds appropriate. A little more context about between whom this conversation takes place will make it easier."}
{"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\nI just heard this saying recently in this conversation: A: Why aren't you telling him to shut up? B: Mr. Palm is going to do that. A: Oh! So Mr. Palm wears the pants! Cambridge Dictionary says:to be the person in a relationship who makes the decisions But I still don't understand why the word pants was used. Why is the word pants used, in \"wear the pants\"? And what is its origin?","question":"I just heard this saying recently in this conversation: A: Why aren't you telling him to shut up? B: Mr. Palm is going to do that. A: Oh! So Mr. Palm wears the pants! Cambridge Dictionary says:to be the person in a relationship who makes the decisions But I still don't understand why the word pants was used. Why is the word pants used, in \"wear the pants\"? And what is its origin?","answer":"Back in the olden days, back where there were houses made of sod on the American prairie that people actually lived in, about the time that Laura Ingalls Wilder was still Laura Ingalls, ladies used to wear dresses, men wore trousers (or pants). Also, ladies were treated as second class people. Ladies could not own property of their own. Ladies could not vote. Ladies could not enter into contracts. If you wanted to get someone in a household that had the ability to enter into a binding agreement, you needed a man. The only way you could tell a man from a woman in those days was to check to see what they were wearing. If the person was wearing pants, it was a man, and you could do serious business with him. If the person was wearing a dress, you did not bother with them. Thus, the person in a household who makes decisions and is otherwise in charge \"wears the pants\". According to phrases.org, this idiom was well known in the late 19th century. The first known appearance in print was in an November 1880 article in The Manitoba Daily Free Press where the phrase \"wear the trousers\" was used.","output":"Back in the olden days, back where there were houses made of sod on the American prairie that people actually lived in, about the time that Laura Ingalls Wilder was still Laura Ingalls, ladies used to wear dresses, men wore trousers (or pants). Also, ladies were treated as second class people. Ladies could not own property of their own. Ladies could not vote. Ladies could not enter into contracts. If you wanted to get someone in a household that had the ability to enter into a binding agreement, you needed a man. The only way you could tell a man from a woman in those days was to check to see what they were wearing. If the person was wearing pants, it was a man, and you could do serious business with him. If the person was wearing a dress, you did not bother with them. Thus, the person in a household who makes decisions and is otherwise in charge \"wears the pants\". According to phrases.org, this idiom was well known in the late 19th century. The first known appearance in print was in an November 1880 article in The Manitoba Daily Free Press where the phrase \"wear the trousers\" was used."}
{"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\nThe government should pay (to) his employees for not letting them leave the country. Should we use \"to\" after \"pay\" or not? Does the verb \"pay\" require the preposition \"to\" after itself?","question":"The government should pay (to) his employees for not letting them leave the country. Should we use \"to\" after \"pay\" or not? Does the verb \"pay\" require the preposition \"to\" after itself?","answer":"The word \"to\" is generally used after the verb \"pay\" to indicate the purpose of the payment, not the recipient. I pay him to mow my lawn. John pays to park his car in a protected space. \"To\" can be used to indicate the recipient in constructions such as: Jane will pay $500 to Fred. In a case of garnishment, the employer pays part of the salary to the creditor. But \"to\" is not needed or wanted in the example sentence. It should be: The government should pay its employees for not letting them leave the country. (Since \"The government\" is not an individual person, use \"its\", not \"his\". If the sentence was about an individual of unknown gender, one could write \"his or her\" or \"their\". Formerly \"his\" was used for individuals of unknown gender, but this is considered improper, even offensive, by many today.) When \"pay to\" specified a recipient, there will normally be an indication of what is being paid. Either an amount (\"pay $500 to Fred\") or a description \"The tenant will pay the rent to the landlord by the 3rd of the month.\" This will often be between \"pay\" and \"to\", but need not be, particularly in a formal legal context: The debtor will pay to the creditor the sum of $500 as additional interest in any month in which the principal sum is not paid on time. The purchaser will pay to the seller the full balance of the purchase price in case of default. But in the example in the question, no amount or description of what is to be paid is included, so \"to\" would not be used to indicate a recipient. The purpose of the payment is already indicted with \"for\", so \"to\" would not also be used for that. Note also that in many cases where \"pay X to someone\" is normal, the sentence can be recast as \"pay someone X\". For example: Jane will pay Fred $500. In a case of garnishment, the employer pays the creditor part of the salary.","output":"The word \"to\" is generally used after the verb \"pay\" to indicate the purpose of the payment, not the recipient. I pay him to mow my lawn. John pays to park his car in a protected space. \"To\" can be used to indicate the recipient in constructions such as: Jane will pay $500 to Fred. In a case of garnishment, the employer pays part of the salary to the creditor. But \"to\" is not needed or wanted in the example sentence. It should be: The government should pay its employees for not letting them leave the country. (Since \"The government\" is not an individual person, use \"its\", not \"his\". If the sentence was about an individual of unknown gender, one could write \"his or her\" or \"their\". Formerly \"his\" was used for individuals of unknown gender, but this is considered improper, even offensive, by many today.) When \"pay to\" specified a recipient, there will normally be an indication of what is being paid. Either an amount (\"pay $500 to Fred\") or a description \"The tenant will pay the rent to the landlord by the 3rd of the month.\" This will often be between \"pay\" and \"to\", but need not be, particularly in a formal legal context: The debtor will pay to the creditor the sum of $500 as additional interest in any month in which the principal sum is not paid on time. The purchaser will pay to the seller the full balance of the purchase price in case of default. But in the example in the question, no amount or description of what is to be paid is included, so \"to\" would not be used to indicate a recipient. The purpose of the payment is already indicted with \"for\", so \"to\" would not also be used for that. Note also that in many cases where \"pay X to someone\" is normal, the sentence can be recast as \"pay someone X\". For example: Jane will pay Fred $500. In a case of garnishment, the employer pays the creditor part of the salary."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe context is that a group of us asked a friend to come and have a breakfast, instead of study for a test (bad influence, I know). Initially she said she wouldn't come, but after some badgering on our part she gave us some leeway. Which of these responses is grammatically correct? If I change my mind, I let you know. If I change my mind, I'll let you know.","question":"The context is that a group of us asked a friend to come and have a breakfast, instead of study for a test (bad influence, I know). Initially she said she wouldn't come, but after some badgering on our part she gave us some leeway. Which of these responses is grammatically correct? If I change my mind, I let you know. If I change my mind, I'll let you know.","answer":"The second sentence is definitely the correct one: If I change my mind, I'll let you know. You or your friends are probably confused because when \"I'll let\" is spoken, all those \"L\"s blend together and sound like \"I let\". Don't be fooled by that. Try the same tense with different words. Which sound correct to you? Incorrect: If I change my mind, I buy the product. Correct: If I change my mind, I'll buy the product. __ Incorrect: If I win a lottery, I donate the money. Correct: If I win a lottery, I'll donate the money.","output":"The second sentence is definitely the correct one: If I change my mind, I'll let you know. You or your friends are probably confused because when \"I'll let\" is spoken, all those \"L\"s blend together and sound like \"I let\". Don't be fooled by that. Try the same tense with different words. Which sound correct to you? Incorrect: If I change my mind, I buy the product. Correct: If I change my mind, I'll buy the product. __ Incorrect: If I win a lottery, I donate the money. Correct: If I win a lottery, I'll donate the money."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nBen Horowitz tweets, \"These annotations have completely convinced me that Newsweek blew the story.\" Does this mean that Newsweek was correct, and was the first to the scoop? Or does this mean that Newsweek blew it, got the story wrong?","question":"Ben Horowitz tweets, \"These annotations have completely convinced me that Newsweek blew the story.\" Does this mean that Newsweek was correct, and was the first to the scoop? Or does this mean that Newsweek blew it, got the story wrong?","answer":"Blow the lid off a story = good (first to report) Blow a story = bad (get the facts or perspective wrong) I leave the puerile wisecracks for the comments.","output":"Blow the lid off a story = good (first to report) Blow a story = bad (get the facts or perspective wrong) I leave the puerile wisecracks for the comments."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCan the phrase \"not comparable\" be used in a negative context? For example, if someone says the latest pirates movie is not comparable to the previous versions, can it mean it is so bad?","question":"Can the phrase \"not comparable\" be used in a negative context? For example, if someone says the latest pirates movie is not comparable to the previous versions, can it mean it is so bad?","answer":"I don't know how bad it would mean, but the meaning when you are speaking will depend upon your voice modulation, facial expression and overall body language. For example, An accentuated 'not comparable' with a disappointing or disgusting look may imply its inferiority. In written form, the meaning will depend upon the overall write-up. If you go on to praise the film in your next sentences, then 'not comparable', here, is used in superlative context. Eg: The latest pirates movie is not comparable to the previous versions ...(and go on to follow it up by)... I'm like Wow! As a stand alone written statement, It can be perplexing to the reader.","output":"I don't know how bad it would mean, but the meaning when you are speaking will depend upon your voice modulation, facial expression and overall body language. For example, An accentuated 'not comparable' with a disappointing or disgusting look may imply its inferiority. In written form, the meaning will depend upon the overall write-up. If you go on to praise the film in your next sentences, then 'not comparable', here, is used in superlative context. Eg: The latest pirates movie is not comparable to the previous versions ...(and go on to follow it up by)... I'm like Wow! As a stand alone written statement, It can be perplexing to the reader."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI want to say: To be a good teacher, one needs to X some concepts. In place of X, I can only think of \"attenuate\", which means to lessen the severeness of a disease. But I want to say 'to make a complex concept simpler'. Is there a verb for my purpose?","question":"I want to say: To be a good teacher, one needs to X some concepts. In place of X, I can only think of \"attenuate\", which means to lessen the severeness of a disease. But I want to say 'to make a complex concept simpler'. Is there a verb for my purpose?","answer":"The verb simplify, derived from the adjective 'simple' works here: to make simple or simpler: such as ... b : to diminish in scope or complexity : streamline \/\/ was urged to simplify management procedures (source: Merriam-Webster)","output":"The verb simplify, derived from the adjective 'simple' works here: to make simple or simpler: such as ... b : to diminish in scope or complexity : streamline \/\/ was urged to simplify management procedures (source: Merriam-Webster)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is a correct way of using \"pay off\" phrase? Your hard work is paying off. vs. Your hard work is paid off. I thought that the one correct way is the second, because I thought \"pay off\" should be used only in passive for such kind of meaning.","question":"What is a correct way of using \"pay off\" phrase? Your hard work is paying off. vs. Your hard work is paid off. I thought that the one correct way is the second, because I thought \"pay off\" should be used only in passive for such kind of meaning.","answer":"To \"pay off\" has two meanings. When it is used as a transitive verb, it means \"to pay a debt in full\". When it is used as an intransitive verb, it means \"to yield positive returns\". (See entry 3 at https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/payoff.) In your example, \"pay off\" is used as an intransitive verb. If some positive results have occurred, and further positive results are expected in the near future, you would use the present continuous tense: Your hard work is paying off. If all or most of the positive results are believed to have already occurred in the recent past, you would use the present perfect: Your hard work has paid off. When you see a sentence that says, \"X is paid off,\" the verb \"pay off\" is being used as a transitive verb in the passive. The implication is that X is a debt that has been paid off. For example: How long do we have to wait until our mortgage is paid off?","output":"To \"pay off\" has two meanings. When it is used as a transitive verb, it means \"to pay a debt in full\". When it is used as an intransitive verb, it means \"to yield positive returns\". (See entry 3 at https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/payoff.) In your example, \"pay off\" is used as an intransitive verb. If some positive results have occurred, and further positive results are expected in the near future, you would use the present continuous tense: Your hard work is paying off. If all or most of the positive results are believed to have already occurred in the recent past, you would use the present perfect: Your hard work has paid off. When you see a sentence that says, \"X is paid off,\" the verb \"pay off\" is being used as a transitive verb in the passive. The implication is that X is a debt that has been paid off. For example: How long do we have to wait until our mortgage is paid off?"}
{"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\n\"To draw\" originally meant \"to drag, pull\", and it's pretty easy to make sense of the many meanings of the verb with that in mind. Draw a sword, draw a card, draw water from a well, draw breath, a drawer, withdraw, ... Even for the most farfetched ones, I can see the figurative stretch. But not for the main meaning of the verb. What does \"to produce artwork\" have to do with pulling or dragging? btw I'm not sure if I cann technically call it a semantic shift if the original meaning is still in use.","question":"\"To draw\" originally meant \"to drag, pull\", and it's pretty easy to make sense of the many meanings of the verb with that in mind. Draw a sword, draw a card, draw water from a well, draw breath, a drawer, withdraw, ... Even for the most farfetched ones, I can see the figurative stretch. But not for the main meaning of the verb. What does \"to produce artwork\" have to do with pulling or dragging? btw I'm not sure if I cann technically call it a semantic shift if the original meaning is still in use.","answer":"Emerging ca. 1200, draw in the graphic sense comes from drawing some implement or material \u2014 pen, pencil, chalk, etc. \u2014 across an appropriate surface: Draw thanne by thi rewle a lyne fro the hed of aries to the hed of libra.\u2014 Equatorie of the Planets, Ms. Cambridge, Peterhouse 75, ca. 1392. (A rough translation into modern English, from the comments: \"Draw then using your ruler a line from the head of Aries to the head of Libra.\")","output":"Emerging ca. 1200, draw in the graphic sense comes from drawing some implement or material \u2014 pen, pencil, chalk, etc. \u2014 across an appropriate surface: Draw thanne by thi rewle a lyne fro the hed of aries to the hed of libra.\u2014 Equatorie of the Planets, Ms. Cambridge, Peterhouse 75, ca. 1392. (A rough translation into modern English, from the comments: \"Draw then using your ruler a line from the head of Aries to the head of Libra.\")"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCould someone please explain to me what is the difference in meaning between heritage and inheritance and give an example of each? Thank you","question":"Could someone please explain to me what is the difference in meaning between heritage and inheritance and give an example of each? Thank you","answer":"Both \"heritage\" and \"inheritance\" refer to things that you get from your parents or ancestors or others you have some association with, after their deaths. \"Inheritance\", when used literally, refers to money, real estate, or other tangible property. \"Heritage\" refers to intangible things, like ideals, knowledge, and moral standards. For example, you might say, \"My inheritance from my grandfather included $50,000 and a house in Virginia.\" But, \"Our founding fathers left us a heritage of liberty and justice.\" The verb \"inherit\" can be used for either idea. \"I inherited my father's antique car collection.\" Or, \"I inherited my father's love of baseball.\"","output":"Both \"heritage\" and \"inheritance\" refer to things that you get from your parents or ancestors or others you have some association with, after their deaths. \"Inheritance\", when used literally, refers to money, real estate, or other tangible property. \"Heritage\" refers to intangible things, like ideals, knowledge, and moral standards. For example, you might say, \"My inheritance from my grandfather included $50,000 and a house in Virginia.\" But, \"Our founding fathers left us a heritage of liberty and justice.\" The verb \"inherit\" can be used for either idea. \"I inherited my father's antique car collection.\" Or, \"I inherited my father's love of baseball.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThis is something that has always bugged me. I am never sure where to place the question mark, or whether to place it at all when the end of the sentence does not finish with a question, or a number of questions from the begining For example: The question nagging me is to what extent can we encapsulate all what we observe in nature into a set of simple computational rules, within which we can leverage our existing knowledge. Should the final full-stop (period) be replaced by a question mark? Or perhaps even the comma?","question":"This is something that has always bugged me. I am never sure where to place the question mark, or whether to place it at all when the end of the sentence does not finish with a question, or a number of questions from the begining For example: The question nagging me is to what extent can we encapsulate all what we observe in nature into a set of simple computational rules, within which we can leverage our existing knowledge. Should the final full-stop (period) be replaced by a question mark? Or perhaps even the comma?","answer":"A question within a sentence should be preceded by a comma, and end with a question mark. I am wondering, how long has that fish statue been there? There are three important issues that this committee must address. What was the chairman doing in that YouTube video? is not among them. If a question is particularly long or complex, then for clarity it could begin with a capital letter. In the daydreams of my youth I would look at the clouds and wonder, Will I find happiness and fulfillment soon after getting a business administration degree, or must I amortize my well-being return on investment over the next seven to ten calendar years? The sentence in the original question ends with a subordinate clause that does not, by itself, ask a question (\u201cwithin which we can leverage our existing knowledge\u201d). This is modifying a noun phrase that is part of the question (\u201cset of simple computational rules\u201d). Therefore, this subordinate clause is part of the original question, and should end with a question mark. Putting all of this together, I would punctuate the sentence like this: The question nagging me is, To what extent can we encapsulate all what we observe in nature into a set of simple computational rules, within which we can leverage our existing knowledge? (Some of this advice is based on The Chicago Manual of Style 15th Edition \u00a76.55 and \u00a76.71.)","output":"A question within a sentence should be preceded by a comma, and end with a question mark. I am wondering, how long has that fish statue been there? There are three important issues that this committee must address. What was the chairman doing in that YouTube video? is not among them. If a question is particularly long or complex, then for clarity it could begin with a capital letter. In the daydreams of my youth I would look at the clouds and wonder, Will I find happiness and fulfillment soon after getting a business administration degree, or must I amortize my well-being return on investment over the next seven to ten calendar years? The sentence in the original question ends with a subordinate clause that does not, by itself, ask a question (\u201cwithin which we can leverage our existing knowledge\u201d). This is modifying a noun phrase that is part of the question (\u201cset of simple computational rules\u201d). Therefore, this subordinate clause is part of the original question, and should end with a question mark. Putting all of this together, I would punctuate the sentence like this: The question nagging me is, To what extent can we encapsulate all what we observe in nature into a set of simple computational rules, within which we can leverage our existing knowledge? (Some of this advice is based on The Chicago Manual of Style 15th Edition \u00a76.55 and \u00a76.71.)"}
{"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\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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\nThis graph shows in detail the relationships between x, y, and z. I'm limited in word count and this expression costs three words. How can I reduce it to one word?","question":"This graph shows in detail the relationships between x, y, and z. I'm limited in word count and this expression costs three words. How can I reduce it to one word?","answer":"You can actually use details as a verb: \"This graph details the relationships between x, y, and z.\" detail, v Give full information about: the report details proposals to improve public transport [ODO]","output":"You can actually use details as a verb: \"This graph details the relationships between x, y, and z.\" detail, v Give full information about: the report details proposals to improve public transport [ODO]"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"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 doing SAT writing practice questions, and I came across a problem I believe has multiple solutions. The incorrect sentence is as follows (i shortened it): He was not merely expected to work hard, but to help others. And the error occurs at not merely. According to the site, the sentence should be corrected like this: He was expected not merely to work hard, but to help others. Isn't this sentence also gramatically correct though? He was not merely expected to work hard, but also to help others. Thanks everyone.","question":"I'm doing SAT writing practice questions, and I came across a problem I believe has multiple solutions. The incorrect sentence is as follows (i shortened it): He was not merely expected to work hard, but to help others. And the error occurs at not merely. According to the site, the sentence should be corrected like this: He was expected not merely to work hard, but to help others. Isn't this sentence also gramatically correct though? He was not merely expected to work hard, but also to help others. Thanks everyone.","answer":"The positioning of the words 'not merely' (which is a structure not really modifying the verb in the first of my examples below, but restricting \/ enlarging the area of its application, so I'd call this a 'limiting \/ delimiting modifier' rather than an adverb - or an adjective in the second example) can be important. Contrast He not merely looked at the $2 000 print, he actually bought a copy. With He looked at not merely the $2 000 print, but also the $52 000 original. In one, the scope of the verb(s) is addressed, in the other, the set of objects subjected to the action\/s of the verb\/s. The limiting modifier (word or phrase) needs to be placed immediately before what it refers to. The positioning of limiting modifiers (just \/ even \/ only \/ almost ...) is notoriously mismanaged, and the term 'misplaced modifier' usually refers to one of these critters that's escaped from its proper place. (To be fair, with the example you give, I think that the logical misplacing of 'not merely' is colloquially quite acceptable and that this particular sort of misplacing is widely used; it's obvious that there's going to be no second verb counterpart to expected here, so there's no ambiguity. However, SAT requirements and colloquialisms aren't the same thing.)","output":"The positioning of the words 'not merely' (which is a structure not really modifying the verb in the first of my examples below, but restricting \/ enlarging the area of its application, so I'd call this a 'limiting \/ delimiting modifier' rather than an adverb - or an adjective in the second example) can be important. Contrast He not merely looked at the $2 000 print, he actually bought a copy. With He looked at not merely the $2 000 print, but also the $52 000 original. In one, the scope of the verb(s) is addressed, in the other, the set of objects subjected to the action\/s of the verb\/s. The limiting modifier (word or phrase) needs to be placed immediately before what it refers to. The positioning of limiting modifiers (just \/ even \/ only \/ almost ...) is notoriously mismanaged, and the term 'misplaced modifier' usually refers to one of these critters that's escaped from its proper place. (To be fair, with the example you give, I think that the logical misplacing of 'not merely' is colloquially quite acceptable and that this particular sort of misplacing is widely used; it's obvious that there's going to be no second verb counterpart to expected here, so there's no ambiguity. However, SAT requirements and colloquialisms aren't the same thing.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm reading a programming book and in it it is said, of a subset of engineers, \"Electrical engineers and systems designers who create computer motherboards and other hardware systems incorporating Intel processors need to know some of the rest, but they are a small and hardy crew, and they know who they are.\" I unsuccessfully tried to find the meaning of that last bit on its own online. It seems to be an idiom. I would guess that it means that due to the small size of the group, the prominent people in it are known to one another and comprise a sort of community. Perhaps someone knows\/has encountered the segment in question?","question":"I'm reading a programming book and in it it is said, of a subset of engineers, \"Electrical engineers and systems designers who create computer motherboards and other hardware systems incorporating Intel processors need to know some of the rest, but they are a small and hardy crew, and they know who they are.\" I unsuccessfully tried to find the meaning of that last bit on its own online. It seems to be an idiom. I would guess that it means that due to the small size of the group, the prominent people in it are known to one another and comprise a sort of community. Perhaps someone knows\/has encountered the segment in question?","answer":"The phrase \"they\/you know who they\/you are\" is typically used to address members of a subset of your audience without specifying their names. We often use this phrase in an acknowledgement, or dedication, like you might find at the beginning or end of a book. An example would be: This book is dedicated to all the people who supported me as I was writing it. They know who they are. In other words, those people who supported me know that they are included in the group \"all the people who supported me\", so I'm not going to list each of their names. Another common use - and one that perhaps makes more sense - is when you're admonishing a group of people in public, but want to spare them the embarrassment of being singled out. For example: Some people have not yet completed the required training - they know who they are (because we sent them a reminder email) - and we're working with them to get the training finished as soon as possible. Similarly, you might use this phrase when giving a public address because you want the general audience not to worry that you might be talking about them: For those of you who forgot to sign up for a shift - and you know who you are - please email Alice by the end of the day. In the quoted example, the author intends to say something like this: The next section is not for everyone. It's only for people who need to know extra information about [whatever the next section is about]. The people who need to know this information are electrical engineers and systems designers who create computer motherboards and if you were a member of this group, you would know you were a member. So if you're not sure if this next section is for you, it's not.","output":"The phrase \"they\/you know who they\/you are\" is typically used to address members of a subset of your audience without specifying their names. We often use this phrase in an acknowledgement, or dedication, like you might find at the beginning or end of a book. An example would be: This book is dedicated to all the people who supported me as I was writing it. They know who they are. In other words, those people who supported me know that they are included in the group \"all the people who supported me\", so I'm not going to list each of their names. Another common use - and one that perhaps makes more sense - is when you're admonishing a group of people in public, but want to spare them the embarrassment of being singled out. For example: Some people have not yet completed the required training - they know who they are (because we sent them a reminder email) - and we're working with them to get the training finished as soon as possible. Similarly, you might use this phrase when giving a public address because you want the general audience not to worry that you might be talking about them: For those of you who forgot to sign up for a shift - and you know who you are - please email Alice by the end of the day. In the quoted example, the author intends to say something like this: The next section is not for everyone. It's only for people who need to know extra information about [whatever the next section is about]. The people who need to know this information are electrical engineers and systems designers who create computer motherboards and if you were a member of this group, you would know you were a member. So if you're not sure if this next section is for you, it's not."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"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\nMany times I've heard of 'pun intended' or 'pun not intended', which I see as a form of excuse in the English-spoken world. However, I can not wrap my head around why are you constantly excusing\/explaning something so innocent(?) as pun. What I am giving off constantly saying 'pun intended'? What's the purpose of constantly saying 'pun (not) intended'? We don't excuse puns in my native language, in my country, we just laugh it off.","question":"Many times I've heard of 'pun intended' or 'pun not intended', which I see as a form of excuse in the English-spoken world. However, I can not wrap my head around why are you constantly excusing\/explaning something so innocent(?) as pun. What I am giving off constantly saying 'pun intended'? What's the purpose of constantly saying 'pun (not) intended'? We don't excuse puns in my native language, in my country, we just laugh it off.","answer":"It's not generally to excuse a pun, but to draw attention to it. Sometimes \"no pun intended\" is an edit, or when the author\/speaker realised an accidental pun (and in the case of writing decided to leave it in). In speech sometimes the accidental pun (or indeed any humour) may be inappropriate but it can't be edited out once said. In that case an excuse may be needed. Sometimes puns are regarded as a low form of humour when planned, so \"no pun intended\" can mean \"that just came out by itself\" and may not be true. Other times they can be rather subtle and \"(no) pun intended\" highlights the wordplay and gives a pause to process it. There are some cases in which it is used to excuse a pun: In technical writing the choice of terminology can be very restricted \u2014 everyday synonyms can mean completely different things. In this case the best phrasing may well lead to an inadvertent pun that is kept and the reader is asked to ignore it.","output":"It's not generally to excuse a pun, but to draw attention to it. Sometimes \"no pun intended\" is an edit, or when the author\/speaker realised an accidental pun (and in the case of writing decided to leave it in). In speech sometimes the accidental pun (or indeed any humour) may be inappropriate but it can't be edited out once said. In that case an excuse may be needed. Sometimes puns are regarded as a low form of humour when planned, so \"no pun intended\" can mean \"that just came out by itself\" and may not be true. Other times they can be rather subtle and \"(no) pun intended\" highlights the wordplay and gives a pause to process it. There are some cases in which it is used to excuse a pun: In technical writing the choice of terminology can be very restricted \u2014 everyday synonyms can mean completely different things. In this case the best phrasing may well lead to an inadvertent pun that is kept and the reader is asked to ignore it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAs I am having some new options to describe one of my earlier post regarding to the following two constructions making into one sentence, I want to post this once again with my options. If I say main two things which I want to include separately, Testing of previously fixed edge and currently fixed edge is done in order to maintain the correct alignment of the boundary segments. previously fixed edge and currently fixed edge are relevant to the two successive corners but associated with a same polygon. after joining above 2 into one sentence I have following options Testing of previously fixed edge and currently fixed edge, relevant to the two successive corners but associated with a same polygon, is done in order to maintain the correct alignment of the boundary segments. Testing of the previously fixed edge and the currently fixed edge is done to maintain the correct alignment of the boundary segments; these edges refer to two successive corners associated with a same polygon. Currently fixed edge is compared with the previous fixing which is relevant to the predecessor of the current corner and associated with the same polygon in order to maintain the correct alignment of the boundary segments. AS this point is very important for my writing, I want your assistant to say this in a formal way.","question":"As I am having some new options to describe one of my earlier post regarding to the following two constructions making into one sentence, I want to post this once again with my options. If I say main two things which I want to include separately, Testing of previously fixed edge and currently fixed edge is done in order to maintain the correct alignment of the boundary segments. previously fixed edge and currently fixed edge are relevant to the two successive corners but associated with a same polygon. after joining above 2 into one sentence I have following options Testing of previously fixed edge and currently fixed edge, relevant to the two successive corners but associated with a same polygon, is done in order to maintain the correct alignment of the boundary segments. Testing of the previously fixed edge and the currently fixed edge is done to maintain the correct alignment of the boundary segments; these edges refer to two successive corners associated with a same polygon. Currently fixed edge is compared with the previous fixing which is relevant to the predecessor of the current corner and associated with the same polygon in order to maintain the correct alignment of the boundary segments. AS this point is very important for my writing, I want your assistant to say this in a formal way.","answer":"The second of your choices is not bad, if you break it into two shorter sentences, and fix some minor problems with articles. (The struck-through words would be deleted, the italicized words added.) Testing of the a previously-fixed edge and the currently-fixed edge is done to maintain the correct alignment of the boundary segments. These edges are parts of two successive corners associated with a same single polygon. The first and third choices either don't make sense or are too convoluted to be worth including. That is, they do not communicate well enough to be worth room on the page; people will understand things better if you just leave out sentences like the first and third. Rather than trying to jam everything into a single long sentence, try to write using several short and clear sentences that follow in logical succession.","output":"The second of your choices is not bad, if you break it into two shorter sentences, and fix some minor problems with articles. (The struck-through words would be deleted, the italicized words added.) Testing of the a previously-fixed edge and the currently-fixed edge is done to maintain the correct alignment of the boundary segments. These edges are parts of two successive corners associated with a same single polygon. The first and third choices either don't make sense or are too convoluted to be worth including. That is, they do not communicate well enough to be worth room on the page; people will understand things better if you just leave out sentences like the first and third. Rather than trying to jam everything into a single long sentence, try to write using several short and clear sentences that follow in logical succession."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it standard English to use the modal \"will\" with the adjective \"likely\" that follows infinitive verb as in the following examples. I was told that the adjective likely has already the sense of future and it should be used with linking verbs. Therefore, it would be wrong to use modal \"will\" with it. However, there are many examples written by different sources, such as newspapers, universities, on the Internet. For example : This will likely to do more damage than good. ...even though in reality they stand to profit and will likely to do so. https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/politics\/archive\/2016\/12\/the-trumps-learn-to-love-the-swamp\/511442\/ Google Ngram also gives different results.","question":"Is it standard English to use the modal \"will\" with the adjective \"likely\" that follows infinitive verb as in the following examples. I was told that the adjective likely has already the sense of future and it should be used with linking verbs. Therefore, it would be wrong to use modal \"will\" with it. However, there are many examples written by different sources, such as newspapers, universities, on the Internet. For example : This will likely to do more damage than good. ...even though in reality they stand to profit and will likely to do so. https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/politics\/archive\/2016\/12\/the-trumps-learn-to-love-the-swamp\/511442\/ Google Ngram also gives different results.","answer":"I can't find the first quote, about \"damage\" in the linked article. The second quote contains a typographical error. Perhaps the proofreader missed it; perhaps there was no proofreader. The Trump camp may not even see these moves as compromising. Trump argued throughout the campaign that his wealth actually shielded him from corruption, so it stands to reason that he\u2019d think that other billionaires would be similarly inured to conflicts of interest, even though in reality they stand to profit and will likely to do so. There are two ways of correcting the part in bold: will likely do so. are likely to do so. (1) means will probably do so. Here, \"likely* is used as an adverb. (2) means are predicted to do so. Here, \"likely\" is used as an adjective. What you were told sounds good to me, when you're using the adjective.","output":"I can't find the first quote, about \"damage\" in the linked article. The second quote contains a typographical error. Perhaps the proofreader missed it; perhaps there was no proofreader. The Trump camp may not even see these moves as compromising. Trump argued throughout the campaign that his wealth actually shielded him from corruption, so it stands to reason that he\u2019d think that other billionaires would be similarly inured to conflicts of interest, even though in reality they stand to profit and will likely to do so. There are two ways of correcting the part in bold: will likely do so. are likely to do so. (1) means will probably do so. Here, \"likely* is used as an adverb. (2) means are predicted to do so. Here, \"likely\" is used as an adjective. What you were told sounds good to me, when you're using the adjective."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhenever I have to describe a shaky movement I find it really hard to pick the right word. More specifically, I never know whether to use wiggle or jiggle. Dictionaries don't help much: jiggle UK \/\u02c8d\u0292\u026a\u0261.\u0259l\/ US \/\u02c8d\u0292\u026a\u0261.\u0259l\/ to \u200bmove from \u200bside to \u200bside or up and down with \u200bquick \u200bshort \u200bmovements, or to make something do this: If the \u200bdoor won't \u200bopen, \u200btry jiggling the \u200bkey in the \u200block. wiggle UK \/\u02c8w\u026a\u0261.\u0259l\/ US \/\u02c8w\u026a\u0261.\u0259l\/ informal to (\u200bcause to) \u200bmove up and down and\/or from \u200bside to \u200bside with \u200bsmall, \u200bquick \u200bmovements: He \u200btried wiggling the \u200bcontrol \u200bstick but nothing \u200bhappened. She wiggled her \u200btoes in the \u200bwater. Her \u200bhips wiggle as she \u200bwalks. [dictionary.cambridge.org] From Google NGrams I see some common collocations for both verbs are jiggle cage, jiggle bars, wiggle room and wiggle eyes1. Also, it seems that for body parts such as fingers, toes, or tails2, wiggle is more common than jiggle. Actually, Google Ngrams doesn't return a single instance for \"jiggle\" with the aforementioned body parts. If we move on to consider dance moves such as twerking, both verbs come up pretty often. As an example, take Jason Derulo's song Wiggle, or this video where a fitness instructor says \"let the booty jiggle\". So, is there any difference in usage between \"jiggle\" and \"wiggle\"? When should I use each? Are there any instances where only one is correct or natural-sounding and the other is not? 1: Some alternative expressions are wiggly eyes or googly eyes. 2: Even though wag is far more common to describe the movement of a tail, it seems wiggle isn't unheard of.","question":"Whenever I have to describe a shaky movement I find it really hard to pick the right word. More specifically, I never know whether to use wiggle or jiggle. Dictionaries don't help much: jiggle UK \/\u02c8d\u0292\u026a\u0261.\u0259l\/ US \/\u02c8d\u0292\u026a\u0261.\u0259l\/ to \u200bmove from \u200bside to \u200bside or up and down with \u200bquick \u200bshort \u200bmovements, or to make something do this: If the \u200bdoor won't \u200bopen, \u200btry jiggling the \u200bkey in the \u200block. wiggle UK \/\u02c8w\u026a\u0261.\u0259l\/ US \/\u02c8w\u026a\u0261.\u0259l\/ informal to (\u200bcause to) \u200bmove up and down and\/or from \u200bside to \u200bside with \u200bsmall, \u200bquick \u200bmovements: He \u200btried wiggling the \u200bcontrol \u200bstick but nothing \u200bhappened. She wiggled her \u200btoes in the \u200bwater. Her \u200bhips wiggle as she \u200bwalks. [dictionary.cambridge.org] From Google NGrams I see some common collocations for both verbs are jiggle cage, jiggle bars, wiggle room and wiggle eyes1. Also, it seems that for body parts such as fingers, toes, or tails2, wiggle is more common than jiggle. Actually, Google Ngrams doesn't return a single instance for \"jiggle\" with the aforementioned body parts. If we move on to consider dance moves such as twerking, both verbs come up pretty often. As an example, take Jason Derulo's song Wiggle, or this video where a fitness instructor says \"let the booty jiggle\". So, is there any difference in usage between \"jiggle\" and \"wiggle\"? When should I use each? Are there any instances where only one is correct or natural-sounding and the other is not? 1: Some alternative expressions are wiggly eyes or googly eyes. 2: Even though wag is far more common to describe the movement of a tail, it seems wiggle isn't unheard of.","answer":"Jiggle is a certain movement which is caused by an external force which causes a random or pseudo-random movement. Imagine a car driving on a bumpy road, things that might jiggle in the car are jello on a plate jiggles the surface of a cup of coffee jiggles a woman's breasts jiggle ( not initiated by the woman, see below ) When things jiggle they usually remain attached. Wiggle means not in a straight line. If something has a wiggle in it, it means it curves back and forth (not to be confused with \"meandering\"). Wiggle can also mean a certain non-straight motion within in a small space, sometimes to create more space. Wiggling is usually caused by the thing that wiggles. worms wiggle paths wiggle, The Wiggle wiggle wire a woman's toes wiggle ( initiated by the woman ) When wanting to have less constraints or rules, one can ask for more wiggle room Also, The Wiggles are an Australian music group.","output":"Jiggle is a certain movement which is caused by an external force which causes a random or pseudo-random movement. Imagine a car driving on a bumpy road, things that might jiggle in the car are jello on a plate jiggles the surface of a cup of coffee jiggles a woman's breasts jiggle ( not initiated by the woman, see below ) When things jiggle they usually remain attached. Wiggle means not in a straight line. If something has a wiggle in it, it means it curves back and forth (not to be confused with \"meandering\"). Wiggle can also mean a certain non-straight motion within in a small space, sometimes to create more space. Wiggling is usually caused by the thing that wiggles. worms wiggle paths wiggle, The Wiggle wiggle wire a woman's toes wiggle ( initiated by the woman ) When wanting to have less constraints or rules, one can ask for more wiggle room Also, The Wiggles are an Australian music group."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nshe is a Bad Cop, no doubt about it, and with disappointment I realize that Little's aw-shucks shtick must be just smoke What does the line in bold mean - aw-shucks shtick must be just smoke. This is from \"The woman in the window\".","question":"she is a Bad Cop, no doubt about it, and with disappointment I realize that Little's aw-shucks shtick must be just smoke What does the line in bold mean - aw-shucks shtick must be just smoke. This is from \"The woman in the window\".","answer":"I realize that Little's unsophisticated and sweet mannerisms must be just fake routine designed to confuse me Aw Shucks : being or marked by an unsophisticated, self-conscious, or self-effacing manner an aw-shucks grin. - https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/aw-shucks schtick 1 : a usually comic or repetitious performance or routine : bit 2 : one's special trait, interest, or activity - https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/schtick blow smoke mainly AMERICAN. If someone blows smoke they deliberately confuse or deceive you. I just can't shake the feeling that he's up to something. Sounds to me like he's blowing smoke. - https:\/\/idioms.thefreedictionary.com\/blow+smoke smokescreen something that hides the truth about someone's intentions: Instead of doing something about the problem, the city council is hiding behind a smokescreen of bureaucracy. - https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/dictionary\/english\/smokescreen","output":"I realize that Little's unsophisticated and sweet mannerisms must be just fake routine designed to confuse me Aw Shucks : being or marked by an unsophisticated, self-conscious, or self-effacing manner an aw-shucks grin. - https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/aw-shucks schtick 1 : a usually comic or repetitious performance or routine : bit 2 : one's special trait, interest, or activity - https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/schtick blow smoke mainly AMERICAN. If someone blows smoke they deliberately confuse or deceive you. I just can't shake the feeling that he's up to something. Sounds to me like he's blowing smoke. - https:\/\/idioms.thefreedictionary.com\/blow+smoke smokescreen something that hides the truth about someone's intentions: Instead of doing something about the problem, the city council is hiding behind a smokescreen of bureaucracy. - https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/dictionary\/english\/smokescreen"}
{"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'm translating an article about a Student Union that was remodeled and expanded. A section is titled \"Having a 'Bowl'\". This part tells about the expansion- two extra bowling lines for Game Center and a relocated wall. Is the word 'bowl' related to the bowling lines, or is it an idiom?","question":"I'm translating an article about a Student Union that was remodeled and expanded. A section is titled \"Having a 'Bowl'\". This part tells about the expansion- two extra bowling lines for Game Center and a relocated wall. Is the word 'bowl' related to the bowling lines, or is it an idiom?","answer":"Having a BALL is an idiom for having a good time. Having a BOWL is a play on words","output":"Having a BALL is an idiom for having a good time. Having a BOWL is a play on words"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nLet's say I made a contest to eat bananas in one day. I ate 12 bananas today. That would be: My bananas score Or My banana score","question":"Let's say I made a contest to eat bananas in one day. I ate 12 bananas today. That would be: My bananas score Or My banana score","answer":"Obviously you'd have to use this in a context where people understood the game, and that you were speaking about the game. I would use: My banana score. I see this as being similar to saying something like: My banana count. I.e. It's your \"banana count\" for the day. This would be similar to the term \"head count\", which is used when counting the number of people in some context. In as much as you wouldn't say \"heads count\", I don't think you would say \"bananas count\", and therefore you wouldn't say \"bananas score\". Further to this, unless you had a scoring system more complex than just a direct count, you may just use the word \"count\" rather than the word \"score\" - it's actually quite idiomatic in scenarios where people invent these kind of simple contests to have with each other, e.g., many people compare their Fitbit \"step count\". There could be another situation, where you might say: My Bananas score. This would be the case if you had named the game Bananas.","output":"Obviously you'd have to use this in a context where people understood the game, and that you were speaking about the game. I would use: My banana score. I see this as being similar to saying something like: My banana count. I.e. It's your \"banana count\" for the day. This would be similar to the term \"head count\", which is used when counting the number of people in some context. In as much as you wouldn't say \"heads count\", I don't think you would say \"bananas count\", and therefore you wouldn't say \"bananas score\". Further to this, unless you had a scoring system more complex than just a direct count, you may just use the word \"count\" rather than the word \"score\" - it's actually quite idiomatic in scenarios where people invent these kind of simple contests to have with each other, e.g., many people compare their Fitbit \"step count\". There could be another situation, where you might say: My Bananas score. This would be the case if you had named the game Bananas."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn school, we're taught that similes are analogies using \"like\" or \"as\". This is clearly just a mnemonic for a comparison between two distinct objects. Metaphors on the other hand combine the two objects being compared, stating them as one. What I'm curious about is whether the construction \"object one has the descriptive noun of object two\" counts as a simile. Example: Simile: He ran as fast as a tiger. Metaphor: When running at full speed, he was a tiger. Questionable: He ran with the speed of a tiger. Hypocatastasis: The tiger ran by me. (referring to a man) Edit: Corrected mislabeled hypocatastasis and added true example of a metaphor.","question":"In school, we're taught that similes are analogies using \"like\" or \"as\". This is clearly just a mnemonic for a comparison between two distinct objects. Metaphors on the other hand combine the two objects being compared, stating them as one. What I'm curious about is whether the construction \"object one has the descriptive noun of object two\" counts as a simile. Example: Simile: He ran as fast as a tiger. Metaphor: When running at full speed, he was a tiger. Questionable: He ran with the speed of a tiger. Hypocatastasis: The tiger ran by me. (referring to a man) Edit: Corrected mislabeled hypocatastasis and added true example of a metaphor.","answer":"Simile: He ran as fast as a tiger. This is indeed a simile. Metaphor: The tiger ran by me. (referring to a man) This is not a metaphor, it is a different figure of speech called hypocatastasis. Questionable: He ran with the speed of a tiger. This is not a figure of speech, it is a literal statement. There are really three common figures of speech of comparison (although the last is not well known by name it is really common in practice.) They are, in ascending order of strength: \"simile\" characterized by like or as \"metaphor\" characterized by the verb \"to be\" \"hypocatasasis\" characterized by the replacement of the word by that which it is compared to. I remember the Mom telling her kid to clean up his room: \"Your room is like a pigsty, clean it up!\" \"Your room is a pigsty, clean it up!\" \"Clean up your pigsty!!\" (With apologies to our porcine friends.)","output":"Simile: He ran as fast as a tiger. This is indeed a simile. Metaphor: The tiger ran by me. (referring to a man) This is not a metaphor, it is a different figure of speech called hypocatastasis. Questionable: He ran with the speed of a tiger. This is not a figure of speech, it is a literal statement. There are really three common figures of speech of comparison (although the last is not well known by name it is really common in practice.) They are, in ascending order of strength: \"simile\" characterized by like or as \"metaphor\" characterized by the verb \"to be\" \"hypocatasasis\" characterized by the replacement of the word by that which it is compared to. I remember the Mom telling her kid to clean up his room: \"Your room is like a pigsty, clean it up!\" \"Your room is a pigsty, clean it up!\" \"Clean up your pigsty!!\" (With apologies to our porcine friends.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI know that \"you and I\" should be used when it's the subject of a sentence, and \"you and me\" when it's a complement. But I'm not sure about the following phrase: We are very good pals, you and I. It would seem to me that \"you and I\" is a subject here (so I should use \"I\" instead of \"me\"). Is that correct?","question":"I know that \"you and I\" should be used when it's the subject of a sentence, and \"you and me\" when it's a complement. But I'm not sure about the following phrase: We are very good pals, you and I. It would seem to me that \"you and I\" is a subject here (so I should use \"I\" instead of \"me\"). Is that correct?","answer":"The subject is we and are agrees with it in Standard English. You and I is in apposition to we and is what we might expect to find in formal contexts. However, you and me might also be found in less formal contexts. I would say that it was a Standard English alternative, but others might disagree, arguing that it was to be found only in non-standard dialects.","output":"The subject is we and are agrees with it in Standard English. You and I is in apposition to we and is what we might expect to find in formal contexts. However, you and me might also be found in less formal contexts. I would say that it was a Standard English alternative, but others might disagree, arguing that it was to be found only in non-standard dialects."}
{"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":"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\nThe first time I heard \"gross\" being used to mean \"disgusting\" was probably around the late 1980s, and at the time I felt it was some sort of a corruption of \"grotesque\"... I'm wondering if there is a longer history of this usage, or am I right in saying it stems from a more recent misuse?","question":"The first time I heard \"gross\" being used to mean \"disgusting\" was probably around the late 1980s, and at the time I felt it was some sort of a corruption of \"grotesque\"... I'm wondering if there is a longer history of this usage, or am I right in saying it stems from a more recent misuse?","answer":"\"Gross\" dates back to at least the 1380s. The OED lists the following quote under the definition \"Of conspicuous magnitude; palpable, striking; plain, evident, obvious, easy to apprehend or understand. Obsolete.\": Hoolynesse of lif techi\u00fe rude men by groos ensaumple. Wyclif's English works, c1380 The word came from the French word gros(se) meaning \"big, thick, coarse\" and ultimately dates back to the lat Latin word grossus meaning \"thick\". Several of the other early quotes use it to mean \"big\". It's also the same word as \"gross\" meaning 144 and in \"gross domestic product\". The 1989 OED page for \"gross\" is available for free here with more information on the older history. The sense you're referring to (\"disgusting\") isn't in the above 1989 version, but it's in the OED3 (behind a paywall). The earliest quote with this meaning is from 1959: Terms expressing approval or disapproval are intelligible to the initiated only, for their real meaning is often dependent upon intonation. Great, the greatest, gross,..and tremendous are either complimentary or derogatory, depending upon how they are said. American Speech It's likely that it's related to the older sense of the word meaning \"[r]ude, uninstructed, ignorant\" or \"[e]xtremely coarse in behaviour or morals; brutally lacking in refinement or decency\".","output":"\"Gross\" dates back to at least the 1380s. The OED lists the following quote under the definition \"Of conspicuous magnitude; palpable, striking; plain, evident, obvious, easy to apprehend or understand. Obsolete.\": Hoolynesse of lif techi\u00fe rude men by groos ensaumple. Wyclif's English works, c1380 The word came from the French word gros(se) meaning \"big, thick, coarse\" and ultimately dates back to the lat Latin word grossus meaning \"thick\". Several of the other early quotes use it to mean \"big\". It's also the same word as \"gross\" meaning 144 and in \"gross domestic product\". The 1989 OED page for \"gross\" is available for free here with more information on the older history. The sense you're referring to (\"disgusting\") isn't in the above 1989 version, but it's in the OED3 (behind a paywall). The earliest quote with this meaning is from 1959: Terms expressing approval or disapproval are intelligible to the initiated only, for their real meaning is often dependent upon intonation. Great, the greatest, gross,..and tremendous are either complimentary or derogatory, depending upon how they are said. American Speech It's likely that it's related to the older sense of the word meaning \"[r]ude, uninstructed, ignorant\" or \"[e]xtremely coarse in behaviour or morals; brutally lacking in refinement or decency\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs there a term for rejecting a proposal by not actively endorsing\/confirming\/voting for it? Like a veto, but by abstention, rather than active participation. Alternatively, a term for \"A choice being made for you, because you refused to choose for yourself\" could work as well. An example of a situation where this would apply: When you boot windows after a crash, and you're asked if you want to enter safe-mode, while a timer counts down. When the timer reaches zero, the computer booths in normal mode instead. Waiting for the timer to run out would be functionally the same as making the choice of not entering safe-mode, even though you didn't do anything. I'm looking for a term\/word\/expression to describe this act of choosing by not choosing.","question":"Is there a term for rejecting a proposal by not actively endorsing\/confirming\/voting for it? Like a veto, but by abstention, rather than active participation. Alternatively, a term for \"A choice being made for you, because you refused to choose for yourself\" could work as well. An example of a situation where this would apply: When you boot windows after a crash, and you're asked if you want to enter safe-mode, while a timer counts down. When the timer reaches zero, the computer booths in normal mode instead. Waiting for the timer to run out would be functionally the same as making the choice of not entering safe-mode, even though you didn't do anything. I'm looking for a term\/word\/expression to describe this act of choosing by not choosing.","answer":"A term that U.S. (and Finnish, and Indian) audiences might be familiar with is pocket veto. Here is a bit of the Wikipedia entry for that term as it applies in U.S. law: A pocket veto occurs when a bill fails to become law because the president does not sign the bill and cannot return the bill to Congress within a 10-day period because Congress is not in session. Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law. The Constitution limits the president's period for decision on whether to sign or return any legislation to ten days (not including Sundays) while the United States Congress is in session. A return veto happens when the president sends a bill, along with his objections, back to the house of Congress from which it originated. Congress can override the veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses, whereupon the bill becomes law. If Congress prevents the bill's return by being adjourned during the 10-day period, and the president does not sign the bill, a \"pocket veto\" occurs and the bill does not become law. Congress can adjourn and designate an agent to receive veto messages and other communications so that a pocket veto cannot happen, an action Congresses have routinely taken for decades. Figuratively, a pocket veto might be used to describe any effort by a single person to delay and attempt to defeat a proposal by inaction. Such usage is somewhat rare, but it appears, for example, in David Williams, Mining the Middle Ground: Developing Mid-level Managers for Strategic Change (2000): Creating a compelling mandate for change, simply put, means mustering support for the effort that lies ahead \u2014 support across all levels of the organization, from executive to mid-level to first-level managers and first-line employees, customers, suppliers, and stakeholders. It means creating an understanding of the need for change, a sense of urgency, in anyone that can hold a \"pocket veto\" power over some aspect of the effort. And again in L\u00e9on de Caluwe & \u200eHans Vermaak, Learning to Change: A Guide for Organization Change Agents (2003): In section 2.2.2 we examine the basic conflicts between managers and professionals that can be reduced only by separating their domains and redefining their ways of dealing with each other. The \"pocket veto\" (2.2.3) illustrates how staff evade the manager's power the moment the manager pulls rank an tries to enforce changes. People change their behavior first and foremost because they want to, not because their boss tells them to. Interestingly, the pocket veto in a business setting\u2014at least as described in these two books\u2014is wielded by individuals who lack the power of the chief executive (who presumably could veto anything he or she didn't like without resorting to passive resistance). So in this respect, it's a very different phenomenon than the pocket veto that a U.S. president or governor might exercise.","output":"A term that U.S. (and Finnish, and Indian) audiences might be familiar with is pocket veto. Here is a bit of the Wikipedia entry for that term as it applies in U.S. law: A pocket veto occurs when a bill fails to become law because the president does not sign the bill and cannot return the bill to Congress within a 10-day period because Congress is not in session. Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law. The Constitution limits the president's period for decision on whether to sign or return any legislation to ten days (not including Sundays) while the United States Congress is in session. A return veto happens when the president sends a bill, along with his objections, back to the house of Congress from which it originated. Congress can override the veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses, whereupon the bill becomes law. If Congress prevents the bill's return by being adjourned during the 10-day period, and the president does not sign the bill, a \"pocket veto\" occurs and the bill does not become law. Congress can adjourn and designate an agent to receive veto messages and other communications so that a pocket veto cannot happen, an action Congresses have routinely taken for decades. Figuratively, a pocket veto might be used to describe any effort by a single person to delay and attempt to defeat a proposal by inaction. Such usage is somewhat rare, but it appears, for example, in David Williams, Mining the Middle Ground: Developing Mid-level Managers for Strategic Change (2000): Creating a compelling mandate for change, simply put, means mustering support for the effort that lies ahead \u2014 support across all levels of the organization, from executive to mid-level to first-level managers and first-line employees, customers, suppliers, and stakeholders. It means creating an understanding of the need for change, a sense of urgency, in anyone that can hold a \"pocket veto\" power over some aspect of the effort. And again in L\u00e9on de Caluwe & \u200eHans Vermaak, Learning to Change: A Guide for Organization Change Agents (2003): In section 2.2.2 we examine the basic conflicts between managers and professionals that can be reduced only by separating their domains and redefining their ways of dealing with each other. The \"pocket veto\" (2.2.3) illustrates how staff evade the manager's power the moment the manager pulls rank an tries to enforce changes. People change their behavior first and foremost because they want to, not because their boss tells them to. Interestingly, the pocket veto in a business setting\u2014at least as described in these two books\u2014is wielded by individuals who lack the power of the chief executive (who presumably could veto anything he or she didn't like without resorting to passive resistance). So in this respect, it's a very different phenomenon than the pocket veto that a U.S. president or governor might exercise."}
{"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\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI see the phrase \"may opt\" on a lot of medical documents as in \"the patient may opt to choose from the following...\" and I am wondering if this is redundant. Why not just use \"the patient may choose from the following...\" Is there a small nuance that I am missing? Perhaps the addition of \"opt\" means the patient has the choice to not choose anything at all?","question":"I see the phrase \"may opt\" on a lot of medical documents as in \"the patient may opt to choose from the following...\" and I am wondering if this is redundant. Why not just use \"the patient may choose from the following...\" Is there a small nuance that I am missing? Perhaps the addition of \"opt\" means the patient has the choice to not choose anything at all?","answer":"Opt and choose are synonymous in the example. So it's the same as: the patient may choose to choose from the following... This indicates that the patient may also choose not to choose from those options, or indeed from any of the alternative groups of options given (to opt out). The diner may opt to choose a dish from the Italian menu or may opt to choose a dish from the Chinese menu or may opt to leave the restaurant. In the OP's example, the use of both \"opt\" and \"choose\" avoids an ugly repetition of a verb.","output":"Opt and choose are synonymous in the example. So it's the same as: the patient may choose to choose from the following... This indicates that the patient may also choose not to choose from those options, or indeed from any of the alternative groups of options given (to opt out). The diner may opt to choose a dish from the Italian menu or may opt to choose a dish from the Chinese menu or may opt to leave the restaurant. In the OP's example, the use of both \"opt\" and \"choose\" avoids an ugly repetition of a verb."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI understand it should be How does it compare because the do has stole the s, but what is the reasoning behind it? I don't want to make the same mistake twice, so I feel I need to understand the reasoning.","question":"I understand it should be How does it compare because the do has stole the s, but what is the reasoning behind it? I don't want to make the same mistake twice, so I feel I need to understand the reasoning.","answer":"Because, as with can or should, do is a modal verb, and as such it is always followed by a verb in its basic form: basic form being the verb without the introducing to.","output":"Because, as with can or should, do is a modal verb, and as such it is always followed by a verb in its basic form: basic form being the verb without the introducing to."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nLet's use \"bank\" as an example. Some Americans pronounce it \/b\u00e6\u014bk\/, using the vowel of TRAP. Others pronounce it \/be\u014bk\/, using the vowel of FACE. Where are these two pronunciations found?","question":"Let's use \"bank\" as an example. Some Americans pronounce it \/b\u00e6\u014bk\/, using the vowel of TRAP. Others pronounce it \/be\u014bk\/, using the vowel of FACE. Where are these two pronunciations found?","answer":"I think the pronunciation \/be\u014bk\/ is found all over the U.S. (although certainly lots of Americans say \/b\u00e6nk\/). We have comments saying that it occurs in the Northeast, the South, the Upper Midwest, and the West. I know it's also found in the Midland accent (the lower Midwest). What proportion of speakers use it probably varies regionally, but I don't know if any studies have been done on this. I also don't know how old this feature of the American accent is, but judging from how widespread it is, it must be fairly old. See also this blog entry. Wikipedia says it happens in California English, but I believe it's much more widespread in the U.S. than that.","output":"I think the pronunciation \/be\u014bk\/ is found all over the U.S. (although certainly lots of Americans say \/b\u00e6nk\/). We have comments saying that it occurs in the Northeast, the South, the Upper Midwest, and the West. I know it's also found in the Midland accent (the lower Midwest). What proportion of speakers use it probably varies regionally, but I don't know if any studies have been done on this. I also don't know how old this feature of the American accent is, but judging from how widespread it is, it must be fairly old. See also this blog entry. Wikipedia says it happens in California English, but I believe it's much more widespread in the U.S. than that."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"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\n\"I can have a cookie, can't I?\" (Please ignore the double quotes while reading) What is this type of question called? Also, is it grammatically correct under American English?","question":"\"I can have a cookie, can't I?\" (Please ignore the double quotes while reading) What is this type of question called? Also, is it grammatically correct under American English?","answer":"That's called a tag question. As far as I know, it's grammatically correct in many variants of English, American English included. A question tag or tag question (also known as tail question) is a grammatical structure in which a declarative statement or an imperative is turned into a question by adding an interrogative fragment (the \"tag\"). For example, in the sentence \"You're John, aren't you?\", the statement \"You're John\" is turned into a question by the tag \"aren't you\". (My emphasis.)","output":"That's called a tag question. As far as I know, it's grammatically correct in many variants of English, American English included. A question tag or tag question (also known as tail question) is a grammatical structure in which a declarative statement or an imperative is turned into a question by adding an interrogative fragment (the \"tag\"). For example, in the sentence \"You're John, aren't you?\", the statement \"You're John\" is turned into a question by the tag \"aren't you\". (My emphasis.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have seen \"I be v.-ing\" pattern many times, but I don't know how to get this pattern. What does exactly this mean and when to use it?","question":"I have seen \"I be v.-ing\" pattern many times, but I don't know how to get this pattern. What does exactly this mean and when to use it?","answer":"This is informal usage, part of a dialect popular in American cities and with people who admire hip hop culture. A few examples: I be going to school now. Girl, you be trippin'! \"You Be Illin\" (Run DMC hit) The phrase is constructed by using the present continuous form but not conjugating the be. You probably shouldn't use it in formal writing. More discussion here: https:\/\/english.stackexchange.com\/questions\/93231\/what-dialect-is-i-be-doing-this","output":"This is informal usage, part of a dialect popular in American cities and with people who admire hip hop culture. A few examples: I be going to school now. Girl, you be trippin'! \"You Be Illin\" (Run DMC hit) The phrase is constructed by using the present continuous form but not conjugating the be. You probably shouldn't use it in formal writing. More discussion here: https:\/\/english.stackexchange.com\/questions\/93231\/what-dialect-is-i-be-doing-this"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCan somebody explain the phrase in bold for me, please? According to this source https:\/\/www.investopedia.com\/terms\/m\/margincall.asp \u201cA margin call refers specifically to a broker's demand that an investor deposit additional money or securities into the account so that it is brought up to the minimum value, known as the maintenance margin.\u201d From Fortune magazine Latam Airlines Group, Latin America\u2019s largest carrier, whose shareholders include Chile\u2019s Cueto family, sought bankruptcy court protection in New York. In March, Neeleman\u2014who founded companies including JetBlue and Canada\u2019s WestJet Airlines\u2014unloaded more than 80% of his preferred shares in Brazilian carrier Azul SA after a margin call was triggered on a $30 million personal loan. Source: For billionaires, investing in airlines is becoming a losing bet","question":"Can somebody explain the phrase in bold for me, please? According to this source https:\/\/www.investopedia.com\/terms\/m\/margincall.asp \u201cA margin call refers specifically to a broker's demand that an investor deposit additional money or securities into the account so that it is brought up to the minimum value, known as the maintenance margin.\u201d From Fortune magazine Latam Airlines Group, Latin America\u2019s largest carrier, whose shareholders include Chile\u2019s Cueto family, sought bankruptcy court protection in New York. In March, Neeleman\u2014who founded companies including JetBlue and Canada\u2019s WestJet Airlines\u2014unloaded more than 80% of his preferred shares in Brazilian carrier Azul SA after a margin call was triggered on a $30 million personal loan. Source: For billionaires, investing in airlines is becoming a losing bet","answer":"The meaning of trigger is this (Lexico): Cause (an event or situation) to happen or exist. The word trigger applies especially in cases where an action is sudden and complete, and happens because of a small change. Brokerage companies sometimes allow investors to purchase stocks with borrowed money. This is referred to as buying on margin. Investors do this if they expect stock prices to rise, hoping to sell the stocks for more than the borrowed amount, and so making money. Brokers require a minimum cash security to purchase the stock, and provide the money for the rest of the purchase as a loan. The stock is then held as security for the loan. If the value of the stock falls, instead of rising, the cash that secures the investment will be less than that percentage, and the investor will have to provide more cash to maintain the required percentage. When that happens, there is a margin call. If the investor can't or doesn't provide the extra cash, the broker will sell the stock to protect itself. When there is a margin call, it can be said to be triggered, in the sense of the definition above. The article above mentions a \"personal loan\", rather than a brokerage, but it seems to mean that stock was pledged as security for that loan, and its fall in value was the trigger for the margin call.","output":"The meaning of trigger is this (Lexico): Cause (an event or situation) to happen or exist. The word trigger applies especially in cases where an action is sudden and complete, and happens because of a small change. Brokerage companies sometimes allow investors to purchase stocks with borrowed money. This is referred to as buying on margin. Investors do this if they expect stock prices to rise, hoping to sell the stocks for more than the borrowed amount, and so making money. Brokers require a minimum cash security to purchase the stock, and provide the money for the rest of the purchase as a loan. The stock is then held as security for the loan. If the value of the stock falls, instead of rising, the cash that secures the investment will be less than that percentage, and the investor will have to provide more cash to maintain the required percentage. When that happens, there is a margin call. If the investor can't or doesn't provide the extra cash, the broker will sell the stock to protect itself. When there is a margin call, it can be said to be triggered, in the sense of the definition above. The article above mentions a \"personal loan\", rather than a brokerage, but it seems to mean that stock was pledged as security for that loan, and its fall in value was the trigger for the margin call."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nDoctors Are Not \u201cOnly Out to Make Money\u201d I read that article and can't get a good word for that kind of doctors, except the term doctors (who) are only out to make money in the second line of the third paragraph (I add the who). I would like to have a good concise term for this kind of doctors. There\u2019s an old joke about the doctor whose son graduates from medical school and joins his practice. After a while the son tells his father, \u201cYou know old Mrs. Jones? You\u2019ve been treating her rash for years and she never got better. I prescribed a new steroid cream and her rash is gone!\u201d The father responds, \u201cYou idiot! That rash put you through medical school.\u201d","question":"Doctors Are Not \u201cOnly Out to Make Money\u201d I read that article and can't get a good word for that kind of doctors, except the term doctors (who) are only out to make money in the second line of the third paragraph (I add the who). I would like to have a good concise term for this kind of doctors. There\u2019s an old joke about the doctor whose son graduates from medical school and joins his practice. After a while the son tells his father, \u201cYou know old Mrs. Jones? You\u2019ve been treating her rash for years and she never got better. I prescribed a new steroid cream and her rash is gone!\u201d The father responds, \u201cYou idiot! That rash put you through medical school.\u201d","answer":"If you LITERALLY mean the doctor (or perhaps, car mechanic) DELIBERATELY does not cure the patient, so that the patient will come back - so, exactly as in the joke stated. The only thing I can really think of there is that the doctor would draw out the treatment, or perhaps someone like a car mechanic would string along a customer. In both cases they are milking it for all it is worth. General terms like mercenary, bastard, charlatan, etc could mean many things. None of those specifically mean anything like \"deliberately giving a lesser treatment than would be ideal, so as to extend the customer's payments over time\". The only phrases I can think of are the three mentioned above. (It makes me think of Ralph Nader and planned obsolescence. Perhaps Nader had a word for this?! Like \"under-servicing\" perhaps.)","output":"If you LITERALLY mean the doctor (or perhaps, car mechanic) DELIBERATELY does not cure the patient, so that the patient will come back - so, exactly as in the joke stated. The only thing I can really think of there is that the doctor would draw out the treatment, or perhaps someone like a car mechanic would string along a customer. In both cases they are milking it for all it is worth. General terms like mercenary, bastard, charlatan, etc could mean many things. None of those specifically mean anything like \"deliberately giving a lesser treatment than would be ideal, so as to extend the customer's payments over time\". The only phrases I can think of are the three mentioned above. (It makes me think of Ralph Nader and planned obsolescence. Perhaps Nader had a word for this?! Like \"under-servicing\" perhaps.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI understand words like \"surrounding\" can be \"surroundings\", or \"binding\" can be \"bindings\". But is it appropriate with \"targeting\" as a noun? Here is a recent headline - \"UN chief calls for probe of tanker targetings\" by The Associated Press, Friday, June 14th 2019 - https:\/\/wlos.com\/news\/nation-world\/un-chief-calls-for-probe-of-tanker-targetings","question":"I understand words like \"surrounding\" can be \"surroundings\", or \"binding\" can be \"bindings\". But is it appropriate with \"targeting\" as a noun? Here is a recent headline - \"UN chief calls for probe of tanker targetings\" by The Associated Press, Friday, June 14th 2019 - https:\/\/wlos.com\/news\/nation-world\/un-chief-calls-for-probe-of-tanker-targetings","answer":"Yes, it's possible to use targeting as a noun. (Although it's not very commonly done.) In the following, all bold text is my own. From Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self: In our corpus, women displayed the highest proportion of self-targetings and, in in keeping with the findings just discussed, this was also associated with narratives that women themselves raised. Although such targetings account for a relatively small proportion (12 percent) of the targetings of women overall, and they came essentially from only two families, these female self-problematizings are noteworthy in their provoking of a \"dumping on\" response. From Governance and Ownership: The sample identified consists of 356 independent targetings of 146 firms over the seven-year period. These targetings include both proxy proposals and nonproxy targeting. From International Criminal Law: Cases and Materials: What is critical under the Convention, that targetings actually be made against the types of human groups listed in Article II or that there be a genocidal intent to destroy such a human group in whole or in part? . . . For example, targetings by combatants during war have been and can be used for purposes of elimination or to produce \"psychological coercion.\" From the Michigan State Journal of International Law, Volume 20: With respect to U.S. use of armed force in Pakistan to target those who are lawfully targetable under the laws of war and during a de facto war that his migrated into parts of Pakistan, some might claim that the United States would need the consent of Pakistan for each such targeting, that the targetings are violations of Pakistani sovereignty.","output":"Yes, it's possible to use targeting as a noun. (Although it's not very commonly done.) In the following, all bold text is my own. From Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self: In our corpus, women displayed the highest proportion of self-targetings and, in in keeping with the findings just discussed, this was also associated with narratives that women themselves raised. Although such targetings account for a relatively small proportion (12 percent) of the targetings of women overall, and they came essentially from only two families, these female self-problematizings are noteworthy in their provoking of a \"dumping on\" response. From Governance and Ownership: The sample identified consists of 356 independent targetings of 146 firms over the seven-year period. These targetings include both proxy proposals and nonproxy targeting. From International Criminal Law: Cases and Materials: What is critical under the Convention, that targetings actually be made against the types of human groups listed in Article II or that there be a genocidal intent to destroy such a human group in whole or in part? . . . For example, targetings by combatants during war have been and can be used for purposes of elimination or to produce \"psychological coercion.\" From the Michigan State Journal of International Law, Volume 20: With respect to U.S. use of armed force in Pakistan to target those who are lawfully targetable under the laws of war and during a de facto war that his migrated into parts of Pakistan, some might claim that the United States would need the consent of Pakistan for each such targeting, that the targetings are violations of Pakistani sovereignty."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen writing a large document with technical terminology (in this example I'll use 'Content Management System') I would use the full term itself and alongside introduce the acronym \/ initialism: ...When using your Content Management System (CMS) you should first.... However, once I've done this should I always refer to it by the initialism throughout the document, or is it advised to refer to the term by its full name at periods throughout the text? I don't want people getting confused by the term if they repeatedly come across it and not understanding what it means, so would be tempted to occasionally reuse the full 'Content Management System' wording in order to associate that with the initalism again, but then equally I don't want people thinking \"they've already told us what CMS means, why are they using the full words again?\" Should I just stick with the initialism throughout?","question":"When writing a large document with technical terminology (in this example I'll use 'Content Management System') I would use the full term itself and alongside introduce the acronym \/ initialism: ...When using your Content Management System (CMS) you should first.... However, once I've done this should I always refer to it by the initialism throughout the document, or is it advised to refer to the term by its full name at periods throughout the text? I don't want people getting confused by the term if they repeatedly come across it and not understanding what it means, so would be tempted to occasionally reuse the full 'Content Management System' wording in order to associate that with the initalism again, but then equally I don't want people thinking \"they've already told us what CMS means, why are they using the full words again?\" Should I just stick with the initialism throughout?","answer":"You should just use the abbreviation in almost every case the rest of the way through. It is a technical document and you have already given context on the abbreviation. Not only is the user expecting you to use it but by using it you are making the user more familiar with the term. By jumping back and forth you are confusing the reader and you are making them read more. The case where it would be used again is if you were discuss what a Content Management System is or something like that.","output":"You should just use the abbreviation in almost every case the rest of the way through. It is a technical document and you have already given context on the abbreviation. Not only is the user expecting you to use it but by using it you are making the user more familiar with the term. By jumping back and forth you are confusing the reader and you are making them read more. The case where it would be used again is if you were discuss what a Content Management System is or something like that."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAt least 5 people died in Bangladesh and more than 200 are injured. At least 5 persons died in Bangladesh and more than 200 are injured.","question":"At least 5 people died in Bangladesh and more than 200 are injured. At least 5 persons died in Bangladesh and more than 200 are injured.","answer":"You could probably have answered this with a quick Google. This dictionary explains the historic difference. Historically, \"persons\" was used to describe a specific, countable number of individuals. So in your examples above, \"persons\" would have been the correct word to use, because they have been counted, and there are 5 of them. \"People\" was once therefore only used to describe an undetermined number. However, that is no longer the case, and the dictionary link I gave above explains that for several decades \"people\" has been preferred as the plural of \"person\" in all uses. \"Persons\" is not incorrect, but tends to be used only in extremely formal settings such as legal documents.","output":"You could probably have answered this with a quick Google. This dictionary explains the historic difference. Historically, \"persons\" was used to describe a specific, countable number of individuals. So in your examples above, \"persons\" would have been the correct word to use, because they have been counted, and there are 5 of them. \"People\" was once therefore only used to describe an undetermined number. However, that is no longer the case, and the dictionary link I gave above explains that for several decades \"people\" has been preferred as the plural of \"person\" in all uses. \"Persons\" is not incorrect, but tends to be used only in extremely formal settings such as legal documents."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShould I use a comma before \"but\" in this sentence: Nowadays, those two groups do not consider themselves as disabled, but as a minority which uses a different language.","question":"Should I use a comma before \"but\" in this sentence: Nowadays, those two groups do not consider themselves as disabled, but as a minority which uses a different language.","answer":"Yes, use a comma. The rule is: Use a comma to separate contrasting parts of a sentence. At first, I said yes, use a comma because you do use a comma to connect two independent clauses. Then I realized the part after the comma really isn't independent, so I changed my answer. THEN ScotM pointed out rule 15 on the page I cited applies, and he's right. So, answer changed again. Note to self: don't answer comma questions anymore.","output":"Yes, use a comma. The rule is: Use a comma to separate contrasting parts of a sentence. At first, I said yes, use a comma because you do use a comma to connect two independent clauses. Then I realized the part after the comma really isn't independent, so I changed my answer. THEN ScotM pointed out rule 15 on the page I cited applies, and he's right. So, answer changed again. Note to self: don't answer comma questions anymore."}
{"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe moon was smaller than yesterday. Is this correct, and the \"how large it was\" was just omitted and implied, as in The moon was smaller than (how large it was) yesterday. or is this a faulty comparison, comparing something, \"the moon,\" and an adverb, \"yesterday\"?","question":"The moon was smaller than yesterday. Is this correct, and the \"how large it was\" was just omitted and implied, as in The moon was smaller than (how large it was) yesterday. or is this a faulty comparison, comparing something, \"the moon,\" and an adverb, \"yesterday\"?","answer":"The sentence The moon was smaller than yesterday is grammatically incorrect, since you are comparing how large or small the moon was, at different times. The construction The moon was smaller than (how large it was) yesterday is also wrong, for this same reason. Rather, you should say: The moon was smaller than it was yesterday While this is grammatically correct, it could be incongruous with respect to time. If you want to retain the past tense, then you should rightly say: The moon was smaller than it was the previous day Or, keeping it in the present: The moon is smaller [today] than it was yesterday","output":"The sentence The moon was smaller than yesterday is grammatically incorrect, since you are comparing how large or small the moon was, at different times. The construction The moon was smaller than (how large it was) yesterday is also wrong, for this same reason. Rather, you should say: The moon was smaller than it was yesterday While this is grammatically correct, it could be incongruous with respect to time. If you want to retain the past tense, then you should rightly say: The moon was smaller than it was the previous day Or, keeping it in the present: The moon is smaller [today] than it was yesterday"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe boys are about to reach. The boys are about to arrive. When should I use reach and when should I use arrive?","question":"The boys are about to reach. The boys are about to arrive. When should I use reach and when should I use arrive?","answer":"Reach is transitive when referring to a destination, meaning it needs a direct object. So you want to say The boys are about to arrive. Or, you could say The boys are about to reach their destination.","output":"Reach is transitive when referring to a destination, meaning it needs a direct object. So you want to say The boys are about to arrive. Or, you could say The boys are about to reach their destination."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMes fen\u00eatres! Hanging above blotched sunset and welling night, grinding my teeth, I would crowd all the demons of my desire against the railing of a throbbing balcony: it would be ready to take off in the apricot and black humid evening; did take off\u2014whereupon the lighted image would move and Eve would revert to a rib, and there would be nothing in the window but an obese partly clad man reading the paper. The quote comes from Lolita by Nabokov. Does apricot signify the apricot colour? Nabokov used apricot to signify the colour in other parts of Lolita. I can very well imagine that sunsets are of apricot colour (and then black nights come), yet the sentence in question sounds strange to me because of apricot and black being so close to each other.","question":"Mes fen\u00eatres! Hanging above blotched sunset and welling night, grinding my teeth, I would crowd all the demons of my desire against the railing of a throbbing balcony: it would be ready to take off in the apricot and black humid evening; did take off\u2014whereupon the lighted image would move and Eve would revert to a rib, and there would be nothing in the window but an obese partly clad man reading the paper. The quote comes from Lolita by Nabokov. Does apricot signify the apricot colour? Nabokov used apricot to signify the colour in other parts of Lolita. I can very well imagine that sunsets are of apricot colour (and then black nights come), yet the sentence in question sounds strange to me because of apricot and black being so close to each other.","answer":"In the Russian version of the novel, which was translated by the author himself, it's literally said: \u0432 \u0430\u0431\u0440\u0438\u043a\u043e\u0441\u043e\u0432\u0443\u044e \u043c\u0433\u043b\u0443 \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0436\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0432\u0435\u0447\u0435\u0440\u0430 His use of the word \u0430\u0431\u0440\u0438\u043a\u043e\u0441\u043e\u0432\u044b\u0439 (abrikosovy) indeed indicates the apricot color and nothing else, but he doesn't use the adjective black, using instead the noun \u043c\u0433\u043b\u0430 (mgla) which can be translated as: \"darkness, murk, blackness, haze, mist\". It's quite commonly used to describe late twilight or fog, with a connotation of it being hard to see through. It also implies humid air.","output":"In the Russian version of the novel, which was translated by the author himself, it's literally said: \u0432 \u0430\u0431\u0440\u0438\u043a\u043e\u0441\u043e\u0432\u0443\u044e \u043c\u0433\u043b\u0443 \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0436\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0432\u0435\u0447\u0435\u0440\u0430 His use of the word \u0430\u0431\u0440\u0438\u043a\u043e\u0441\u043e\u0432\u044b\u0439 (abrikosovy) indeed indicates the apricot color and nothing else, but he doesn't use the adjective black, using instead the noun \u043c\u0433\u043b\u0430 (mgla) which can be translated as: \"darkness, murk, blackness, haze, mist\". It's quite commonly used to describe late twilight or fog, with a connotation of it being hard to see through. It also implies humid air."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI read an article talking about operagoers in the 18th and 19th centuries, and it says: \u201cSociety goes to the opera to see and be seen,\u201d an American proclaimed. \u201cIt goes to exchange gossip, to chatter about the things of the day, to criticise a fashion, or a book, or a new preacher.\u201d Rarely, however, did the operagoers pay much attention to the action on the stage. Does \"preacher\" here refer to a person whose occupation is to preach the gospel, such as a pastor or minister? 'Cause I can see why people would criticise a fashion or a book in their conversations, but why whould they especially criticise a preacher?","question":"I read an article talking about operagoers in the 18th and 19th centuries, and it says: \u201cSociety goes to the opera to see and be seen,\u201d an American proclaimed. \u201cIt goes to exchange gossip, to chatter about the things of the day, to criticise a fashion, or a book, or a new preacher.\u201d Rarely, however, did the operagoers pay much attention to the action on the stage. Does \"preacher\" here refer to a person whose occupation is to preach the gospel, such as a pastor or minister? 'Cause I can see why people would criticise a fashion or a book in their conversations, but why whould they especially criticise a preacher?","answer":"Since people insist on answering in comments, I guess I'll take credit by putting them together into an answer. Yes, the word 'preacher' here is used in the sense of a pastor or minister. Per jamesqf's comment, listening to preachers was, at the time, a form of entertainment in addition to a religious activity. As Sydney mentions, there were also traveling preachers, who would (depending on their style) either give lectures (just as a scholar, author or politician on tour might do) or simply shout their sermons on the streets. Discussing these preachers and comparing one to another would thus be a normal sort of thing for gossipy opera-goers to do.","output":"Since people insist on answering in comments, I guess I'll take credit by putting them together into an answer. Yes, the word 'preacher' here is used in the sense of a pastor or minister. Per jamesqf's comment, listening to preachers was, at the time, a form of entertainment in addition to a religious activity. As Sydney mentions, there were also traveling preachers, who would (depending on their style) either give lectures (just as a scholar, author or politician on tour might do) or simply shout their sermons on the streets. Discussing these preachers and comparing one to another would thus be a normal sort of thing for gossipy opera-goers to do."}
{"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 lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"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\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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe extract in italics given below: These qualities make them, however, much misunderstood, and they are often considered dose in money matters when in reality they are not.","question":"The extract in italics given below: These qualities make them, however, much misunderstood, and they are often considered dose in money matters when in reality they are not.","answer":"dose appears to be a misreading or mis-scan of close ; the sentence appears with that term in The Cheiro Book of Fate and Fortune: I have been unable to pin down the date this was first published. 'Cheiro' was the occultist William John Warner (1866-1936), who also called himself 'Count Louis Hamon'. Close in this context means ungenerous, tight-fisted.","output":"dose appears to be a misreading or mis-scan of close ; the sentence appears with that term in The Cheiro Book of Fate and Fortune: I have been unable to pin down the date this was first published. 'Cheiro' was the occultist William John Warner (1866-1936), who also called himself 'Count Louis Hamon'. Close in this context means ungenerous, tight-fisted."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI found two different terms regarding relationship: \"Relationship with the applicant\" while filling the invitation form \"Relationship to the applicant\" while filling the application form Whether both are same? I was writing for my wife. Should I write husband in both the case? I am really confused what to write?","question":"I found two different terms regarding relationship: \"Relationship with the applicant\" while filling the invitation form \"Relationship to the applicant\" while filling the application form Whether both are same? I was writing for my wife. Should I write husband in both the case? I am really confused what to write?","answer":"A relationship between two people A and B is the set of connections -- familial, social, commercial, etc. -- between them. The relationship of person A to person B means those connections from the one-way point of view of person A. In filling out a form, this is almost always a question about familial connection: Q: What is (person B's) relationship to the applicant (person A)? A: Person B is person A's father. In other words person B's relationship to person A is that of male parent. Usually, this may be turned around from the point of view of person A: Person A is person B's son. That is person A's relationship to person B is that of male offspring. Relationship with usually asks for the broader mutual connections between the two parties: Q: What is (person B's) relationship with the applicant (person A)? A: Person B and person A have been business partners for three years. They jointly own three commercial buildings, and Person A has sponsored person B for club membership. Whether this distinction obtains for this particular application cannot be discerned without having the application posted.","output":"A relationship between two people A and B is the set of connections -- familial, social, commercial, etc. -- between them. The relationship of person A to person B means those connections from the one-way point of view of person A. In filling out a form, this is almost always a question about familial connection: Q: What is (person B's) relationship to the applicant (person A)? A: Person B is person A's father. In other words person B's relationship to person A is that of male parent. Usually, this may be turned around from the point of view of person A: Person A is person B's son. That is person A's relationship to person B is that of male offspring. Relationship with usually asks for the broader mutual connections between the two parties: Q: What is (person B's) relationship with the applicant (person A)? A: Person B and person A have been business partners for three years. They jointly own three commercial buildings, and Person A has sponsored person B for club membership. Whether this distinction obtains for this particular application cannot be discerned without having the application posted."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSince the English language has a number of idioms and phrases that involve references to religious figures (e.g., godspeed), I was wondering if there an English equivalent of the German greeting Gr\u00fc\u00df Gott which translates roughly as (see also here) May God greet you or any other greeting that originates from a religious context. Edit: despite its literal meaning, the German Gr\u00fc\u00df Gott is used quite freely, even if no reference to God is intended.","question":"Since the English language has a number of idioms and phrases that involve references to religious figures (e.g., godspeed), I was wondering if there an English equivalent of the German greeting Gr\u00fc\u00df Gott which translates roughly as (see also here) May God greet you or any other greeting that originates from a religious context. Edit: despite its literal meaning, the German Gr\u00fc\u00df Gott is used quite freely, even if no reference to God is intended.","answer":"Good day, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, good night Per this dictionary, All these greetings represent an abbreviation of the now obsolete God give you a good day (afternoon, etc.) , which dates from about 1200. Look under 'Idioms and Phrases'.","output":"Good day, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, good night Per this dictionary, All these greetings represent an abbreviation of the now obsolete God give you a good day (afternoon, etc.) , which dates from about 1200. Look under 'Idioms and Phrases'."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nDoes the English language have a mechanism for expressing past, present and future tense simultaneously? In other words, consider the following three sentences: 1) The force was with me. 2) The force is with me. 3) The force will be with me. Is there way to construct a sentence in English, such that all three can be combined into: 4) The force x with me. Where x is replaced with one or more English words? [Secondary question: is there any language other than English that has such a word, or a mechanism for combining past present and future into one?]","question":"Does the English language have a mechanism for expressing past, present and future tense simultaneously? In other words, consider the following three sentences: 1) The force was with me. 2) The force is with me. 3) The force will be with me. Is there way to construct a sentence in English, such that all three can be combined into: 4) The force x with me. Where x is replaced with one or more English words? [Secondary question: is there any language other than English that has such a word, or a mechanism for combining past present and future into one?]","answer":"A clear indication of multiple time frames is not easily accomplished in English (and many other languages). The very concept appears in several variations in Christian liturgical tradition, often expressed in Latin as sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper This is often translated as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be There are also statements about status that seem to transcend time, such as l'etat, c'est mois (I am the state) While the implication may suggest past and future roles in addition to the expressed present, these are not explicit. No tense in English unequivocally indicates past, present and future.","output":"A clear indication of multiple time frames is not easily accomplished in English (and many other languages). The very concept appears in several variations in Christian liturgical tradition, often expressed in Latin as sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper This is often translated as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be There are also statements about status that seem to transcend time, such as l'etat, c'est mois (I am the state) While the implication may suggest past and future roles in addition to the expressed present, these are not explicit. No tense in English unequivocally indicates past, present and future."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\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":"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\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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\nRecently I've been watching cooking programmes: MasterChef Italia (addictive), MasterChef USA (awful), followed swiftly by Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares, and then onto Jamie Oliver's acclaimed The Naked Chef. I have never seen any of Oliver's TV shows before but I love the language he uses: lovely jubbly, chuck that in, lugs of olive oil, whack 'em in there, hack that up, bash it all in, mush it all up, and... tastes pucker..., it's really really pucker,... ends up being dead tasty and looking dead pucker (6.50). The word is regularly scattered in the series, and it succeeded in baffling me totally. Then in season 3, episode 5, Curry Feast (YouTube link), what sounded like an arcane cooking term was finally explained. \u2018Pucker\u2019 is in fact pukka, a Hindi word meaning \u201creal\u201d, which Oliver specified as: \u201creal authentic, the real McCoy\u201d. Later, I discovered that pucker and pukka were completely unrelated to one another despite being pronounced practically the same. Merriam-Webster has \/\u02c8p\u0259-k\u0259r\/ and \/\u02c8p\u0259-k\u0259\/ respectively while Cambridge Dictionaries has \/\u02c8p\u028ck.\u0259\/ and Oxford \/\u02c8p\u028ck\u0259\/ for both terms. Merriam-Webster also shared this interesting footnote Pukka tends to evoke the height of 18th- and 19th-century British imperialism in India, and, indeed, it was first used in English at the 1775 trial of Maha Rajah Nundocomar, who was accused of forgery and tried by a British court in Bengal. The word is borrowed from Hindi and Urdu \"pakk\u0101,\" which means \"solid.\" The English speakers who borrowed it applied the \"sound and reliable\" sense of \"solid\" and thus the word came to mean \"genuine.\" [...] These days, \"pukka\" is also used as a British slang word meaning \"excellent\" or \"cool.\" According to Collins English Dictionary the primary meaning of pukka is properly or perfectly done, constructed, etc: \u21d2 a pukka road genuine \u21d2 pukka sahib Oxford Dictionaries says Genuine 1.1 Of or appropriate to high or respectable society British Excellent: Cambridge Dictionaries provides three definitions [old-fashioned] \u200breal [slang] of \u200bexcellent \u200bquality extremely \u200bformal and \u200beducated But nowhere do they mention when its current slang meaning (excellent, cool), first appeared. Don't bother checking with Etymonline, it doesn't have any entry, which doesn't seem pukka to me. When did its slang sense, i.e. excellent, first-rate, first appear? Was pukka a dated term which came back in fashion in the 1990s? Is pukka known only in the UK? How common is it? Googling online it seems that pukka is mostly in connection with food, or is it a false impression? Can anything be really really pukka?","question":"Recently I've been watching cooking programmes: MasterChef Italia (addictive), MasterChef USA (awful), followed swiftly by Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares, and then onto Jamie Oliver's acclaimed The Naked Chef. I have never seen any of Oliver's TV shows before but I love the language he uses: lovely jubbly, chuck that in, lugs of olive oil, whack 'em in there, hack that up, bash it all in, mush it all up, and... tastes pucker..., it's really really pucker,... ends up being dead tasty and looking dead pucker (6.50). The word is regularly scattered in the series, and it succeeded in baffling me totally. Then in season 3, episode 5, Curry Feast (YouTube link), what sounded like an arcane cooking term was finally explained. \u2018Pucker\u2019 is in fact pukka, a Hindi word meaning \u201creal\u201d, which Oliver specified as: \u201creal authentic, the real McCoy\u201d. Later, I discovered that pucker and pukka were completely unrelated to one another despite being pronounced practically the same. Merriam-Webster has \/\u02c8p\u0259-k\u0259r\/ and \/\u02c8p\u0259-k\u0259\/ respectively while Cambridge Dictionaries has \/\u02c8p\u028ck.\u0259\/ and Oxford \/\u02c8p\u028ck\u0259\/ for both terms. Merriam-Webster also shared this interesting footnote Pukka tends to evoke the height of 18th- and 19th-century British imperialism in India, and, indeed, it was first used in English at the 1775 trial of Maha Rajah Nundocomar, who was accused of forgery and tried by a British court in Bengal. The word is borrowed from Hindi and Urdu \"pakk\u0101,\" which means \"solid.\" The English speakers who borrowed it applied the \"sound and reliable\" sense of \"solid\" and thus the word came to mean \"genuine.\" [...] These days, \"pukka\" is also used as a British slang word meaning \"excellent\" or \"cool.\" According to Collins English Dictionary the primary meaning of pukka is properly or perfectly done, constructed, etc: \u21d2 a pukka road genuine \u21d2 pukka sahib Oxford Dictionaries says Genuine 1.1 Of or appropriate to high or respectable society British Excellent: Cambridge Dictionaries provides three definitions [old-fashioned] \u200breal [slang] of \u200bexcellent \u200bquality extremely \u200bformal and \u200beducated But nowhere do they mention when its current slang meaning (excellent, cool), first appeared. Don't bother checking with Etymonline, it doesn't have any entry, which doesn't seem pukka to me. When did its slang sense, i.e. excellent, first-rate, first appear? Was pukka a dated term which came back in fashion in the 1990s? Is pukka known only in the UK? How common is it? Googling online it seems that pukka is mostly in connection with food, or is it a false impression? Can anything be really really pukka?","answer":"According to Collins Dictionary, since the early 2000s there has been a steady decline in the usage of pukka in printed literature. Unfortunately, it's unknown if the data includes websites, online magazines and forums, but I suspect it doesn't. Taken at face value, it suggests that the term is falling out of favour particularly among British English native speakers. Google Ngram seems to confirm the downward trend, in stark contrast when pukka reached its peak of popularity in 1945, long before its modern slang meaning. According to Josephine Livingstone, who was writing for Prospect in 2013; the slang form, \"excellent\" and \"first-rate\", was first recorded in 1991. For a full biography of this tricky little word, specifically in its incarnation as a loan-word into English, there is no better place to look than Hobson-Jobson. So, what\u2019s the true definition of \u201cpukka\u201d? Well, firstly, the present-day British English slang use of \u201cpukka\u201d is a true definition. People all over Britain use the word, all the time, to mean solid, trustworthy, sure. Observe definition 3.b in the OED\u2019s entry: b. Brit. slang. Excellent, superb; \u2018cool\u2019. 1991 Sun 13 June 23\/6 Hey, man, that shirt\u2019s pukka. 1996 Observer 5 May (Review Suppl.) 7\/6 Girls mug girls for jewellery or pukka clothes. 2002 C. Newland Snakeskin xix. 255 \u2018Yuh mum\u2019s pukka,\u2019 Davey chimed in, with so much passion I knew he wasn\u2019t just being polite. The article continues... So, from Hobson-Jobson we learn that British pukka is a fairly literal loan from Hindi and Urdu (pakka), but that the English adopted it as a metaphor. Its literal sense survives in Indian terms like \u201cpucca housing,\u201d often used today to describe permanent residences which are less susceptible to natural disaster. [...] Hobson-Jobson reveals some of its cultural bias, however, in what it leaves out. There is no entry, for example, for pukka-sahib [see Wikipedia]. This term literally means a high-class European; a European might describe his friend thus if he wanted to suggest that he was a first-class gent. As we can read in EM Forster\u2019s A Passage to India, however, pukka-sahib is also used satirically to refer to an attitude of prim, arrogant, magisterial aloofness: the ruling hypocrite\u2019s pose. Henry Yule was a pukka-sahib for the ages. Not living in the UK, and not having heard or met up with pukka I cannot say if the slang is commonly used among Londoners today, I imagine it's very familiar among the over 65s, and among youngsters who were growing up between the late 1980s and 90s. It would be lovely to hear somebody's first-hand experience.","output":"According to Collins Dictionary, since the early 2000s there has been a steady decline in the usage of pukka in printed literature. Unfortunately, it's unknown if the data includes websites, online magazines and forums, but I suspect it doesn't. Taken at face value, it suggests that the term is falling out of favour particularly among British English native speakers. Google Ngram seems to confirm the downward trend, in stark contrast when pukka reached its peak of popularity in 1945, long before its modern slang meaning. According to Josephine Livingstone, who was writing for Prospect in 2013; the slang form, \"excellent\" and \"first-rate\", was first recorded in 1991. For a full biography of this tricky little word, specifically in its incarnation as a loan-word into English, there is no better place to look than Hobson-Jobson. So, what\u2019s the true definition of \u201cpukka\u201d? Well, firstly, the present-day British English slang use of \u201cpukka\u201d is a true definition. People all over Britain use the word, all the time, to mean solid, trustworthy, sure. Observe definition 3.b in the OED\u2019s entry: b. Brit. slang. Excellent, superb; \u2018cool\u2019. 1991 Sun 13 June 23\/6 Hey, man, that shirt\u2019s pukka. 1996 Observer 5 May (Review Suppl.) 7\/6 Girls mug girls for jewellery or pukka clothes. 2002 C. Newland Snakeskin xix. 255 \u2018Yuh mum\u2019s pukka,\u2019 Davey chimed in, with so much passion I knew he wasn\u2019t just being polite. The article continues... So, from Hobson-Jobson we learn that British pukka is a fairly literal loan from Hindi and Urdu (pakka), but that the English adopted it as a metaphor. Its literal sense survives in Indian terms like \u201cpucca housing,\u201d often used today to describe permanent residences which are less susceptible to natural disaster. [...] Hobson-Jobson reveals some of its cultural bias, however, in what it leaves out. There is no entry, for example, for pukka-sahib [see Wikipedia]. This term literally means a high-class European; a European might describe his friend thus if he wanted to suggest that he was a first-class gent. As we can read in EM Forster\u2019s A Passage to India, however, pukka-sahib is also used satirically to refer to an attitude of prim, arrogant, magisterial aloofness: the ruling hypocrite\u2019s pose. Henry Yule was a pukka-sahib for the ages. Not living in the UK, and not having heard or met up with pukka I cannot say if the slang is commonly used among Londoners today, I imagine it's very familiar among the over 65s, and among youngsters who were growing up between the late 1980s and 90s. It would be lovely to hear somebody's first-hand experience."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"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\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAs an alien whose first language is not English, I sometimes am in a very strange situation, is it suitable to use my native language name, Dong? I by chance know Dong has a little bit negative meaning in English. Though I could choose an English name, such as Tom, to use, but I still prefer to use my native name. Any recommendation? Thanks.","question":"As an alien whose first language is not English, I sometimes am in a very strange situation, is it suitable to use my native language name, Dong? I by chance know Dong has a little bit negative meaning in English. Though I could choose an English name, such as Tom, to use, but I still prefer to use my native name. Any recommendation? Thanks.","answer":"Speaking for the USA only, both the names \"Dick\" and \"Dong\" are also slang words for penis. Nonetheless, many people such as former vice president Dick Cheney go by the name \"Dick\". \"Dong\" on the other hand is a rare name here. There is a professor Dong Liu at University of Houston, professor Dong Lai at Cornell, and other professors with \"Dong\" as their first or last name. Unfortunately as Kat Chow discusses in her article What's So 'Cringeworthy' About Long Duk Dong in 'Sixteen Candles'?, there is a negative stereotype of Chinese immigrants and visitors established by the Dong character in this famous movie. The movie is rather old now, but still worth being aware of. Overall, I would just stick with your real name.","output":"Speaking for the USA only, both the names \"Dick\" and \"Dong\" are also slang words for penis. Nonetheless, many people such as former vice president Dick Cheney go by the name \"Dick\". \"Dong\" on the other hand is a rare name here. There is a professor Dong Liu at University of Houston, professor Dong Lai at Cornell, and other professors with \"Dong\" as their first or last name. Unfortunately as Kat Chow discusses in her article What's So 'Cringeworthy' About Long Duk Dong in 'Sixteen Candles'?, there is a negative stereotype of Chinese immigrants and visitors established by the Dong character in this famous movie. The movie is rather old now, but still worth being aware of. Overall, I would just stick with your real name."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIt's from http:\/\/www.newscientist.com\/blogs\/shortsharpscience\/2010\/11\/pain-brain-regions-also-active.html Consequently, the concept of dysfunction is systemically hostage to political dynamics and social power Thanks,","question":"It's from http:\/\/www.newscientist.com\/blogs\/shortsharpscience\/2010\/11\/pain-brain-regions-also-active.html Consequently, the concept of dysfunction is systemically hostage to political dynamics and social power Thanks,","answer":"It means that people who are in power can decide what is called bad or disordered. hostage n. 3. One [or something] that is under the constraining control of another: \"In becoming a mother one becomes a hostage to fortune\" (Janna Malamud Smith). https:\/\/www.ahdictionary.com\/word\/search.html?q=hostage","output":"It means that people who are in power can decide what is called bad or disordered. hostage n. 3. One [or something] that is under the constraining control of another: \"In becoming a mother one becomes a hostage to fortune\" (Janna Malamud Smith). https:\/\/www.ahdictionary.com\/word\/search.html?q=hostage"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThese behaviours are reflective of what is known as psychological safety \u2013 a group culture that the Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson defines as a \u201cshared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.\u201d Psychological safety is \u201ca sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up,\u201d Edmondson wrote in a study published in 1999. What does 'safe for' mean here? Is it same as 'safe from'?","question":"These behaviours are reflective of what is known as psychological safety \u2013 a group culture that the Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson defines as a \u201cshared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.\u201d Psychological safety is \u201ca sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up,\u201d Edmondson wrote in a study published in 1999. What does 'safe for' mean here? Is it same as 'safe from'?","answer":"the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking This means that the team may take interpersonal risks safely. \"safe from\" is different, example: Because the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, the members of the team will be safe from censure if they accidentally take things too far.","output":"the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking This means that the team may take interpersonal risks safely. \"safe from\" is different, example: Because the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, the members of the team will be safe from censure if they accidentally take things too far."}
{"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":"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe know that it is OK to start a sentence with a conjunction, but not OK to have incomplete sentences. This seems to me like a contradiction. How can a sentence that starts with a conjunction be a complete sentence? By its nature, a conjunction links to a previous sentence. Therefore, a sentence that starts with a conjunction does not form a complete thought, and is therefore incomplete. Example guidelines: Start sentences with a conjunction (Grammarly): There is nothing wrong with starting sentences with \u201cand,\u201d \u201cbut,\u201d or other similar conjunctions. You may, however, encounter people who mistakenly believe that starting a sentence with a conjunction is an error, so consider your audience when deciding to structure your sentences this way. Avoid incomplete sentences (Grammarly): No one escapes high school English without being penalized for writing the odd sentence fragment, but not everyone remembers what they are and how to fix them. Put simply, a sentence fragment is a clause that falls short of true sentencehood because it is missing one of three critical components: a subject, a verb, and a complete thought. Fragments in speech vs Fragments in novels? does not quite answer the question, since it doesn't resolve why it is fine to start a sentence with a conjunction even if conjunctions create a fragment.","question":"We know that it is OK to start a sentence with a conjunction, but not OK to have incomplete sentences. This seems to me like a contradiction. How can a sentence that starts with a conjunction be a complete sentence? By its nature, a conjunction links to a previous sentence. Therefore, a sentence that starts with a conjunction does not form a complete thought, and is therefore incomplete. Example guidelines: Start sentences with a conjunction (Grammarly): There is nothing wrong with starting sentences with \u201cand,\u201d \u201cbut,\u201d or other similar conjunctions. You may, however, encounter people who mistakenly believe that starting a sentence with a conjunction is an error, so consider your audience when deciding to structure your sentences this way. Avoid incomplete sentences (Grammarly): No one escapes high school English without being penalized for writing the odd sentence fragment, but not everyone remembers what they are and how to fix them. Put simply, a sentence fragment is a clause that falls short of true sentencehood because it is missing one of three critical components: a subject, a verb, and a complete thought. Fragments in speech vs Fragments in novels? does not quite answer the question, since it doesn't resolve why it is fine to start a sentence with a conjunction even if conjunctions create a fragment.","answer":"The missing part of the picture is the discourse within which a sentence stands. Conjunctions are used in discourse to connect portions of sentences such as words or phrases, but they are also used to connect larger units of text such as sentences and paragraphs. And if you doubt that, this (current) sentence demonstrates such a use. It can become unwieldy to push a conclusion, demonstration or highlight into the main sentence, as the paragraph above illustrates. However, placing the ideas into separate sentences might distance them in a way that the author finds unhelpful. At the same time, markers of conclusion such as thus, so, therefore, hence, etc can be too heavy - they place a greater emphasis on the trailing sentence than the author intends. Starting the trailing sentence with a conjunction such as and neatly solves both problems. The warning about sentence fragments is a heuristic regarding clear communication - or more accurately, against unintelligible or unclear communication. For example, starting a discourse with \"And now, ...\" leaves the audience wondering what went before. You'd never cause such a problem if your sentences never start with conjunctions. But if the discourse has already covered related material, the sentence 'fragment' has a context within which it communicates clearly, and is therefore acceptable. And that's the difference. :)","output":"The missing part of the picture is the discourse within which a sentence stands. Conjunctions are used in discourse to connect portions of sentences such as words or phrases, but they are also used to connect larger units of text such as sentences and paragraphs. And if you doubt that, this (current) sentence demonstrates such a use. It can become unwieldy to push a conclusion, demonstration or highlight into the main sentence, as the paragraph above illustrates. However, placing the ideas into separate sentences might distance them in a way that the author finds unhelpful. At the same time, markers of conclusion such as thus, so, therefore, hence, etc can be too heavy - they place a greater emphasis on the trailing sentence than the author intends. Starting the trailing sentence with a conjunction such as and neatly solves both problems. The warning about sentence fragments is a heuristic regarding clear communication - or more accurately, against unintelligible or unclear communication. For example, starting a discourse with \"And now, ...\" leaves the audience wondering what went before. You'd never cause such a problem if your sentences never start with conjunctions. But if the discourse has already covered related material, the sentence 'fragment' has a context within which it communicates clearly, and is therefore acceptable. And that's the difference. :)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have found this definition on the usage of \"excepting\" The use of excepting is considered by many people to be acceptable only after not, only, or without. Do you agree? Could you give some examples using not, only, without. What about - not excepting? Is it also used after not, only, without only? Are \"excepting\" and \"except that\" synonyms?","question":"I have found this definition on the usage of \"excepting\" The use of excepting is considered by many people to be acceptable only after not, only, or without. Do you agree? Could you give some examples using not, only, without. What about - not excepting? Is it also used after not, only, without only? Are \"excepting\" and \"except that\" synonyms?","answer":"I think \"acceptable\/unacceptable\" is maybe putting it a bit strong, but note this (slightly paraphrased) entry from Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage... excepting as a preposition has one normal use When a possible exception is to be mentioned as not made, the form used [instead of not except] is either not excepting (before the noun) or not excepted (after the noun). That's my emphasis on not made above, but clearly Fowler thinks excepting as a preposition is normally only used in negated contexts, and I would tend to agree. The fact of the matter is the verb to except is a pretty rare\/dated usage apart from the two \"set phrases\" not excepting and not excepted as discussed above (where the verb form has effectively taken on the role of \"preposition\"). Borrowing from and extending Fowler's examples in that link, consider... 1: All men are fallible, not excepting the Pope 2: All men are fallible, the Pope not excepted 3: ??All men are fallible, excepting FumbleFingers 1a: Not excepting the Pope, all men are fallible 2a: The Pope not excepted, all men are fallible 3a: ??Excepted FumbleFingers, all men are fallible I've included the second set to show it doesn't really make any difference if the supplementary clause appears before or after the main statement. Obviously I'd like to say 3\/3a are \"acceptable\", but they're not really. Any \"normal\" native speaker (assuming he accepted my infallibility) would say... 3b: All men are fallible, except FumbleFingers (or perhaps even more likely, apart from) TL;DR: In these contexts, the negated form of except is not excepting or not excepted. To my mind, it's something of an \"erroneous back-formation\" to remove not from either of the \"tensed\" verb forms to get back to the non-negated sense.","output":"I think \"acceptable\/unacceptable\" is maybe putting it a bit strong, but note this (slightly paraphrased) entry from Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage... excepting as a preposition has one normal use When a possible exception is to be mentioned as not made, the form used [instead of not except] is either not excepting (before the noun) or not excepted (after the noun). That's my emphasis on not made above, but clearly Fowler thinks excepting as a preposition is normally only used in negated contexts, and I would tend to agree. The fact of the matter is the verb to except is a pretty rare\/dated usage apart from the two \"set phrases\" not excepting and not excepted as discussed above (where the verb form has effectively taken on the role of \"preposition\"). Borrowing from and extending Fowler's examples in that link, consider... 1: All men are fallible, not excepting the Pope 2: All men are fallible, the Pope not excepted 3: ??All men are fallible, excepting FumbleFingers 1a: Not excepting the Pope, all men are fallible 2a: The Pope not excepted, all men are fallible 3a: ??Excepted FumbleFingers, all men are fallible I've included the second set to show it doesn't really make any difference if the supplementary clause appears before or after the main statement. Obviously I'd like to say 3\/3a are \"acceptable\", but they're not really. Any \"normal\" native speaker (assuming he accepted my infallibility) would say... 3b: All men are fallible, except FumbleFingers (or perhaps even more likely, apart from) TL;DR: In these contexts, the negated form of except is not excepting or not excepted. To my mind, it's something of an \"erroneous back-formation\" to remove not from either of the \"tensed\" verb forms to get back to the non-negated sense."}
{"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 searching for a meaningful word or expression for someone who does bad things (for example, insulting others, stealing phones...) You would say they are x.","question":"I'm searching for a meaningful word or expression for someone who does bad things (for example, insulting others, stealing phones...) You would say they are x.","answer":"You might say they are rehabilitated: 1b : to restore to good repute : reestablish the good name of","output":"You might say they are rehabilitated: 1b : to restore to good repute : reestablish the good name of"}
{"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 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\nHarry and Sirius were both laughing; Mundungus, who had toppled backwards off his chair, was swearing as he got to his feet; Crookshanks had given an angry hiss and shot off under the dresser, from whence his large yellow eyes glowed in the darkness. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix I think \"whence his large yellow eyes glowed in the darkness\" is just fine. Why should we need 'from' here? Any thoughts?","question":"Harry and Sirius were both laughing; Mundungus, who had toppled backwards off his chair, was swearing as he got to his feet; Crookshanks had given an angry hiss and shot off under the dresser, from whence his large yellow eyes glowed in the darkness. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix I think \"whence his large yellow eyes glowed in the darkness\" is just fine. Why should we need 'from' here? Any thoughts?","answer":"It's not needed, but it's still widely accepted: Strictly speaking, whence means \u2018from what place,\u2019 as in whence did you come? Thus, the preposition from in from whence did you come? is redundant and its use is considered incorrect by some. The use with from is very common, though, and has been used by reputable writers since the 14th century. It is now broadly accepted in standard English Oxford Dictionaries Notably, \"from whence\" was used by Shakespeare in Timon of Athens: Our poesy is as a gum, which oozes From whence 'tis nourish'd...","output":"It's not needed, but it's still widely accepted: Strictly speaking, whence means \u2018from what place,\u2019 as in whence did you come? Thus, the preposition from in from whence did you come? is redundant and its use is considered incorrect by some. The use with from is very common, though, and has been used by reputable writers since the 14th century. It is now broadly accepted in standard English Oxford Dictionaries Notably, \"from whence\" was used by Shakespeare in Timon of Athens: Our poesy is as a gum, which oozes From whence 'tis nourish'd..."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAre both \"wipe us out of existence\" and \"wipe us off of existence\" idiomatic? To me, the first one seems to be more correct, but the second one doesn't seem to be wrong either, because \"wipe off\" also means \"removing\", so \"removing us from existence\". However, I am not sure if the second phrase is idiomatic even if semantically it's correct since I am not a native speaker. Is it idiomatic?","question":"Are both \"wipe us out of existence\" and \"wipe us off of existence\" idiomatic? To me, the first one seems to be more correct, but the second one doesn't seem to be wrong either, because \"wipe off\" also means \"removing\", so \"removing us from existence\". However, I am not sure if the second phrase is idiomatic even if semantically it's correct since I am not a native speaker. Is it idiomatic?","answer":"\"Wipe us out of existence\" is fine, but I believe you're confusing the second with the idiomatic expression: Wipe us off the map \/ off the face of the Earth You can use almost any geographical location with this idiom: The Empire tried to wipe the Rebels off the face of the Galaxy, but they used the Force. Also, \"wipe off of existence\" doesn't really make sense. \"Wipe out\" means to eradicate (remove completely) while \"wipe off\" means to erase (delete markings from some surface). I mean, yes, you can say: Erase us from existence but this is the meaning of \"erase\" that's closer to \"obliterate\". Side note: Some days, you can't help but wonder why even simple English words have so many different meanings.","output":"\"Wipe us out of existence\" is fine, but I believe you're confusing the second with the idiomatic expression: Wipe us off the map \/ off the face of the Earth You can use almost any geographical location with this idiom: The Empire tried to wipe the Rebels off the face of the Galaxy, but they used the Force. Also, \"wipe off of existence\" doesn't really make sense. \"Wipe out\" means to eradicate (remove completely) while \"wipe off\" means to erase (delete markings from some surface). I mean, yes, you can say: Erase us from existence but this is the meaning of \"erase\" that's closer to \"obliterate\". Side note: Some days, you can't help but wonder why even simple English words have so many different meanings."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"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 lampau:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMy son is learning English as a foreign language and I notice a mixture of British and American words in his vocab lists. Is there such thing as a checked shirt, or should it be a check shirt?","question":"My son is learning English as a foreign language and I notice a mixture of British and American words in his vocab lists. Is there such thing as a checked shirt, or should it be a check shirt?","answer":"If you are talking about this kind of pattern, I believe \"checkered\" would be correct. Depending on the exact pattern, though, \"plaid\" may be a better word.","output":"If you are talking about this kind of pattern, I believe \"checkered\" would be correct. Depending on the exact pattern, though, \"plaid\" may be a better word."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nConsider a situation which you trust your friend for 35th times although he failed in previous 34 time! You are saying to your self I'm such a fool that do this again. What's the phrase for describing this situation?","question":"Consider a situation which you trust your friend for 35th times although he failed in previous 34 time! You are saying to your self I'm such a fool that do this again. What's the phrase for describing this situation?","answer":"The quote \"The definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result\" has been attributed to Albert Einstein. So insanity would describe your situation. :-)","output":"The quote \"The definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result\" has been attributed to Albert Einstein. So insanity would describe your situation. :-)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn phrases of the form \"too X to Y\" (e.g. \"too big to fail\"), can \"too\" ever be replaced by a word such as \"exceedingly\", e.g. \"exceedingly big to fail\"? It sounds wrong to me, although \"exceedingly big\" on its own sounds certainly correct. If it isn't correct, how else can I express in formal writing that something is \"too X to Y\" by a large margin? \"Much too X to Y\" sounds informal.","question":"In phrases of the form \"too X to Y\" (e.g. \"too big to fail\"), can \"too\" ever be replaced by a word such as \"exceedingly\", e.g. \"exceedingly big to fail\"? It sounds wrong to me, although \"exceedingly big\" on its own sounds certainly correct. If it isn't correct, how else can I express in formal writing that something is \"too X to Y\" by a large margin? \"Much too X to Y\" sounds informal.","answer":"Too in the too Adj to VP construction is a negative word. If something is too big to fail, then it's so big that it can't\/won't\/shouldn't\/must not fail. The negative is part of the meaning; the modal (can, will, should, etc.) is supplied by context. This is related to the so Adj that S and such NP that S construction, as in It was so spicy (that) I couldn't eat it. It was such spicy food (that) I couldn't eat it. The too construction uses an infinitive VP instead of a whole tensed clause like the so\/such construction, but the sense is the same, except for the hidden negative and modal in the too construction. But they're all idiomatic constructions and don't follow other grammatical rules. Consequently *exceedingly big to fail doesn't work at all.","output":"Too in the too Adj to VP construction is a negative word. If something is too big to fail, then it's so big that it can't\/won't\/shouldn't\/must not fail. The negative is part of the meaning; the modal (can, will, should, etc.) is supplied by context. This is related to the so Adj that S and such NP that S construction, as in It was so spicy (that) I couldn't eat it. It was such spicy food (that) I couldn't eat it. The too construction uses an infinitive VP instead of a whole tensed clause like the so\/such construction, but the sense is the same, except for the hidden negative and modal in the too construction. But they're all idiomatic constructions and don't follow other grammatical rules. Consequently *exceedingly big to fail doesn't work at all."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nConsider the sentence \"Please gather information on who can serve as a proctor.\" The he\/him, she\/her test gives conflicting answers here: One would say \"Please gather information on her\", but \"He can serve as a proctor,\" and the entire sentence can't be accurately replaced with such a pronoun. Which rule should be used? I know 'who' is acceptable regardless in colloquial English, but would it be valid to use 'whom' as well in this scenario?","question":"Consider the sentence \"Please gather information on who can serve as a proctor.\" The he\/him, she\/her test gives conflicting answers here: One would say \"Please gather information on her\", but \"He can serve as a proctor,\" and the entire sentence can't be accurately replaced with such a pronoun. Which rule should be used? I know 'who' is acceptable regardless in colloquial English, but would it be valid to use 'whom' as well in this scenario?","answer":"\"Please gather information on who can serve as a proctor.\" This sentence is grammatically correct. WHOM cannot be used here, for very good reasons, which could be properly explained by the eminent grammarians. As I understand it, it's quite simple: I (who am not a grammarian) correlate 'who' with subject and 'whom' with object, and originally though that it's a rough and incomplete comparison. Examples: WHO offended him? (subject) WHOM has he offended? (object) We know WHO played this trick. (subject) On WHOM was this trick played? (object) However I found the idea that 'who = subject' and 'whom = object' is well established: according to Grammar Girl, When you\u2019re trying to figure out whether to use who or whom, it helps to know the difference between subjects and objects because you use who when you\u2019re referring to the subject of a clause and whom when you\u2019re referring to the object of a clause. In other words, who is a subject pronoun and whom is an object pronoun. Source: http:\/\/www.quickanddirtytips.com\/education\/grammar\/who-versus-whom Supporting quote: \u201cWho\u201d and \u201cwhoever\u201d are subjective pronouns; \u201cwhom\u201d and \u201cwhomever\u201d are in the objective case. That simply means that \u201cwho\u201d (and the same for \u201cwhoever\u201d) is always subject to a verb, and that \u201cwhom\u201d (and the same for \u201cwhomever\u201d) is always working as an object in a sentence. Source: http:\/\/web.ku.edu\/~edit\/whom.html In your question, the first part of the sentence, 'please collect information on', will not influence the choice of whether who or whom should be used within the second part of the sentence, 'who can be a proctor': in fact who is to be used in this case rather than whom because the word chosen needs to denote the subject. Here 'who' = subject, '(can) be' = verb and 'a proctor' = object. However your sentence can use 'whom' if it could be rewritten with some modifications: Please collect information on whom to consider for the post of proctor. Here 'whom' is used because the pronoun chosen now needs to denote the object of the verb '(to) consider.' Other examples (my own): He hates his friend, by WHOM he was duped. With WHOM did she study for the exam? This year's semi-finalists are Britain and USA, between WHOM the 1999 Final was played. For WHOM did the bell toll? I am very surprised to see this level of confusion between who and whom: applying a 'substitution rule' and so forth! Maybe we should keep it simple, without avoiding 'whom' just on general principles, because the humble 'whom' has its own place in the scheme of things - if we never used 'whom', then \"For WHO the bell tolls\" would sound like a question put by a learned Indian (for who the bell tolls? The bell tolls for who? For who the bell is tolling?!) A few more examples... Prepare a list of those employees WHO can ride a bike. Brief the students WHOM the Minister will be meeting tomorrow. WHOM did the Financial Crisis affect? WHO knows for sure! Find out WHO did it, and for WHOM; WHO will suffer as a consequence, and WHOM will it benefit? I sincerely believe that 'who' cannot replace 'whom' in most of the above random examples. So we must READ A LOT, practise our usage, and find for ourselves the simplest ways to \"keep straight\" our who's and whom's!","output":"\"Please gather information on who can serve as a proctor.\" This sentence is grammatically correct. WHOM cannot be used here, for very good reasons, which could be properly explained by the eminent grammarians. As I understand it, it's quite simple: I (who am not a grammarian) correlate 'who' with subject and 'whom' with object, and originally though that it's a rough and incomplete comparison. Examples: WHO offended him? (subject) WHOM has he offended? (object) We know WHO played this trick. (subject) On WHOM was this trick played? (object) However I found the idea that 'who = subject' and 'whom = object' is well established: according to Grammar Girl, When you\u2019re trying to figure out whether to use who or whom, it helps to know the difference between subjects and objects because you use who when you\u2019re referring to the subject of a clause and whom when you\u2019re referring to the object of a clause. In other words, who is a subject pronoun and whom is an object pronoun. Source: http:\/\/www.quickanddirtytips.com\/education\/grammar\/who-versus-whom Supporting quote: \u201cWho\u201d and \u201cwhoever\u201d are subjective pronouns; \u201cwhom\u201d and \u201cwhomever\u201d are in the objective case. That simply means that \u201cwho\u201d (and the same for \u201cwhoever\u201d) is always subject to a verb, and that \u201cwhom\u201d (and the same for \u201cwhomever\u201d) is always working as an object in a sentence. Source: http:\/\/web.ku.edu\/~edit\/whom.html In your question, the first part of the sentence, 'please collect information on', will not influence the choice of whether who or whom should be used within the second part of the sentence, 'who can be a proctor': in fact who is to be used in this case rather than whom because the word chosen needs to denote the subject. Here 'who' = subject, '(can) be' = verb and 'a proctor' = object. However your sentence can use 'whom' if it could be rewritten with some modifications: Please collect information on whom to consider for the post of proctor. Here 'whom' is used because the pronoun chosen now needs to denote the object of the verb '(to) consider.' Other examples (my own): He hates his friend, by WHOM he was duped. With WHOM did she study for the exam? This year's semi-finalists are Britain and USA, between WHOM the 1999 Final was played. For WHOM did the bell toll? I am very surprised to see this level of confusion between who and whom: applying a 'substitution rule' and so forth! Maybe we should keep it simple, without avoiding 'whom' just on general principles, because the humble 'whom' has its own place in the scheme of things - if we never used 'whom', then \"For WHO the bell tolls\" would sound like a question put by a learned Indian (for who the bell tolls? The bell tolls for who? For who the bell is tolling?!) A few more examples... Prepare a list of those employees WHO can ride a bike. Brief the students WHOM the Minister will be meeting tomorrow. WHOM did the Financial Crisis affect? WHO knows for sure! Find out WHO did it, and for WHOM; WHO will suffer as a consequence, and WHOM will it benefit? I sincerely believe that 'who' cannot replace 'whom' in most of the above random examples. So we must READ A LOT, practise our usage, and find for ourselves the simplest ways to \"keep straight\" our who's and whom's!"}
{"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\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs there a word that describes the unjustified use of a more complex word? For example, using \"didactic\" instead of using the simpler \"instructive\" when the use of \"didactic\" is not justified in the context, as it could have been swapped with \"instructive\" without changing the meaning at all. There are some cases where it might be justified, but in our fictional example it is not. How would you describe such writing or such a literary choice?","question":"Is there a word that describes the unjustified use of a more complex word? For example, using \"didactic\" instead of using the simpler \"instructive\" when the use of \"didactic\" is not justified in the context, as it could have been swapped with \"instructive\" without changing the meaning at all. There are some cases where it might be justified, but in our fictional example it is not. How would you describe such writing or such a literary choice?","answer":"Obfuscation where the result (intended or otherwise) is to make the meaning unclear. Pretentious if the intention is to unnecessarily create an impression that the writer is more intelligent than the reader.","output":"Obfuscation where the result (intended or otherwise) is to make the meaning unclear. Pretentious if the intention is to unnecessarily create an impression that the writer is more intelligent than the reader."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it grammatically correct to use the word it twice in a row? When doing so, do you have to separate the two using a comma? If there are different situations please use examples. My examples: When I find it it can be filed away. Because of the size of it it doesn't fit in the array. I am asking because I am a habitual double it'er and a colleague called me out on it.","question":"Is it grammatically correct to use the word it twice in a row? When doing so, do you have to separate the two using a comma? If there are different situations please use examples. My examples: When I find it it can be filed away. Because of the size of it it doesn't fit in the array. I am asking because I am a habitual double it'er and a colleague called me out on it.","answer":"There are certain idiomatic phrases ending in it which could conceivably be followed by another it: So I take it it is not going well. Why is it it always rains when I forget my umbrella? Both of these above examples could have an optional that between the two its\u2014but it is not required and these sentences are grammatical (to me, at least). I searched for \"it it\" in The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and most of the results were scan errors, typos, or not real matches. There were some cases where an it-final clause was followed by an it-initial clause where the comma is optional. For example: You have to find the gap in the wall, and if you don't know it it's not easy. What he means is, don't call attention to yourself because once you get it it's hard to shake. This time someone holds the chair firm, and when I hit it it doesn't move. ... when he read the Declaration of Independence, because in it it says, 'All men are created equal' I think most editors would agree the above examples would be improved by introducing the optional comma between the two its, but the rules for commas are flexible. In many cases, such as in these examples, they are optional and their inclusion is really up to the writer. This brief blog entry discusses several cases where commas are optional.","output":"There are certain idiomatic phrases ending in it which could conceivably be followed by another it: So I take it it is not going well. Why is it it always rains when I forget my umbrella? Both of these above examples could have an optional that between the two its\u2014but it is not required and these sentences are grammatical (to me, at least). I searched for \"it it\" in The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and most of the results were scan errors, typos, or not real matches. There were some cases where an it-final clause was followed by an it-initial clause where the comma is optional. For example: You have to find the gap in the wall, and if you don't know it it's not easy. What he means is, don't call attention to yourself because once you get it it's hard to shake. This time someone holds the chair firm, and when I hit it it doesn't move. ... when he read the Declaration of Independence, because in it it says, 'All men are created equal' I think most editors would agree the above examples would be improved by introducing the optional comma between the two its, but the rules for commas are flexible. In many cases, such as in these examples, they are optional and their inclusion is really up to the writer. This brief blog entry discusses several cases where commas are optional."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nLet's say I'm talking about some day in the past. In formal writing, I would use: Earlier that day, I had lunch with my boss. But is the following also correct? Earlier today, I had lunch with my boss. Clarification: I'm not talking about something that happened today (as of the date when I'm writing), but some day in the past... last week, 3 months ago, etc. Can I still write this? It was the 1st of April, 2006. Today had been the worst day of my life...","question":"Let's say I'm talking about some day in the past. In formal writing, I would use: Earlier that day, I had lunch with my boss. But is the following also correct? Earlier today, I had lunch with my boss. Clarification: I'm not talking about something that happened today (as of the date when I'm writing), but some day in the past... last week, 3 months ago, etc. Can I still write this? It was the 1st of April, 2006. Today had been the worst day of my life...","answer":"Earlier today would be understood as referring to something happened this day (today has origin from a Old English word that means on this day); earlier that day is referring to a day that you mentioned before. To reply to your other question, It was the 1st of April, 2006. Today had been the worst day of my life. seems awkward, as today is not understood to mean on this day (the original meaning). In narrative, an event that is happened in the past is narrated as it is the present, as in: It is the 1st of April, 2006. Today will be the worst day of my life. Outside that specific context, I would write It was the 1st of April, 2006. That day had been the worst day of my life.","output":"Earlier today would be understood as referring to something happened this day (today has origin from a Old English word that means on this day); earlier that day is referring to a day that you mentioned before. To reply to your other question, It was the 1st of April, 2006. Today had been the worst day of my life. seems awkward, as today is not understood to mean on this day (the original meaning). In narrative, an event that is happened in the past is narrated as it is the present, as in: It is the 1st of April, 2006. Today will be the worst day of my life. Outside that specific context, I would write It was the 1st of April, 2006. That day had been the worst day of my life."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou're in the gym waiting for the school principal to make a speech and everyone is talking, the whole place humming loudly. Suddenly it goes quiet because you all thought the principal has arrived, yet no one told you to be silent. Everybody else notices the others being quite and follows suit. Everyone is silent for a moment, but after they realize no one arrived and no one is enforcing the silence, the noise starts again. This has happened to me in classrooms and at seminars.","question":"You're in the gym waiting for the school principal to make a speech and everyone is talking, the whole place humming loudly. Suddenly it goes quiet because you all thought the principal has arrived, yet no one told you to be silent. Everybody else notices the others being quite and follows suit. Everyone is silent for a moment, but after they realize no one arrived and no one is enforcing the silence, the noise starts again. This has happened to me in classrooms and at seminars.","answer":"lull - a temporary calm, quiet, or stillness","output":"lull - a temporary calm, quiet, or stillness"}
{"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\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nConsider the two sentences below It is of crucial importance that we make more use of technology if we are to make progress. and It is crucially important that we make more use of technology if we are to make progress. What is the grammatical role of \"of\" in the the first sentence? What is difference between the two sentences in meaning and emphasizing?","question":"Consider the two sentences below It is of crucial importance that we make more use of technology if we are to make progress. and It is crucially important that we make more use of technology if we are to make progress. What is the grammatical role of \"of\" in the the first sentence? What is difference between the two sentences in meaning and emphasizing?","answer":"Good question. Some contributors to this site would recommend you try Stack Exchange's English for Language Learners website, but I'm willing to attempt an answer to your question. First, the of is a preposition in a prepositional phrase, as in your example, \"of crucial importance.\" Let me suggest also the phrases \"of moderate interest,\" \"of weird proportions,\" and \"of primary concern,\" as in It [the statue] was of weird proportions, but it came together nicely.\" It [the project] was of moderate interest to me, but I participated anyway.\" It [the coat] was of bright color, but it was not garish in any way.\" I guess you could say that grammatically, each of the above prepositional phrases functions as a predicate adjective. A simple definition of a predicate adjective is a word or words that modify (or predicate something about) the subject of the sentence, as in \"The dress is blue,\" or \"The dress is of blue color.\" Your of crucial importance and crucially important are also predicate adjectives, each of which predicates something about the subject, it. Regarding the above sentences, if you were to ask \"What kind of it was it?\" you could also say, \"It was weirdly proportioned,\" \"It was moderately interesting,\" or \"It was brightly colored.\" In meaning, the two ways of describing \"it\" are essentially identical. Emphasis, on the other hand, derives primarily from the nonverbal, not grammatical, realm. I'll use bold print to illustrate: \"It [the statue] was of weird proportions, but it came together nicely.\" It [the project] was of moderate interest to me, but I participated in it anyway.\" It [the coat] was of bright color, but it was not garish in any way.\" Similarly, \"The statue was weirdly proportioned, but it came together nicely.\" \"The project was moderately interesting, but I participated anyway.\" \"The coat was brightly colored, but it was not garish in any way.\" You could also put the nonverbal emphasis on weirdly, interesting, or brightly, depending on how you'd like to express yourself. By the way, in comparing the two sets of sentences above, you could say idiomatically, \"Six of one; half dozen of the other.\" In other words, they are two ways of saying the same thing. Back to your sentences: \"It is of crucial importance that we make more use of technology . . ..\" \"It is crucially important that we make more use of technology . . ..\" You could also put the nonverbal emphasis on important or crucially, depending on which word you want to emphasize. The meaning stays the same. If you were to say either sentence in a noncommittal, monotone, unemotional way, your audience would not likely remember what you said. On the other hand, if you emphasize a word here and there, they'll likely remember that you were at least committed to what you had to say, even if they don't remember exactly what you said!","output":"Good question. Some contributors to this site would recommend you try Stack Exchange's English for Language Learners website, but I'm willing to attempt an answer to your question. First, the of is a preposition in a prepositional phrase, as in your example, \"of crucial importance.\" Let me suggest also the phrases \"of moderate interest,\" \"of weird proportions,\" and \"of primary concern,\" as in It [the statue] was of weird proportions, but it came together nicely.\" It [the project] was of moderate interest to me, but I participated anyway.\" It [the coat] was of bright color, but it was not garish in any way.\" I guess you could say that grammatically, each of the above prepositional phrases functions as a predicate adjective. A simple definition of a predicate adjective is a word or words that modify (or predicate something about) the subject of the sentence, as in \"The dress is blue,\" or \"The dress is of blue color.\" Your of crucial importance and crucially important are also predicate adjectives, each of which predicates something about the subject, it. Regarding the above sentences, if you were to ask \"What kind of it was it?\" you could also say, \"It was weirdly proportioned,\" \"It was moderately interesting,\" or \"It was brightly colored.\" In meaning, the two ways of describing \"it\" are essentially identical. Emphasis, on the other hand, derives primarily from the nonverbal, not grammatical, realm. I'll use bold print to illustrate: \"It [the statue] was of weird proportions, but it came together nicely.\" It [the project] was of moderate interest to me, but I participated in it anyway.\" It [the coat] was of bright color, but it was not garish in any way.\" Similarly, \"The statue was weirdly proportioned, but it came together nicely.\" \"The project was moderately interesting, but I participated anyway.\" \"The coat was brightly colored, but it was not garish in any way.\" You could also put the nonverbal emphasis on weirdly, interesting, or brightly, depending on how you'd like to express yourself. By the way, in comparing the two sets of sentences above, you could say idiomatically, \"Six of one; half dozen of the other.\" In other words, they are two ways of saying the same thing. Back to your sentences: \"It is of crucial importance that we make more use of technology . . ..\" \"It is crucially important that we make more use of technology . . ..\" You could also put the nonverbal emphasis on important or crucially, depending on which word you want to emphasize. The meaning stays the same. If you were to say either sentence in a noncommittal, monotone, unemotional way, your audience would not likely remember what you said. On the other hand, if you emphasize a word here and there, they'll likely remember that you were at least committed to what you had to say, even if they don't remember exactly what you said!"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAs far as I know, there are two terms in English grammar to identify two main parts of a conversation: \"First person\" and \"second person\". But my question is that what do you usually call them out of English grammar domain? I searched a lot and found the following terms: \"Speaker\" ---> I somewhat sure I'm on the right track with this. And \"Spoken to\" OR \"Second person\" ---> I doubt about it For example: a) You have to always know your second person (the person you are talking to) and speak accordingly. b You have to always know your spoken to (the person you are talking to) and speak accordingly. [It sounds a bit odd to me.] Which one is correct? \"a\" or \"b\"? If no one, then let me know what would be the normal term here?","question":"As far as I know, there are two terms in English grammar to identify two main parts of a conversation: \"First person\" and \"second person\". But my question is that what do you usually call them out of English grammar domain? I searched a lot and found the following terms: \"Speaker\" ---> I somewhat sure I'm on the right track with this. And \"Spoken to\" OR \"Second person\" ---> I doubt about it For example: a) You have to always know your second person (the person you are talking to) and speak accordingly. b You have to always know your spoken to (the person you are talking to) and speak accordingly. [It sounds a bit odd to me.] Which one is correct? \"a\" or \"b\"? If no one, then let me know what would be the normal term here?","answer":"Speaker and hearer are the terms I see most often in linguistics. In fact, Renaat DeClerck extends this to the ingenious practice of always referring to the speaker as she and the hearer as he.","output":"Speaker and hearer are the terms I see most often in linguistics. In fact, Renaat DeClerck extends this to the ingenious practice of always referring to the speaker as she and the hearer as he."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThere's an Irish expression: \"You can't bolt your door with a boiled carrot.\" Are there any Irishmen or women who can tell me what it means?","question":"There's an Irish expression: \"You can't bolt your door with a boiled carrot.\" Are there any Irishmen or women who can tell me what it means?","answer":"The answer can be found (surprisingly) on Foxtowe Shaker Doors (a British door maker's web site): https:\/\/www.shakerdoors.co.uk\/never-bolt-your-door-with-a-boiled-carrot\/ Of course, it is highly unlikely that anyone would actually try to bolt their door with a boiled carrot, rather, the implied meaning behind this proverb is that you should act carefully, and plan ahead for any potential future problems. If you were to bolt your door with a boiled carrot, anyone, friend or foe, would be able to enter your home with ease, whereas if you had a proper lock and bolt on your door, you would be quite safe. From this I would take the meaning as \"Do the job properly and thoroughly: do not take shortcuts.\"","output":"The answer can be found (surprisingly) on Foxtowe Shaker Doors (a British door maker's web site): https:\/\/www.shakerdoors.co.uk\/never-bolt-your-door-with-a-boiled-carrot\/ Of course, it is highly unlikely that anyone would actually try to bolt their door with a boiled carrot, rather, the implied meaning behind this proverb is that you should act carefully, and plan ahead for any potential future problems. If you were to bolt your door with a boiled carrot, anyone, friend or foe, would be able to enter your home with ease, whereas if you had a proper lock and bolt on your door, you would be quite safe. From this I would take the meaning as \"Do the job properly and thoroughly: do not take shortcuts.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou can hear different pronunciations of the mechanical component lever. Sometimes it is pronounced with an i-sound, similar as in \"leave\", and other times you hear it with a clear e-sound almost as in \"heavy\". Why is that? I doubt it could be explained by regional or personal differencies, since the same person can shift between the pronunciations. My guess is, that this difference lies in where the lever is in use. I haven't been able to see any clear pattern, though.","question":"You can hear different pronunciations of the mechanical component lever. Sometimes it is pronounced with an i-sound, similar as in \"leave\", and other times you hear it with a clear e-sound almost as in \"heavy\". Why is that? I doubt it could be explained by regional or personal differencies, since the same person can shift between the pronunciations. My guess is, that this difference lies in where the lever is in use. I haven't been able to see any clear pattern, though.","answer":"US speakers tend to say the first 'e' of 'lever' as in bet, bed, met, etc, while speakers in the British English zone say that same syllable as the 'ea' in leave, meat, heat, etc. To Brits it sounds as if Americans are saying 'levver'. \"since the same person can shift between the pronunciations\". This is very unusual. Native speakers tend to be consistent in pronouncing this word. 'Lever' US & British pronunciation examples","output":"US speakers tend to say the first 'e' of 'lever' as in bet, bed, met, etc, while speakers in the British English zone say that same syllable as the 'ea' in leave, meat, heat, etc. To Brits it sounds as if Americans are saying 'levver'. \"since the same person can shift between the pronunciations\". This is very unusual. Native speakers tend to be consistent in pronouncing this word. 'Lever' US & British pronunciation examples"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI want to use the term used, like I was used. I mean when someone used my name or some of my property for his own advantage. Is it OK to say in this context: I was used ?","question":"I want to use the term used, like I was used. I mean when someone used my name or some of my property for his own advantage. Is it OK to say in this context: I was used ?","answer":"\"I was used\" is perfectly good English but may not have quite the meaning you are looking for. It is quite a common phrase in crime thrillers and soap operas, where it is used to convey the meaning \"I, as a person, was used. I was tricked into doing or believing X, when the deceiver only wanted to take advantage of me. I feel exploited and cheapened.\" If somebody else used your name (that is, signed cheques or legal papers with your name, or pretended to be you while performing some other activity) without your knowledge, that is \"Identity theft\". If somebody has stolen your identity, you probably will feel used, as described in my first paragraph, but to say \"I was used\" is to talk about the personal impact it had on you and how it has made you feel, not to describe precisely what was done to you. \"My identity was stolen\" describes the act.","output":"\"I was used\" is perfectly good English but may not have quite the meaning you are looking for. It is quite a common phrase in crime thrillers and soap operas, where it is used to convey the meaning \"I, as a person, was used. I was tricked into doing or believing X, when the deceiver only wanted to take advantage of me. I feel exploited and cheapened.\" If somebody else used your name (that is, signed cheques or legal papers with your name, or pretended to be you while performing some other activity) without your knowledge, that is \"Identity theft\". If somebody has stolen your identity, you probably will feel used, as described in my first paragraph, but to say \"I was used\" is to talk about the personal impact it had on you and how it has made you feel, not to describe precisely what was done to you. \"My identity was stolen\" describes the act."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it ok to say \"do not unrespect me\" instead of \"do not disrespect me\"? I heard someone say it and it struck me as odd.","question":"Is it ok to say \"do not unrespect me\" instead of \"do not disrespect me\"? I heard someone say it and it struck me as odd.","answer":"No, the person saying \"unrespect\" is almost certainly confused. The correct term is \"disrespect\" as in: \"Do not disrespect me.\"","output":"No, the person saying \"unrespect\" is almost certainly confused. The correct term is \"disrespect\" as in: \"Do not disrespect me.\""}
{"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\nWhat is the spatial explanation for the preposition \"in\" or \"on\" in the following examples: 1- American society is in trouble. (Why do I have to use the preposition \"in\" instead of the preposition \"on\" in this sentence? 2- ... in the following sentence... (I don't know if I have to use \"on\" or \"in\" in this sentence either.) I just do not know how to apply a spatial meaning (or imaging in my head to make a difference between in and on), to correctly use these two preposition, when they are used in sentences holding an abstract meaning. If you can provide an example through a pictorial description, it would better. Thank you to all of you!","question":"What is the spatial explanation for the preposition \"in\" or \"on\" in the following examples: 1- American society is in trouble. (Why do I have to use the preposition \"in\" instead of the preposition \"on\" in this sentence? 2- ... in the following sentence... (I don't know if I have to use \"on\" or \"in\" in this sentence either.) I just do not know how to apply a spatial meaning (or imaging in my head to make a difference between in and on), to correctly use these two preposition, when they are used in sentences holding an abstract meaning. If you can provide an example through a pictorial description, it would better. Thank you to all of you!","answer":"There's no quick answer for this. Different words take different prepositions and you just have to learn each case individually. However, generally and abstractly speaking: one finds oneself \"in\" a predicament: in a crisis, in bad health, in trouble, in an argument, in bankruptcy, in a divorce, etc. words find themselves \"in\" written formats: in a paragraph, sentence, document, dictionary, letter, etc. \"on\" can express a dependency: on medication, on welfare, on scholarship; or \"on\" can describe how you're spending time: on vacation, on a leave of absence; or \"on\" can describe how you're concentrating your efforts, a point in your progress: on a rampage, on the hunt, on a campaign, on a tirade; on track, (working) on a project, on the last page (of a novel), etc.","output":"There's no quick answer for this. Different words take different prepositions and you just have to learn each case individually. However, generally and abstractly speaking: one finds oneself \"in\" a predicament: in a crisis, in bad health, in trouble, in an argument, in bankruptcy, in a divorce, etc. words find themselves \"in\" written formats: in a paragraph, sentence, document, dictionary, letter, etc. \"on\" can express a dependency: on medication, on welfare, on scholarship; or \"on\" can describe how you're spending time: on vacation, on a leave of absence; or \"on\" can describe how you're concentrating your efforts, a point in your progress: on a rampage, on the hunt, on a campaign, on a tirade; on track, (working) on a project, on the last page (of a novel), etc."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is a word for completely fascinated? I want to convey the same meaning but using only one word if possible. Using two big words for this seems like an overkill.","question":"What is a word for completely fascinated? I want to convey the same meaning but using only one word if possible. Using two big words for this seems like an overkill.","answer":"entranced! enthralled! enchanted!","output":"entranced! enthralled! enchanted!"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIf I'm looking for an object which may or may not exist, could I say it exists hypothetically, given the definition of hypothetical? a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation This seems to mean there must be some evidence that the object exits. However, the object I'm looking for does not have any evidence that it might exist. Practically, it is possible that it might exist, as it occurred in that past because of human errors...","question":"If I'm looking for an object which may or may not exist, could I say it exists hypothetically, given the definition of hypothetical? a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation This seems to mean there must be some evidence that the object exits. However, the object I'm looking for does not have any evidence that it might exist. Practically, it is possible that it might exist, as it occurred in that past because of human errors...","answer":"You may purport that your object exists. pur\u00b7port\u00b7ed adjective -\u02c8po\u0307r-t\u0259d\\ : said to be true or real but not definitely true or real \"The purported one eyed unicorn is said to be found only in the gangha swamps of Tashkent.\" Beware though, the verb form carries a strong negative connotation. purport 1: to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming (something implied or inferred) ; also : claim 2: intend, purpose You might be better off using allege\/alleging\/alleged: 1: asserted to be true or to exist 2: questionably true or of a specified kind : supposed, so-called","output":"You may purport that your object exists. pur\u00b7port\u00b7ed adjective -\u02c8po\u0307r-t\u0259d\\ : said to be true or real but not definitely true or real \"The purported one eyed unicorn is said to be found only in the gangha swamps of Tashkent.\" Beware though, the verb form carries a strong negative connotation. purport 1: to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming (something implied or inferred) ; also : claim 2: intend, purpose You might be better off using allege\/alleging\/alleged: 1: asserted to be true or to exist 2: questionably true or of a specified kind : supposed, so-called"}
{"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 see both usage, with \"honors calculus\" much more common. This is in reference to courses and programs in high school and universities with a higher level of requirements than the regular counterpart. My Microsoft Word software does not like \"honors\", it prefers \"honor's\" in above context. What is the correct usage and why? On Word if I type \"Student's project was part of an honors calculus course\" the word \"honors\" gets double blue underlining which implies questionable grammar.","question":"I see both usage, with \"honors calculus\" much more common. This is in reference to courses and programs in high school and universities with a higher level of requirements than the regular counterpart. My Microsoft Word software does not like \"honors\", it prefers \"honor's\" in above context. What is the correct usage and why? On Word if I type \"Student's project was part of an honors calculus course\" the word \"honors\" gets double blue underlining which implies questionable grammar.","answer":"The typical spelling of honors in this context has no apostrophe: honors course (or honours course, if you use the spelling honour with a U). This is an example of a compound or attributive noun construction where, unusually, the first element has the form of a plural noun. The Oxford English Dictionary gives examples dating back to 1860 of the use of hono(u)rs in this context; none of the examples uses an apostrophe. Word's grammar checker may be incorrectly flagging this construction because of the rarity of compound\/attributive noun constructions with plural first elements. Although unusual, such constructions are not ungrammatical. You can see some other examples in the answers to When are attributive nouns plural? and Singular\/plural Nouns as Adjectives; the question Plural nouns in nominal compounds is also relevant.","output":"The typical spelling of honors in this context has no apostrophe: honors course (or honours course, if you use the spelling honour with a U). This is an example of a compound or attributive noun construction where, unusually, the first element has the form of a plural noun. The Oxford English Dictionary gives examples dating back to 1860 of the use of hono(u)rs in this context; none of the examples uses an apostrophe. Word's grammar checker may be incorrectly flagging this construction because of the rarity of compound\/attributive noun constructions with plural first elements. Although unusual, such constructions are not ungrammatical. You can see some other examples in the answers to When are attributive nouns plural? and Singular\/plural Nouns as Adjectives; the question Plural nouns in nominal compounds is also relevant."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI talked to her before she had arrived. Could you make the order of actions clear in this sentence?","question":"I talked to her before she had arrived. Could you make the order of actions clear in this sentence?","answer":"The talking happened before the arrival. What might be confusing to you is the fact that the arrived is in past perfect, while the talked is in the simple past. The fact there's a past perfect in the sentence means that the sentence is somehow based in the past. For instance, it's a narration and the events described are earlier than the point reached in the narration. I don't know if it's a technical term, but I try to think of a time as the base time or reference time for a sentence. Because the talked is simple past, you would normally expect that it happened at the reference time of the sentence, and the past perfect had arrived happened before it. However, the word before takes precedence over such grammatical cues, because it is more explicit.","output":"The talking happened before the arrival. What might be confusing to you is the fact that the arrived is in past perfect, while the talked is in the simple past. The fact there's a past perfect in the sentence means that the sentence is somehow based in the past. For instance, it's a narration and the events described are earlier than the point reached in the narration. I don't know if it's a technical term, but I try to think of a time as the base time or reference time for a sentence. Because the talked is simple past, you would normally expect that it happened at the reference time of the sentence, and the past perfect had arrived happened before it. However, the word before takes precedence over such grammatical cues, because it is more explicit."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm not a native English speaker, hence I'm a little confused here. I want to know the difference between the two and also correct me if I'm saying it wrong here \"It's turns out to be a conspiracy against him.\" \"It turns out that it was a conspiracy against him.\" I can't figure out the differene, I have been trying to find the answers, I even get them but they aren't satisfactory.","question":"I'm not a native English speaker, hence I'm a little confused here. I want to know the difference between the two and also correct me if I'm saying it wrong here \"It's turns out to be a conspiracy against him.\" \"It turns out that it was a conspiracy against him.\" I can't figure out the differene, I have been trying to find the answers, I even get them but they aren't satisfactory.","answer":"\"turn out\" as an intransitive verb (usually followed by \"to be\") means \"prove to be\" e.g. \"His book turned out to be a failure\". \"turn out\" (not followed by \"to be\") means \"to end up\", \"to result\". e.g. \"His painting turned out beautifully.\", \"Don't worry, everything will turn out fine\" Sometimes \"turn out\" and \"turn out to be\" are interchangeable. In addition, you have the idiom \"it turns\/turned out (that)\" which means \"happen\", \"end up\" e.g. \"After it was all over, it turned out that both of us were pleased with the bargain\" TFD , \"As it turned out, it was Joe who had told her everything.\"","output":"\"turn out\" as an intransitive verb (usually followed by \"to be\") means \"prove to be\" e.g. \"His book turned out to be a failure\". \"turn out\" (not followed by \"to be\") means \"to end up\", \"to result\". e.g. \"His painting turned out beautifully.\", \"Don't worry, everything will turn out fine\" Sometimes \"turn out\" and \"turn out to be\" are interchangeable. In addition, you have the idiom \"it turns\/turned out (that)\" which means \"happen\", \"end up\" e.g. \"After it was all over, it turned out that both of us were pleased with the bargain\" TFD , \"As it turned out, it was Joe who had told her everything.\""}
{"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":"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\nAs a non-native English speaker, It seems to me that the word \"until\" is quite ambiguous. It's been told that when it's used with a date it includes the date. (Does \"until [date]\" mean \"before that date\"?) But it's still unclear to me. \"X will be there until the 11th.\" When will X leave? On the 12th, right? \"X won't be there until the 11th.\" When will X be there? On the 11th, right? If so, can anyone explain why it differs? Does it depend on whether it's negative and positive? And how about other periods of time, like high school. \"X hasn't done it until high school\" In this case X did it at some time during high school, right? \"X has been doing it until high school\" In this case it seems to be unclear when X stopped. During high school or before starting high school. Then with an attempt of clarification: \"X has been doing it until he entered high school\" Does it mean X stopped doing it before or just after he entered high school? Or could it be both? Is this clear to native speakers or is it just me? Edit: Seems like a lot of my confusion was made by this answer. http:\/\/answers.yahoo.com\/question\/index?qid=20130205142054AAIqP06","question":"As a non-native English speaker, It seems to me that the word \"until\" is quite ambiguous. It's been told that when it's used with a date it includes the date. (Does \"until [date]\" mean \"before that date\"?) But it's still unclear to me. \"X will be there until the 11th.\" When will X leave? On the 12th, right? \"X won't be there until the 11th.\" When will X be there? On the 11th, right? If so, can anyone explain why it differs? Does it depend on whether it's negative and positive? And how about other periods of time, like high school. \"X hasn't done it until high school\" In this case X did it at some time during high school, right? \"X has been doing it until high school\" In this case it seems to be unclear when X stopped. During high school or before starting high school. Then with an attempt of clarification: \"X has been doing it until he entered high school\" Does it mean X stopped doing it before or just after he entered high school? Or could it be both? Is this clear to native speakers or is it just me? Edit: Seems like a lot of my confusion was made by this answer. http:\/\/answers.yahoo.com\/question\/index?qid=20130205142054AAIqP06","answer":"You are right in that there is (sometimes) ambiguity in the meaning. Some expressions have one possible interpretation: \"I (had) never played squash until \/ before I went to university\" is clear enough - I played squash only after going up (if at all, but this would be a quirky take). They do not have to be negative statements: \"We played squash until 1 pm\" is non-negative but still unambiguous. It's when the time reference itself is imprecise that possible ambiguity arises. \"John will be there until the 11th.\" What time on the 11th? The exact moment the day starts? (unlikely). We use this sort of expression rather loosely to indicate that you may or may not find him there if you go looking for him at some time on the 11th. He may leave at the start of the day, in which case you'd miss him; he may leave at noon, in which case you might catch him. You're only really sure to catch him on the 10th (9th, 8th...) (and assuming he's not at the cinema etc, of course). With negative statements, it's clearer: \"John won't be there until the 11th.\" You won't catch him on the 10th, 9th... But you've a chance on the 11th. More so later in the day. 'Up to and including' and 'until and including' are widely used to show that the end-point of the interval in question is meant to be included, but with a 'wide end-point' (like 'the 11th', a certain amount of uncertainty is bound to remain.","output":"You are right in that there is (sometimes) ambiguity in the meaning. Some expressions have one possible interpretation: \"I (had) never played squash until \/ before I went to university\" is clear enough - I played squash only after going up (if at all, but this would be a quirky take). They do not have to be negative statements: \"We played squash until 1 pm\" is non-negative but still unambiguous. It's when the time reference itself is imprecise that possible ambiguity arises. \"John will be there until the 11th.\" What time on the 11th? The exact moment the day starts? (unlikely). We use this sort of expression rather loosely to indicate that you may or may not find him there if you go looking for him at some time on the 11th. He may leave at the start of the day, in which case you'd miss him; he may leave at noon, in which case you might catch him. You're only really sure to catch him on the 10th (9th, 8th...) (and assuming he's not at the cinema etc, of course). With negative statements, it's clearer: \"John won't be there until the 11th.\" You won't catch him on the 10th, 9th... But you've a chance on the 11th. More so later in the day. 'Up to and including' and 'until and including' are widely used to show that the end-point of the interval in question is meant to be included, but with a 'wide end-point' (like 'the 11th', a certain amount of uncertainty is bound to remain."}
{"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 negatif:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"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\nI'm looking for a phrase that describes the experience of limits, preconceptions and world-views being challenged, exceeded and revised. I convey this if I say something \"blew my mind\", but there is a casual and left-field tone that I'd like to avoid. What's a more sober and professional way to describe this experience? The intonations of personal transformation and the revision of self-boundaries are important elements that I'm looking to include.","question":"I'm looking for a phrase that describes the experience of limits, preconceptions and world-views being challenged, exceeded and revised. I convey this if I say something \"blew my mind\", but there is a casual and left-field tone that I'd like to avoid. What's a more sober and professional way to describe this experience? The intonations of personal transformation and the revision of self-boundaries are important elements that I'm looking to include.","answer":"Made me think about X in a whole new way. Gave me a new perspective. Stunned \/ amazed \/ astonished me.","output":"Made me think about X in a whole new way. Gave me a new perspective. Stunned \/ amazed \/ astonished me."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nPerusing some for sale listings of guitars, many of them are Custom Shop, i.e. built to customer specification and not off the wall production models. By definition, these are one-of-a-kind instruments. However, many of these listings state them as \"rare\" which I find as a descriptor doesn't sound quite right when describing one-of-a-kind items. Is something that is one-of-a-kind considered rare? When I think of rarity, I usually think of it in tiers or on a spectrum: things that are common, things that are uncommon, things that are rare, and then things that are unique (one-of-a-kind). To me, rare and one-of-a-kind are mutually exclusive. To use another example, consider the Mona Lisa. Is that rare? To be more declarative, what contributes to an item's rarity: availability, desire? Can an availability of one be considered rare?","question":"Perusing some for sale listings of guitars, many of them are Custom Shop, i.e. built to customer specification and not off the wall production models. By definition, these are one-of-a-kind instruments. However, many of these listings state them as \"rare\" which I find as a descriptor doesn't sound quite right when describing one-of-a-kind items. Is something that is one-of-a-kind considered rare? When I think of rarity, I usually think of it in tiers or on a spectrum: things that are common, things that are uncommon, things that are rare, and then things that are unique (one-of-a-kind). To me, rare and one-of-a-kind are mutually exclusive. To use another example, consider the Mona Lisa. Is that rare? To be more declarative, what contributes to an item's rarity: availability, desire? Can an availability of one be considered rare?","answer":"Is rare an appropriate descriptor for something that is one-of-a-kind? No. Something that is one-of-a-kind is unique. Something that is uncommon but not unique is rare. The Mona Lisa is unique. Gold is rare on our planet. A custom-made guitar is unique, built to particular specifications and reflecting the capabilities of its maker. Guitars that have been played by Jimi Hendrix are rare.","output":"Is rare an appropriate descriptor for something that is one-of-a-kind? No. Something that is one-of-a-kind is unique. Something that is uncommon but not unique is rare. The Mona Lisa is unique. Gold is rare on our planet. A custom-made guitar is unique, built to particular specifications and reflecting the capabilities of its maker. Guitars that have been played by Jimi Hendrix are rare."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn the last few years, a new pronunciation (or if you like a mispronunciation) of \"entrepreneur\" has spread like Covid-19 through the USA, so that even educated speakers, such as NPR reporters, are suddenly pronouncing \"entrepreneur\" to rhyme with \"sewer\", \"fewer\", or \"manure\". None of these cultural influencers seems to notice that the \"e\" precedes the \"u\", or be aware that the French word has the \"eur\" ending that rhymes with \"purr\", \"her\", or \"restaurateur\". This grates on my reactionary language instincts, especially since I am an entrepreneur by trade. Does anyone know how or where this new phenomenon gained so much momentum? Are there other words changing like this?","question":"In the last few years, a new pronunciation (or if you like a mispronunciation) of \"entrepreneur\" has spread like Covid-19 through the USA, so that even educated speakers, such as NPR reporters, are suddenly pronouncing \"entrepreneur\" to rhyme with \"sewer\", \"fewer\", or \"manure\". None of these cultural influencers seems to notice that the \"e\" precedes the \"u\", or be aware that the French word has the \"eur\" ending that rhymes with \"purr\", \"her\", or \"restaurateur\". This grates on my reactionary language instincts, especially since I am an entrepreneur by trade. Does anyone know how or where this new phenomenon gained so much momentum? Are there other words changing like this?","answer":"That\u2019s just a regular pronunciation of the spelling \u201c-neur\u201d in English. The word \u201camateur\u201d also has variant pronunciations with the vowel of \u201ccure\u201d\/\u201cmanure\u201d. (By that I mean an r-controlled \u201clong u\u201d sound, where the influence of the following r has caused the vowel to sound like the lax \u201coo\u201d of \u201cbook\u201d for some speakers. Other speakers have merged the \u201ccure\u201d vowel into either the \u201cnurse\u201d vowel or the \u201cnorth\u201d\/\u201cforce\u201d vowel.) French doesn\u2019t actually have exactly the same vowel here as in English \u201cpurr\u201d. It\u2019s close or approximately equivalent, but neither English pronunciation is actually \u201ccorrect\u201d if your standard is native French speakers\u2019 pronunciation. If that isn\u2019t your standard, I think it\u2019s somewhat arbitrary to prefer one anglicized pronunciation over another.","output":"That\u2019s just a regular pronunciation of the spelling \u201c-neur\u201d in English. The word \u201camateur\u201d also has variant pronunciations with the vowel of \u201ccure\u201d\/\u201cmanure\u201d. (By that I mean an r-controlled \u201clong u\u201d sound, where the influence of the following r has caused the vowel to sound like the lax \u201coo\u201d of \u201cbook\u201d for some speakers. Other speakers have merged the \u201ccure\u201d vowel into either the \u201cnurse\u201d vowel or the \u201cnorth\u201d\/\u201cforce\u201d vowel.) French doesn\u2019t actually have exactly the same vowel here as in English \u201cpurr\u201d. It\u2019s close or approximately equivalent, but neither English pronunciation is actually \u201ccorrect\u201d if your standard is native French speakers\u2019 pronunciation. If that isn\u2019t your standard, I think it\u2019s somewhat arbitrary to prefer one anglicized pronunciation over another."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nDear President-elect, the Czech Republic as well as I personally look forward to working with you and your administration and to continue developing the close relations which our countries enjoy. Source: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PREZIDENTmluvci Don't you think that the verb \"to continue\" is used wrongly? Should it not be the correct form \"continuing\"?","question":"Dear President-elect, the Czech Republic as well as I personally look forward to working with you and your administration and to continue developing the close relations which our countries enjoy. Source: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PREZIDENTmluvci Don't you think that the verb \"to continue\" is used wrongly? Should it not be the correct form \"continuing\"?","answer":"You are correct, but you also need to recast develop to avoid the horror aequi of continuing developing: look forward to working with you and your administration and to continuing to develop the close relations which our countries enjoy But it's still trying to cram too much into one clause.","output":"You are correct, but you also need to recast develop to avoid the horror aequi of continuing developing: look forward to working with you and your administration and to continuing to develop the close relations which our countries enjoy But it's still trying to cram too much into one clause."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"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\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it correct to say \"I realized that you are truly lost.\" instead of \"I realized that you were truly lost\"? Because realized is past tense, I'm not sure whether using \"you are\" instead of \"you were\" is appropriate. If I use \"you are\", someone can ask me, \"how do you know that they are still lost\". Right? What I actually intend to mean is that \"You are lost if you don't change.\"","question":"Is it correct to say \"I realized that you are truly lost.\" instead of \"I realized that you were truly lost\"? Because realized is past tense, I'm not sure whether using \"you are\" instead of \"you were\" is appropriate. If I use \"you are\", someone can ask me, \"how do you know that they are still lost\". Right? What I actually intend to mean is that \"You are lost if you don't change.\"","answer":"Normally in English, the tense of an embedded clause takes that of the matrix clause: I realized that you were truly lost. This says nothing about whether you were lost earlier, or later, only that you were at the time I realised it. If is often possible to use a different tense in the embedded clause, but this will have a specific meaning. So I realized that you are truly lost. is grammatical, but is unusual, as it is emphasising that your being lostness continues to now (and probably implies that it is for all time).","output":"Normally in English, the tense of an embedded clause takes that of the matrix clause: I realized that you were truly lost. This says nothing about whether you were lost earlier, or later, only that you were at the time I realised it. If is often possible to use a different tense in the embedded clause, but this will have a specific meaning. So I realized that you are truly lost. is grammatical, but is unusual, as it is emphasising that your being lostness continues to now (and probably implies that it is for all time)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI saw instances of \"people go bald\" on the web. I guess it should be the equivalent of \"people become bald\". Can I always use \"go\" instead of \"become\"? Like: Go broken Go sad","question":"I saw instances of \"people go bald\" on the web. I guess it should be the equivalent of \"people become bald\". Can I always use \"go\" instead of \"become\"? Like: Go broken Go sad","answer":"Alas, no, go is not a universal substitute for become. Go is idiomatic with certain words: Go broke Go for broke Go crazy Go silent Go naked But with broken or sad, not so much.","output":"Alas, no, go is not a universal substitute for become. Go is idiomatic with certain words: Go broke Go for broke Go crazy Go silent Go naked But with broken or sad, not so much."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nToday, I was reading an article on pharmaceutical companies making minute changes to a drug in order to extend the patent. In one instance, the company profiled did not actually change the content of the drug, just the outward appearance. This got me thinking, is there a word in the English language that means \u201cto change without changing\u201d or \u201ca change so small that it\u2019s not a change at all\u201d? I thought about the word superficial, but that doesn\u2019t seem to fit.","question":"Today, I was reading an article on pharmaceutical companies making minute changes to a drug in order to extend the patent. In one instance, the company profiled did not actually change the content of the drug, just the outward appearance. This got me thinking, is there a word in the English language that means \u201cto change without changing\u201d or \u201ca change so small that it\u2019s not a change at all\u201d? I thought about the word superficial, but that doesn\u2019t seem to fit.","answer":"A phrase I might use is a negligible change, which is often used in the Sciences to mean a change small enough to be ignored. However, in the context of Science, a negligible change can be noticeable - it's just so small that it won't affect the system or experiment. Therefore, this might not be the word you're looking for.","output":"A phrase I might use is a negligible change, which is often used in the Sciences to mean a change small enough to be ignored. However, in the context of Science, a negligible change can be noticeable - it's just so small that it won't affect the system or experiment. Therefore, this might not be the word you're looking for."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have 1210.802 units in a mutual fund. How do I write it in words? \"One thousand two hundred and ten...\" How do I write the decimal units here?","question":"I have 1210.802 units in a mutual fund. How do I write it in words? \"One thousand two hundred and ten...\" How do I write the decimal units here?","answer":"And the numbers afterwards are individual: One thousand two hundred and ten point eight oh two. But, as per @Barrie, why? I can think of no case where this would be necessary or appropriate.","output":"And the numbers afterwards are individual: One thousand two hundred and ten point eight oh two. But, as per @Barrie, why? I can think of no case where this would be necessary or appropriate."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"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\nLet\u2019s start with an example. Does the title of the chapter \u201eThe Vanishing Glass\u201d of \u201eHarry Potter and the Philosopher\u2019s Stone\u201d mean that a vanishing glass will appear in the chapter and the title is about that vanishing glass? As we know from the book it is the case, but is it a rule? What would \u201eA Vanishing Glass\u201d or \u201eVanishing Glass\u201d in the title of a chapter of a book mean? What could we predict by that? The same case with titles of books. Does \u201ethe Chamber of Secrets\u201d in the title of the second part of the series mean that the book is about that one chamber from the title? Again, what would \u201eChamber of Secrets\u201d or \u201eA Chamber of Secrets\u201d mean? Finally, what did J. R. R. Tolkien want to tell by putting \u201ethe\u201d in \u201ethe Lord of the Rings\u201d? Did he mean a specific person?","question":"Let\u2019s start with an example. Does the title of the chapter \u201eThe Vanishing Glass\u201d of \u201eHarry Potter and the Philosopher\u2019s Stone\u201d mean that a vanishing glass will appear in the chapter and the title is about that vanishing glass? As we know from the book it is the case, but is it a rule? What would \u201eA Vanishing Glass\u201d or \u201eVanishing Glass\u201d in the title of a chapter of a book mean? What could we predict by that? The same case with titles of books. Does \u201ethe Chamber of Secrets\u201d in the title of the second part of the series mean that the book is about that one chamber from the title? Again, what would \u201eChamber of Secrets\u201d or \u201eA Chamber of Secrets\u201d mean? Finally, what did J. R. R. Tolkien want to tell by putting \u201ethe\u201d in \u201ethe Lord of the Rings\u201d? Did he mean a specific person?","answer":"In the sense you are talking about here, articles in chapter titles mean exactly the same thing as articles anywhere else. \"A\" means a non-specific instance of a thing, while \"the\" means a specific instance. I haven't read the Harry Potter books, but if one is title \"The Chamber of Secrets\", I would take that to mean that there is one particular chamber that this book is talking about. If there were many such chambers and this book was only about one of them, then the title would have been, \"A Chamber of Secrets\". Bear in mind that \"the\" can be used when there are many instances of a thing in the world, but we are talking about one particular example that we have identified. We often see a shift from \"a\" to \"the\" in a single paragraph or even a single sentence because of this. Like, \"I saw a car in the street. The car was parked by the mailbox.\" In the first sentence, we use \"a\" because it is one of many cars that exist in the world and we have not yet narrowed the range of our discussion. But once I refer to that car in the first sentence, now there is one particular car under discussion, so the second sentence uses \"the\". One way that titles are different from ordinary writing is that they often leave out words. A newspaper headline might well say something like, \"Car Accident on Third\" rather than a complete sentence like \"There was a car accident on Third Street.\" So \"Chamber of Secrets\" would be an equally likely and valid title as \"The Chamber of Secrets\". Likewise, because it is abbreviated like this, a title might use \"the\" when the context has not been established, and we would use \"a\" in a complete sentence. Like you might see a title like, \"The Man in the Black Hat\". While presumably there are many men with black hats in the world so we wouldn't begin a conversation by referring to \"the\" such man. But for a title, we're leaving things out. In this case, the context of which man we're talking about. So if a title uses \"the\", that might be intended to indicate that there is only one instance of whatever in the world, or it might mean that when you read the book (or see the movie or whatever), which one it's talking about will become clear.","output":"In the sense you are talking about here, articles in chapter titles mean exactly the same thing as articles anywhere else. \"A\" means a non-specific instance of a thing, while \"the\" means a specific instance. I haven't read the Harry Potter books, but if one is title \"The Chamber of Secrets\", I would take that to mean that there is one particular chamber that this book is talking about. If there were many such chambers and this book was only about one of them, then the title would have been, \"A Chamber of Secrets\". Bear in mind that \"the\" can be used when there are many instances of a thing in the world, but we are talking about one particular example that we have identified. We often see a shift from \"a\" to \"the\" in a single paragraph or even a single sentence because of this. Like, \"I saw a car in the street. The car was parked by the mailbox.\" In the first sentence, we use \"a\" because it is one of many cars that exist in the world and we have not yet narrowed the range of our discussion. But once I refer to that car in the first sentence, now there is one particular car under discussion, so the second sentence uses \"the\". One way that titles are different from ordinary writing is that they often leave out words. A newspaper headline might well say something like, \"Car Accident on Third\" rather than a complete sentence like \"There was a car accident on Third Street.\" So \"Chamber of Secrets\" would be an equally likely and valid title as \"The Chamber of Secrets\". Likewise, because it is abbreviated like this, a title might use \"the\" when the context has not been established, and we would use \"a\" in a complete sentence. Like you might see a title like, \"The Man in the Black Hat\". While presumably there are many men with black hats in the world so we wouldn't begin a conversation by referring to \"the\" such man. But for a title, we're leaving things out. In this case, the context of which man we're talking about. So if a title uses \"the\", that might be intended to indicate that there is only one instance of whatever in the world, or it might mean that when you read the book (or see the movie or whatever), which one it's talking about will become clear."}
{"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\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":"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\nBlame is a verb which is applied to a person without that person's choice, so can they use a verb like 'abstain' in terms of blame if abstain implies they are choosing a relationship to that blame? I don't believe you can 'abstain from blame' - if so, is blame a verb that can cancel out other verbs? If a person chooses not to accept blame, is that the same as abstaining from it?","question":"Blame is a verb which is applied to a person without that person's choice, so can they use a verb like 'abstain' in terms of blame if abstain implies they are choosing a relationship to that blame? I don't believe you can 'abstain from blame' - if so, is blame a verb that can cancel out other verbs? If a person chooses not to accept blame, is that the same as abstaining from it?","answer":"You can abstain from blaming someone, but you can't abstain from blame if someone else blames you. This is because you can only abstain from things that you might do or enjoy, From NOAD: abstain |ab\u02c8st\u0101n| verb [ intrans. ] 1 restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something : abstaining from chocolate. What you can do is reject such blame, or fail to accept or acknowledge it.","output":"You can abstain from blaming someone, but you can't abstain from blame if someone else blames you. This is because you can only abstain from things that you might do or enjoy, From NOAD: abstain |ab\u02c8st\u0101n| verb [ intrans. ] 1 restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something : abstaining from chocolate. What you can do is reject such blame, or fail to accept or acknowledge it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nRussian polyglot Dmitry Petrov said in this video: ...\u0438\u0441\u043f\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u044f\u0437\u044b\u043a \u043d\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0443\u043f\u0430\u0435\u0442 \u0430\u043d\u0433\u043b\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u044f\u0437\u044b\u043a\u0443 \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u044f\u0442\u043a\u0438. \u041c\u044b \u0437\u043d\u0430\u0435\u043c, \u0447\u0442\u043e \u0432 \u0421\u0428\u0410 \u0435\u0441\u0442\u044c \u043d\u0435\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043a\u043e \u0448\u0442\u0430\u0442\u043e\u0432, \u0433\u0434\u0435 \u043c\u043e\u0436\u043d\u043e \u0441\u0432\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0434\u043d\u043e \u0436\u0438\u0442\u044c, \u0437\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0438\u0441\u043f\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439. Translation for this quote (thanks for @Enguroo for the correct translation): Spanish is \"snapping at the heels of English\". We know that in America there are a few states where one can live easily without speaking any English. Which (USA) states is Petrov referring to?","question":"Russian polyglot Dmitry Petrov said in this video: ...\u0438\u0441\u043f\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u044f\u0437\u044b\u043a \u043d\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0443\u043f\u0430\u0435\u0442 \u0430\u043d\u0433\u043b\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u044f\u0437\u044b\u043a\u0443 \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u044f\u0442\u043a\u0438. \u041c\u044b \u0437\u043d\u0430\u0435\u043c, \u0447\u0442\u043e \u0432 \u0421\u0428\u0410 \u0435\u0441\u0442\u044c \u043d\u0435\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043a\u043e \u0448\u0442\u0430\u0442\u043e\u0432, \u0433\u0434\u0435 \u043c\u043e\u0436\u043d\u043e \u0441\u0432\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0434\u043d\u043e \u0436\u0438\u0442\u044c, \u0437\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0438\u0441\u043f\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439. Translation for this quote (thanks for @Enguroo for the correct translation): Spanish is \"snapping at the heels of English\". We know that in America there are a few states where one can live easily without speaking any English. Which (USA) states is Petrov referring to?","answer":"Hardly a neutral phrase, Petrov\u2019s \u201csnapping at the heels of English\u201d ignores three important factors: (1) the history of the states bordering Mexico, which once were part of that country and thus had Spanish-speaking residents before they became US states, (2) English as language of instruction in public schools, and (3) that growth in the Hispanic demographic, which until the Great Recession was fastest across the nation, does not necessarily correlate with native language, now or in the future. For instance, incumbent Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, by his own admission, speaks rather poor Spanish (his father is Cuban), while his challenger, Rep. Beto O'Rourke, who grew up in El Paso, is bilingual, though his Mexican Spanish has a moderate American accent. Cruz has a Texas accent, while O'Rourke does not. These social realities aren't easily crammed into statistics, but do suggest that the cultural and linguistic character of the states bordering Mexico are more nuanced than one might think. Even so, with 41 million native speakers of Spanish and a further 11 million bilinguals in the US, the only country in the world with more is Mexico. The statistics for the Hispanic demographic in the states bordering Mexico are as follows: In both California and Texas 39% of the population is Hispanic, about a quarter of whom speak only English at home. In Arizona, 31% are Hispanic, of which 34% are English only. The population of New Mexico is 48% Hispanic, with 39% English only. This comes out all told to around 29 million people, minus the English-only Hispanics still a healthy majority of Spanish speakers in the US. The lower percentage of English only in California and Texas testifies to both more recent immigration and heavy concentrations of Spanish speakers in particular areas, in Texas basically anywhere south of the Nueces River and in Far West Texas. South Florida is another example: although only 24% Hispanic in the whole state, 83% speak Spanish at home, likely a result of their concentration in only a few Florida counties. The large number of Puerto Ricans moving to Florida after the hurricane will likely change these statistics if they choose to remain. What this vast number of Hispanophones in the US does not have, however, is a K-12 mono- or bilingual educational system, like, say, Francophone Canadians in Quebec. This alone prevents any serious heel-snapping: adults can get by in their daily lives, even vote, without ever uttering a word of English, but their children will be at least bilingual, and, unfortunately, uneducated in their first language. This may be changing. In 2016 California voters approved Proposition 58, which removed previous restrictions on bilingual education, but it is still too early to tell what such a program would look like beyond assurances that families could choose either a traditional monolingual English program or a bilingual one. So where would be the best place to live if you speak only Spanish? It depends on what lifestyle you prefer, neighborhoods in Los Angeles or San Diego, Spanish Harlem, or something more relaxed but still urban, in which case Beto's hometown has much to offer: El Paso. It's 80.7% Hispanic and has far more amenities than, say, Laredo (95.6% Hispanic). But if your thing is fantastic avocados, canteloupe, and 10 lb. sacks of oranges for cheap, head for the Rio Grande Valley.","output":"Hardly a neutral phrase, Petrov\u2019s \u201csnapping at the heels of English\u201d ignores three important factors: (1) the history of the states bordering Mexico, which once were part of that country and thus had Spanish-speaking residents before they became US states, (2) English as language of instruction in public schools, and (3) that growth in the Hispanic demographic, which until the Great Recession was fastest across the nation, does not necessarily correlate with native language, now or in the future. For instance, incumbent Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, by his own admission, speaks rather poor Spanish (his father is Cuban), while his challenger, Rep. Beto O'Rourke, who grew up in El Paso, is bilingual, though his Mexican Spanish has a moderate American accent. Cruz has a Texas accent, while O'Rourke does not. These social realities aren't easily crammed into statistics, but do suggest that the cultural and linguistic character of the states bordering Mexico are more nuanced than one might think. Even so, with 41 million native speakers of Spanish and a further 11 million bilinguals in the US, the only country in the world with more is Mexico. The statistics for the Hispanic demographic in the states bordering Mexico are as follows: In both California and Texas 39% of the population is Hispanic, about a quarter of whom speak only English at home. In Arizona, 31% are Hispanic, of which 34% are English only. The population of New Mexico is 48% Hispanic, with 39% English only. This comes out all told to around 29 million people, minus the English-only Hispanics still a healthy majority of Spanish speakers in the US. The lower percentage of English only in California and Texas testifies to both more recent immigration and heavy concentrations of Spanish speakers in particular areas, in Texas basically anywhere south of the Nueces River and in Far West Texas. South Florida is another example: although only 24% Hispanic in the whole state, 83% speak Spanish at home, likely a result of their concentration in only a few Florida counties. The large number of Puerto Ricans moving to Florida after the hurricane will likely change these statistics if they choose to remain. What this vast number of Hispanophones in the US does not have, however, is a K-12 mono- or bilingual educational system, like, say, Francophone Canadians in Quebec. This alone prevents any serious heel-snapping: adults can get by in their daily lives, even vote, without ever uttering a word of English, but their children will be at least bilingual, and, unfortunately, uneducated in their first language. This may be changing. In 2016 California voters approved Proposition 58, which removed previous restrictions on bilingual education, but it is still too early to tell what such a program would look like beyond assurances that families could choose either a traditional monolingual English program or a bilingual one. So where would be the best place to live if you speak only Spanish? It depends on what lifestyle you prefer, neighborhoods in Los Angeles or San Diego, Spanish Harlem, or something more relaxed but still urban, in which case Beto's hometown has much to offer: El Paso. It's 80.7% Hispanic and has far more amenities than, say, Laredo (95.6% Hispanic). But if your thing is fantastic avocados, canteloupe, and 10 lb. sacks of oranges for cheap, head for the Rio Grande Valley."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"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\nDo you know what he is pretending that the broom is? The that-clause within the what-clause is confusing me. Is this a grammatical sentence?","question":"Do you know what he is pretending that the broom is? The that-clause within the what-clause is confusing me. Is this a grammatical sentence?","answer":"It is indeed a grammatical sentence. It is confusing because it includes three separate clauses, with the second \u2018embedded\u2019 in the first and the third embedded in the second: 1 MAIN CLAUSE: Do you know X? \u21d3 2 EMBEDDED: He is pretending Y. \u21d3 3 EMBEDDED: The broom is X. Two syntactical devices are employed to put these three clauses into the proper relationship in a single sentence. We work from the \u2018bottom\u2019 up, because each lower clause has to be restructured to fit into the next higher clause. Clause 3 is recast employing the complementizer\u2020 that. This transforms the clause into a form which allows it to act as the complement of the verb PRETEND, replacing Y in Clause 2. He is pretending that the broom is X. This expanded Clause 2 is recast employing the construction called a free relative clause\u2021. This construction replaces a clause constituent with an interrogative expression such as what, who, where, how, when and moves the interrogative to the \u2018head\u2019 of the clause. This permits the new construction to act as an NP (\u2018noun phrase\u2019) constituent in a higher-order clause. In this particular case, the constituent you are interested in is X, which you know to be a \u2018thing\u2019, so you replace it with what. Below I use an underscore, _, to indicate where the replaced constituent was originally. what he is pretending that the broom is _. Now you replace the X in Clause 1 with the transformed Clause 2, and you have your original sentence: Do you know what he is pretending that the broom is? \u2020 In traditional grammar this is called a subordinating conjunction, and Clause 3 is said to be cast as a subordinate clause. \u2021 Free relative clauses are discussed at many places on ELL; click free-relative-clauses for a list of related questions.","output":"It is indeed a grammatical sentence. It is confusing because it includes three separate clauses, with the second \u2018embedded\u2019 in the first and the third embedded in the second: 1 MAIN CLAUSE: Do you know X? \u21d3 2 EMBEDDED: He is pretending Y. \u21d3 3 EMBEDDED: The broom is X. Two syntactical devices are employed to put these three clauses into the proper relationship in a single sentence. We work from the \u2018bottom\u2019 up, because each lower clause has to be restructured to fit into the next higher clause. Clause 3 is recast employing the complementizer\u2020 that. This transforms the clause into a form which allows it to act as the complement of the verb PRETEND, replacing Y in Clause 2. He is pretending that the broom is X. This expanded Clause 2 is recast employing the construction called a free relative clause\u2021. This construction replaces a clause constituent with an interrogative expression such as what, who, where, how, when and moves the interrogative to the \u2018head\u2019 of the clause. This permits the new construction to act as an NP (\u2018noun phrase\u2019) constituent in a higher-order clause. In this particular case, the constituent you are interested in is X, which you know to be a \u2018thing\u2019, so you replace it with what. Below I use an underscore, _, to indicate where the replaced constituent was originally. what he is pretending that the broom is _. Now you replace the X in Clause 1 with the transformed Clause 2, and you have your original sentence: Do you know what he is pretending that the broom is? \u2020 In traditional grammar this is called a subordinating conjunction, and Clause 3 is said to be cast as a subordinate clause. \u2021 Free relative clauses are discussed at many places on ELL; click free-relative-clauses for a list of related questions."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI need to title an application button that moves an image 90 degrees clockwise\/anticlockwise. Which of the following fits better? Spin image Rotate image","question":"I need to title an application button that moves an image 90 degrees clockwise\/anticlockwise. Which of the following fits better? Spin image Rotate image","answer":"\"Rotate\". That is the correct and standard word. Rotate can be used for a turn that is less than, equal to or more than 360\u00b0. Spin usually implies more than one full turn around -- even many turns at high speed.","output":"\"Rotate\". That is the correct and standard word. Rotate can be used for a turn that is less than, equal to or more than 360\u00b0. Spin usually implies more than one full turn around -- even many turns at high speed."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nFor example, I have two sentences: Have you been waiting long? or Have you been waiting for long? I read both sentences in my grammar book. But I am unable to get which is correct in which situation? Can anyone have any clarification? Thanks! :)","question":"For example, I have two sentences: Have you been waiting long? or Have you been waiting for long? I read both sentences in my grammar book. But I am unable to get which is correct in which situation? Can anyone have any clarification? Thanks! :)","answer":"I think that both examples are grammatical. If the preposition doesn't add to\/change the meaning (i.e. it's not part of a phrasal verb), it usually can be omitted. You don't need a preposition with the adverb long. Including for adds nothing, so this is a style choice. There's no difference in meaning in your examples (or mine). I say this because you can easily rephrase that into another question as a test: [For] How long have you been waiting? versus How long have you been waiting [for]? You only need for if it were followed by a pronoun\/noun like me\/us\/John. Have you been waiting long for John? Have you been waiting for long for John? For how long have you been waiting for John?","output":"I think that both examples are grammatical. If the preposition doesn't add to\/change the meaning (i.e. it's not part of a phrasal verb), it usually can be omitted. You don't need a preposition with the adverb long. Including for adds nothing, so this is a style choice. There's no difference in meaning in your examples (or mine). I say this because you can easily rephrase that into another question as a test: [For] How long have you been waiting? versus How long have you been waiting [for]? You only need for if it were followed by a pronoun\/noun like me\/us\/John. Have you been waiting long for John? Have you been waiting for long for John? For how long have you been waiting for John?"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've seen references to the American Midwest as being the home of the least accented form of American English. I always think of the Northern Midwest as having an accent that I associate with Canadians and that the West Coast (California, Oregon, Washington) is the closest to \"Standard American English.\" What are the features of the \"West Coast\" accent (if any)?","question":"I've seen references to the American Midwest as being the home of the least accented form of American English. I always think of the Northern Midwest as having an accent that I associate with Canadians and that the West Coast (California, Oregon, Washington) is the closest to \"Standard American English.\" What are the features of the \"West Coast\" accent (if any)?","answer":"The Atlas of North American English has a rather broad definition of the West. Its primary characteristics are: The merger of words sounding like cot and caught (they're pronounced the same) The fronting of \/uw\/, as in boot but not \/ow\/, as in boat No monophthongization of \/ay\/, as in ride So, these features more or less distinguish the West from its neighboring dialects, but don't do much to specifically define the West. There are also some finer grained distinctions within the West that would make a broad and complete definition impossible. For example Apparently fill and feel are pronounced the same in Salt Lake City, per this stupid criminal story. There is a distinct vowel shift occurring in Northern California (academic description) some features were stereotyped in the Shoes video.","output":"The Atlas of North American English has a rather broad definition of the West. Its primary characteristics are: The merger of words sounding like cot and caught (they're pronounced the same) The fronting of \/uw\/, as in boot but not \/ow\/, as in boat No monophthongization of \/ay\/, as in ride So, these features more or less distinguish the West from its neighboring dialects, but don't do much to specifically define the West. There are also some finer grained distinctions within the West that would make a broad and complete definition impossible. For example Apparently fill and feel are pronounced the same in Salt Lake City, per this stupid criminal story. There is a distinct vowel shift occurring in Northern California (academic description) some features were stereotyped in the Shoes video."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe phrase \"Most of it's in English\" is grammatically correct (it's short for \"Most of it is in English\"), but it doesn't feel right. Is there a reason it doesn't feel right? Edit: The thing I'm concerned about is \"it's\" versus \"it is\".","question":"The phrase \"Most of it's in English\" is grammatically correct (it's short for \"Most of it is in English\"), but it doesn't feel right. Is there a reason it doesn't feel right? Edit: The thing I'm concerned about is \"it's\" versus \"it is\".","answer":"Sure it's right, and it's usual enough. It means, of course, that some communication is in a mix of languages, but that the majority thereof is being communicated in the English language.","output":"Sure it's right, and it's usual enough. It means, of course, that some communication is in a mix of languages, but that the majority thereof is being communicated in the English language."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've just heard Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn, at 10:13 here (about a quarter of the way through Prime Minister's Questions, UK Parliament, Thurs 27 Oct) saying... Amnesty International SAYS, and I quote, [blah blah, wot they sed] Apologies to anyone who can't access the video (it's a BBC link, which I suppose gets tricky if you're not a license payer), but obviously the point is he clearly says SAYS (\/se\u026az\/), not SEZ (\/s\u025bz\/). As it happens, while saying those words Corbyn is constantly looking down on what are presumably pre-written notes\/quotes, so I'm inclined to suppose it's actually just a one-off enunciation error (because sometimes reading and talking is like walking and chewing gum! :) But seriously, does anyone talk like that today if they're not distracted by orthography? I don't want to get bogged down in how non-native speakers affect things. I'm only really asking if there might perhaps be a surviving \"dialectal pocket\" of some kind (assuming the orthography represents an original pronunciation). Or could it be an \"emergent usage\", reflecting the general tendency to \"regularise\" irregular verbs?","question":"I've just heard Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn, at 10:13 here (about a quarter of the way through Prime Minister's Questions, UK Parliament, Thurs 27 Oct) saying... Amnesty International SAYS, and I quote, [blah blah, wot they sed] Apologies to anyone who can't access the video (it's a BBC link, which I suppose gets tricky if you're not a license payer), but obviously the point is he clearly says SAYS (\/se\u026az\/), not SEZ (\/s\u025bz\/). As it happens, while saying those words Corbyn is constantly looking down on what are presumably pre-written notes\/quotes, so I'm inclined to suppose it's actually just a one-off enunciation error (because sometimes reading and talking is like walking and chewing gum! :) But seriously, does anyone talk like that today if they're not distracted by orthography? I don't want to get bogged down in how non-native speakers affect things. I'm only really asking if there might perhaps be a surviving \"dialectal pocket\" of some kind (assuming the orthography represents an original pronunciation). Or could it be an \"emergent usage\", reflecting the general tendency to \"regularise\" irregular verbs?","answer":"It seems that Jeremy Corbyn regularly pronounces \u201csays\u201d as \/se\u026az\/, as witnessed by this other video (he repeats the word a number of times, e.g., at 1\u203231\u2033 in the video clip, where it is unclear whether he is reading his notes at this point); as a matter of fact, I stumbled on this question because I thought it was unusual so I googled \u201csays se\u026az s\u025bz\u201d, which led me here. Note that Corbyn pronounces \u201csaid\u201d as \/s\u025bd\/ just a few seconds earlier, so I think we can rule out confusion due to the written form of the word. This doesn't seem to have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but the entry for \u201csay\u201d in the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary by J. C. Wells gives the result of a poll they conducted in 1998 among British English speakers concerning various words, with the result that \u201csays\u201d is pronounced \/s\u025bz\/ by 84% of respondents and \/se\u026az\/ by 16% [the dictionary uses the transcription \/e\/ for the DRESS vowel, so they write \u201csez\u201d, but I'm normalizing for consistency's sake]. They mark the pronunciation \/se\u026az\/ with a \u2018\u00a7\u2019 symbol, meaning \u201cBrE non-RP\u201d.","output":"It seems that Jeremy Corbyn regularly pronounces \u201csays\u201d as \/se\u026az\/, as witnessed by this other video (he repeats the word a number of times, e.g., at 1\u203231\u2033 in the video clip, where it is unclear whether he is reading his notes at this point); as a matter of fact, I stumbled on this question because I thought it was unusual so I googled \u201csays se\u026az s\u025bz\u201d, which led me here. Note that Corbyn pronounces \u201csaid\u201d as \/s\u025bd\/ just a few seconds earlier, so I think we can rule out confusion due to the written form of the word. This doesn't seem to have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but the entry for \u201csay\u201d in the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary by J. C. Wells gives the result of a poll they conducted in 1998 among British English speakers concerning various words, with the result that \u201csays\u201d is pronounced \/s\u025bz\/ by 84% of respondents and \/se\u026az\/ by 16% [the dictionary uses the transcription \/e\/ for the DRESS vowel, so they write \u201csez\u201d, but I'm normalizing for consistency's sake]. They mark the pronunciation \/se\u026az\/ with a \u2018\u00a7\u2019 symbol, meaning \u201cBrE non-RP\u201d."}
{"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\nWhat are the differences between \"boxer\", \"trunk\", and \"brief\"? Here is the sentence: I'm not a fan of long boxers, I prefer trunks or briefs.","question":"What are the differences between \"boxer\", \"trunk\", and \"brief\"? Here is the sentence: I'm not a fan of long boxers, I prefer trunks or briefs.","answer":"These are various types of men's underwear. The differences are to do with the length of the legs and the looseness of the fit. Boxer shorts are looser fitting and have longer legs. (Like the shorts that boxers wore) Trunks are tighter and have shorter legs. Briefs are tight fitting and have no legs, just leg holes.","output":"These are various types of men's underwear. The differences are to do with the length of the legs and the looseness of the fit. Boxer shorts are looser fitting and have longer legs. (Like the shorts that boxers wore) Trunks are tighter and have shorter legs. Briefs are tight fitting and have no legs, just leg holes."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have formulated several sentences in daily usage as below (describing time), but I am not sure which is or are correct. A: Can I take this coach (at or on) any time of tomorrow? B: Can I take it anytime tomorrow? C: We will arrive at the pier tomorrow afternoon. D: We will arrive at the pier on the afternoon of tomorrow.","question":"I have formulated several sentences in daily usage as below (describing time), but I am not sure which is or are correct. A: Can I take this coach (at or on) any time of tomorrow? B: Can I take it anytime tomorrow? C: We will arrive at the pier tomorrow afternoon. D: We will arrive at the pier on the afternoon of tomorrow.","answer":"For A: Use at any time (not on any time), and don't use of before tomorrow: Can I take this coach at any time tomorrow? For B: The sentence is fine: Can I take this coach anytime tomorrow? For C: The sentence sounds like fluent, idiomatic English. For D: Again, don't use of before tomorrow; also, it's generally in the afternoon, not on the afternoon: We will arrive at the pier in the afternoon tomorrow. Although we could also word that as: We will arrive at the pier tomorrow afternoon. and we'd use the preposition on if we were using the name of a specific day: We will arrive at the pier on Tuesday afternoon. We will arrive at the pier in the afternoon on Tuesday. (As a footnote, I wouldn't argue that \"on the afternoon of tomorrow\" is ungrammatical, it's just clunky and I'd recommend avoiding it.)","output":"For A: Use at any time (not on any time), and don't use of before tomorrow: Can I take this coach at any time tomorrow? For B: The sentence is fine: Can I take this coach anytime tomorrow? For C: The sentence sounds like fluent, idiomatic English. For D: Again, don't use of before tomorrow; also, it's generally in the afternoon, not on the afternoon: We will arrive at the pier in the afternoon tomorrow. Although we could also word that as: We will arrive at the pier tomorrow afternoon. and we'd use the preposition on if we were using the name of a specific day: We will arrive at the pier on Tuesday afternoon. We will arrive at the pier in the afternoon on Tuesday. (As a footnote, I wouldn't argue that \"on the afternoon of tomorrow\" is ungrammatical, it's just clunky and I'd recommend avoiding it.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nRecently, my children have been saying, \"Can I go with?\". It is honestly driving me crazy. I believe that the question should be posed as, \"May I go with you?\". So which sentence is correct?","question":"Recently, my children have been saying, \"Can I go with?\". It is honestly driving me crazy. I believe that the question should be posed as, \"May I go with you?\". So which sentence is correct?","answer":"If your children are younger than 5, it may just be a learning error. But 'to go with', having no object for 'with', is a phrasal verb that is special to the Midwest. It is not used in formal speech or writing, but is common in informal speech. If it's what the other kids say then that's how they talk. There's nothing to correct, it's the local dialect so to speak. When I first heard it, it was very jarring. I've gotten used to it but can't bring myself to say it fluently.","output":"If your children are younger than 5, it may just be a learning error. But 'to go with', having no object for 'with', is a phrasal verb that is special to the Midwest. It is not used in formal speech or writing, but is common in informal speech. If it's what the other kids say then that's how they talk. There's nothing to correct, it's the local dialect so to speak. When I first heard it, it was very jarring. I've gotten used to it but can't bring myself to say it fluently."}
{"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\nIsn't the following sentence grammatically correct? The group of fifty people are going to arrive Thursday. What's wrong with it? Someone said it should be The group of fifty people is going to arrive Thursday. Why? People is plural so why is people is better than people are?","question":"Isn't the following sentence grammatically correct? The group of fifty people are going to arrive Thursday. What's wrong with it? Someone said it should be The group of fifty people is going to arrive Thursday. Why? People is plural so why is people is better than people are?","answer":"Strictly speaking, the subject of the verb here is the singular noun group; of fifty people is just a prepositional phrase modifying the noun. It is parsed as if it were written thus: The group (of fifty people) is going to arrive Tuesday. It's not that simple, however. For one thing, group is a collective noun, which may be construed as either a singular or a plural, depending on your emphasis. This group is larger than that group. Here you are contrasting two groups as undivided wholes. This group are all children. Here you are characterizing the members of the group. So which verb you use really depends on what you mean; and that's something that can\u2019t be judged from this little fragment of discourse. Including the phrase of fifty people might mean you are trying to emphasize the count: There are fifty people, in a group, who are going to arrive on Tuesday. On the other hand, the phrase may be parenthetical, just thrown in for additional information: The group, which has fifty people, is going to arrive Tuesday. Or the phrase may be restrictive: The group of forty people is going to arrive Sunday; the group of fifty people is going to arrive Tuesday. Say what you mean, and in this case at least you\u2019ll be OK. As the great linguist H.Dumpty said, \u201cTake care of the sense and the sounds will take care of themselves.\u201d [NOTE: Speakers of British English are more likely to use the plural than speakers of American English. But both populations will understand you perfectly well, and hardly anybody will even notice which verb you use. Or care.]","output":"Strictly speaking, the subject of the verb here is the singular noun group; of fifty people is just a prepositional phrase modifying the noun. It is parsed as if it were written thus: The group (of fifty people) is going to arrive Tuesday. It's not that simple, however. For one thing, group is a collective noun, which may be construed as either a singular or a plural, depending on your emphasis. This group is larger than that group. Here you are contrasting two groups as undivided wholes. This group are all children. Here you are characterizing the members of the group. So which verb you use really depends on what you mean; and that's something that can\u2019t be judged from this little fragment of discourse. Including the phrase of fifty people might mean you are trying to emphasize the count: There are fifty people, in a group, who are going to arrive on Tuesday. On the other hand, the phrase may be parenthetical, just thrown in for additional information: The group, which has fifty people, is going to arrive Tuesday. Or the phrase may be restrictive: The group of forty people is going to arrive Sunday; the group of fifty people is going to arrive Tuesday. Say what you mean, and in this case at least you\u2019ll be OK. As the great linguist H.Dumpty said, \u201cTake care of the sense and the sounds will take care of themselves.\u201d [NOTE: Speakers of British English are more likely to use the plural than speakers of American English. But both populations will understand you perfectly well, and hardly anybody will even notice which verb you use. Or care.]"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've seen that's, who's, how's, etc., but I don't recall ever seeing this's and which's. Are they used very often or at all? If so, how do you pronounce them? Any differently from this is and which is?","question":"I've seen that's, who's, how's, etc., but I don't recall ever seeing this's and which's. Are they used very often or at all? If so, how do you pronounce them? Any differently from this is and which is?","answer":"You are certainly right that contractions of this is to this's and which is to which's are far less common than contractions of who is to who's and how is to how's. The most likely explanation is also the most obvious one: Writers often use contractions to represent or replicate spoken the sound of spoken contractions\u2014and the contraction of the two-syllable who is or how is to the one-syllable who's or how's is obvious to both the writer's ear and the reader's ear. No such obviousness exists in connection with the contraction of the two-syllable this is or which is to the two-syllable this's or which's: the two forms sound extremely similar and undoubtedly grade into one another across a continuum from distinctness to strong slurring. The question then becomes, why would you want to represent the idea of this is with this's or the idea of which is with which's? Lacking a strong argument that this's and which's are truer to the sound of the expression than this is and which is, one is left with a visual argument: this's looks as though it might be a good match for the kind of character who also says 'smatter instead of what's the matter, and lemme instead of let me, and th' instead of the (for example). But to judge from Google Books search results, relatively few writers find the argument for this's and which's compelling. Interestingly, a note to a 1903 edition of Shakespeare's The Tempest uses the form this 's in act IV, scene 1, where Ferdinand says, This 's strange : your father 's in some passion\/ That workes him strongly. A note to the text offers the following gloss: THIS'S, etc.: the FO[LIO] reads \"this is\"; but \"this is\" was contracted into \"this 's\" in M.E. poetry (see Chaucer's Prologue, Knightes Tale, and Nonnes Preestes Tale, ed. Liddell, Introduction, \u00a7273, p. xcvi) and the contraction evidently survived into e.N.E. It frequently occurs in Ben Jonson, and is usually indicated in the printing of the edition of 1640, e.g., \"This 's strange\" (prose) Sejanus V.4, p. 378; \"If 't be arrived at that he knows Or none. Agr. This 's quick! What should be his disease?\" ibid., p. 338; \"This 's heathen Greek to you?\" Alchemist, p. 551; \"This 's forraine coyne\" (poetry) ibid., p. 558; cp. also \"That 't seemde when heaven his modell first began, In him it shew'd perfection in aman\" Drayton, 'Barrons Warres' III.40; Shakspere uses the contraction in \"Why this' a heavie chance\" Tam[ing] of Shr[ew] I.2.46, and in Lear IV.6.187. Nevertheless, by the twentieth century this's was scarcely likelier to be found in contemporaneous writing than this' or that't. The resurgence (such as it is) of these forms today seems to be a product of the past 30 years or so.","output":"You are certainly right that contractions of this is to this's and which is to which's are far less common than contractions of who is to who's and how is to how's. The most likely explanation is also the most obvious one: Writers often use contractions to represent or replicate spoken the sound of spoken contractions\u2014and the contraction of the two-syllable who is or how is to the one-syllable who's or how's is obvious to both the writer's ear and the reader's ear. No such obviousness exists in connection with the contraction of the two-syllable this is or which is to the two-syllable this's or which's: the two forms sound extremely similar and undoubtedly grade into one another across a continuum from distinctness to strong slurring. The question then becomes, why would you want to represent the idea of this is with this's or the idea of which is with which's? Lacking a strong argument that this's and which's are truer to the sound of the expression than this is and which is, one is left with a visual argument: this's looks as though it might be a good match for the kind of character who also says 'smatter instead of what's the matter, and lemme instead of let me, and th' instead of the (for example). But to judge from Google Books search results, relatively few writers find the argument for this's and which's compelling. Interestingly, a note to a 1903 edition of Shakespeare's The Tempest uses the form this 's in act IV, scene 1, where Ferdinand says, This 's strange : your father 's in some passion\/ That workes him strongly. A note to the text offers the following gloss: THIS'S, etc.: the FO[LIO] reads \"this is\"; but \"this is\" was contracted into \"this 's\" in M.E. poetry (see Chaucer's Prologue, Knightes Tale, and Nonnes Preestes Tale, ed. Liddell, Introduction, \u00a7273, p. xcvi) and the contraction evidently survived into e.N.E. It frequently occurs in Ben Jonson, and is usually indicated in the printing of the edition of 1640, e.g., \"This 's strange\" (prose) Sejanus V.4, p. 378; \"If 't be arrived at that he knows Or none. Agr. This 's quick! What should be his disease?\" ibid., p. 338; \"This 's heathen Greek to you?\" Alchemist, p. 551; \"This 's forraine coyne\" (poetry) ibid., p. 558; cp. also \"That 't seemde when heaven his modell first began, In him it shew'd perfection in aman\" Drayton, 'Barrons Warres' III.40; Shakspere uses the contraction in \"Why this' a heavie chance\" Tam[ing] of Shr[ew] I.2.46, and in Lear IV.6.187. Nevertheless, by the twentieth century this's was scarcely likelier to be found in contemporaneous writing than this' or that't. The resurgence (such as it is) of these forms today seems to be a product of the past 30 years or so."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm a technical writer and I tend to use unambiguous words in my tech writing. I find that \"left\" and \"right\" (as in \"left hand\" and \"right hand\") are both words with other commonly used meanings, and worse, adjective meanings. So, please help. You know, many technical articles are written in English and read by many people around the world. I'm from China and I've seen some bad translations of English IT documentation since I've entered the industry. Using explicit words can save time in helping us understand those tech docs.","question":"I'm a technical writer and I tend to use unambiguous words in my tech writing. I find that \"left\" and \"right\" (as in \"left hand\" and \"right hand\") are both words with other commonly used meanings, and worse, adjective meanings. So, please help. You know, many technical articles are written in English and read by many people around the world. I'm from China and I've seen some bad translations of English IT documentation since I've entered the industry. Using explicit words can save time in helping us understand those tech docs.","answer":"I'm afraid the synonyms are more ambiguous, not less: dexter and sinister, when used in heraldry, actually mean the opposite of \"left\" and \"right\", i.e. while dexter is technically a synonym of right, it means the viewer's left, and conversely for sinister. Thus, if you said something like \"the dexter part\", apart from sounding very strange, you would have told your reader absolutely nothing useful about what side you meant. Plus, sinister is so closely associated with its other possible meaning (\"evil, ominous\") that it would be distracting to find it used in a technical context. Left and right remain your most unambiguous choices. If needed, you can add \"hand\" or \"side\" (\"put tab A into slot B on the left side of the assembly\").","output":"I'm afraid the synonyms are more ambiguous, not less: dexter and sinister, when used in heraldry, actually mean the opposite of \"left\" and \"right\", i.e. while dexter is technically a synonym of right, it means the viewer's left, and conversely for sinister. Thus, if you said something like \"the dexter part\", apart from sounding very strange, you would have told your reader absolutely nothing useful about what side you meant. Plus, sinister is so closely associated with its other possible meaning (\"evil, ominous\") that it would be distracting to find it used in a technical context. Left and right remain your most unambiguous choices. If needed, you can add \"hand\" or \"side\" (\"put tab A into slot B on the left side of the assembly\")."}
{"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\nIn the film Gangs of New York, what is this word spoken? http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=ADmX9eMEV9U&t=1m38s It sounds like benay. What does it mean? The subtitles don't have anything for this word.","question":"In the film Gangs of New York, what is this word spoken? http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=ADmX9eMEV9U&t=1m38s It sounds like benay. What does it mean? The subtitles don't have anything for this word.","answer":"If you log into IMSDB (The Intenet Movie Script Database) you'll find the script: http:\/\/www.imsdb.com\/scripts\/Gangs-of-New-York.html. Look for masterscene header 7, and in that scene Vallon says bene, which is Italian for good, or probably it this context, it expresses well.","output":"If you log into IMSDB (The Intenet Movie Script Database) you'll find the script: http:\/\/www.imsdb.com\/scripts\/Gangs-of-New-York.html. Look for masterscene header 7, and in that scene Vallon says bene, which is Italian for good, or probably it this context, it expresses well."}
{"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\nAs far as l can gather, there are there are many ways to say \"from here on,...\" or \"After this...\" or etc, but actually what expressions are more commonly used in everyday English? Hereinafter\/hereafter: e.g. Elizabeth Gaskell's novel \"Ruth\" will hereafter be cited within the text as EG. from now on\/as from now: e.g. From now on the gates will be locked at midnight Henceforth: e.g. Henceforth, said building shall be the property of Brendan Duggan. ... If there are some other common expressions (that I didn't mention), please tell me. And also If you mentioned two expressions like X and Y, please specify that: In written\/spoken English, people often prefer to use X rather than Y.","question":"As far as l can gather, there are there are many ways to say \"from here on,...\" or \"After this...\" or etc, but actually what expressions are more commonly used in everyday English? Hereinafter\/hereafter: e.g. Elizabeth Gaskell's novel \"Ruth\" will hereafter be cited within the text as EG. from now on\/as from now: e.g. From now on the gates will be locked at midnight Henceforth: e.g. Henceforth, said building shall be the property of Brendan Duggan. ... If there are some other common expressions (that I didn't mention), please tell me. And also If you mentioned two expressions like X and Y, please specify that: In written\/spoken English, people often prefer to use X rather than Y.","answer":"In \"everyday\" English (by which I assume you mean informal, that is, they type of loose language used, for example, when speaking to friends) expressions such as \"from now on\", \"from here on out\", and \"after this\" are more commonly used in general. \"Henceforth\" and \"Hereafter\" examples of a more formal expression, generally more archaic in nature, such as that used in a court of law or academic publishing. Most people do not use formal language outside of formal situations.","output":"In \"everyday\" English (by which I assume you mean informal, that is, they type of loose language used, for example, when speaking to friends) expressions such as \"from now on\", \"from here on out\", and \"after this\" are more commonly used in general. \"Henceforth\" and \"Hereafter\" examples of a more formal expression, generally more archaic in nature, such as that used in a court of law or academic publishing. Most people do not use formal language outside of formal situations."}
{"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\nWe had an engineer at our house the other day to check an appliance and he used the term 'tickety boo' at least three times. Clearly being British I am aware of the expression, and I also think I know what it means i.e that everything is running smoothly. But what is its origin?","question":"We had an engineer at our house the other day to check an appliance and he used the term 'tickety boo' at least three times. Clearly being British I am aware of the expression, and I also think I know what it means i.e that everything is running smoothly. But what is its origin?","answer":"Chambers gives the following definition: tickety-boo adj dated Brit colloq fine; satisfactory. ETYMOLOGY: 1930s. Oxford has tickety-boo adjective [predic.] British informal, dated in good order; fine: everything is tickety-boo Origin: 1930s: perhaps from Hindi \u1e6dh\u012bk hai 'all right' Wiktionary states: I understand that the origin is India. In Hindi, \"Tikai babu\" means \"It's alright, Sir.\" While India was governed under the British Empire, British airmen picked up the expression and it evolved into its current form. Canadian soldiers picked up the expression from their British allies during World War 2, and introduced it into Canadian jargon soon after. On the other hand, Dictionary.com and TheFreeDictionary (both referencing the same source) suggest: Origin: 1935\u201340; perhaps expressive alteration of the phrase that's the ticket.","output":"Chambers gives the following definition: tickety-boo adj dated Brit colloq fine; satisfactory. ETYMOLOGY: 1930s. Oxford has tickety-boo adjective [predic.] British informal, dated in good order; fine: everything is tickety-boo Origin: 1930s: perhaps from Hindi \u1e6dh\u012bk hai 'all right' Wiktionary states: I understand that the origin is India. In Hindi, \"Tikai babu\" means \"It's alright, Sir.\" While India was governed under the British Empire, British airmen picked up the expression and it evolved into its current form. Canadian soldiers picked up the expression from their British allies during World War 2, and introduced it into Canadian jargon soon after. On the other hand, Dictionary.com and TheFreeDictionary (both referencing the same source) suggest: Origin: 1935\u201340; perhaps expressive alteration of the phrase that's the ticket."}
{"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 lampau:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSo I'm reading \"Norwegian Wood\" by Haruki Murakami and I came across this passage this line : \"Like the way a crow collects chunks of glass in a hollow tree.\" In context: \"Don't be silly,\" said Midori. \"You don't have to know anything to pass college entrance exams! All you need is a little intuition - and I have great intuition. 'Choose the correct answer from the following three.' I know immediately which one is right.\" \"My intuition's not as good as yours, so I have to learn systematic thinking to some extent. Like the way a crow collects chunks of glass in a hollow tree.\" I'm not sure what he's trying to say here. Is this some strange idiom I'm unfamiliar with? Crows tend to be intelligent creatures, however, I don't believe they are systematic. What do you guys think? Thanks!","question":"So I'm reading \"Norwegian Wood\" by Haruki Murakami and I came across this passage this line : \"Like the way a crow collects chunks of glass in a hollow tree.\" In context: \"Don't be silly,\" said Midori. \"You don't have to know anything to pass college entrance exams! All you need is a little intuition - and I have great intuition. 'Choose the correct answer from the following three.' I know immediately which one is right.\" \"My intuition's not as good as yours, so I have to learn systematic thinking to some extent. Like the way a crow collects chunks of glass in a hollow tree.\" I'm not sure what he's trying to say here. Is this some strange idiom I'm unfamiliar with? Crows tend to be intelligent creatures, however, I don't believe they are systematic. What do you guys think? Thanks!","answer":"The image I glean from the passage is that the crow gradually builds up a hoard of glass, and the narrator gradually builds up an opinion, rather than gaining it in a single flash of insight. It's not a recognizable American English idiom, and knowing Murakami it's likely to be an original image rather than a standard one.","output":"The image I glean from the passage is that the crow gradually builds up a hoard of glass, and the narrator gradually builds up an opinion, rather than gaining it in a single flash of insight. It's not a recognizable American English idiom, and knowing Murakami it's likely to be an original image rather than a standard one."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen I have to catch a train, I'm always worried that I'll miss it. So, I like getting\/ to get to the station in plenty of time. In grammar in use book, the bold part has been considered as correct answer. I am wondering why. What is more, would you show me a more detailed explanation or another synonym for the following?-- I have some problem with especially using the preposition in along with plenty of time. in plenty of time My specific question is here: Although there has been mentioned something an habit or something like that-- considering the adverb\"always\"--,so why don't we say getting? Thanks in advance","question":"When I have to catch a train, I'm always worried that I'll miss it. So, I like getting\/ to get to the station in plenty of time. In grammar in use book, the bold part has been considered as correct answer. I am wondering why. What is more, would you show me a more detailed explanation or another synonym for the following?-- I have some problem with especially using the preposition in along with plenty of time. in plenty of time My specific question is here: Although there has been mentioned something an habit or something like that-- considering the adverb\"always\"--,so why don't we say getting? Thanks in advance","answer":"Regarding the use of in with time: There's a couple of common expressions that use in with time (there's probably more than below): In time - means before an understood deadline of some sort. It differs from on time - on time means you arrived at the correct time - in time may mean you got there early. (\"In time\" can mean \"when circumstances allow\" or \"eventually\" - it will usually but not always start the sentence, or precede the subject-verb part of the sentence, i.e. In time, we will conquer the enemy or *If you keep working at it, in time you will succeed.) In plenty of time - means with an ample amount of time left over. For in time and in plenty of time, the point of time that you arrive is \"within\" or \"inside of\" the range of time you have to be at the destination, so \"in\" makes sense. Let's say we are talking about a train - the train leaves at 5:00PM, and you learned of the train leaving then at 3:00PM. You arrived at 4:45PM. 4:45PM is in the range of 3:00PM to 5:00PM. Some others: In good time - equivalent to in plenty of time (people racing one another comes to mind with this) In enough time - when something is ready - The cookies are baking. In enough time we can eat them. In no time - means something has taken no time to happen, or a very short duration of time passed. - I was driving recklessly and got to the station in no time. So... I like getting to the station in plenty of time. I like to get to the station in plenty of time. These sound fine to me, but are something you'd hear in speech more than see in writing in my opinion. Regarding the difference between getting and to get: In my initial opinion as a native speaker, there is not a difference between them. However, this says the following: Using a gerund (-ing form) suggests that you are referring to real activities or experiences. Using an infinitive (to X) suggests that you are talking about potential or possible activities or experiences. So, since you are talking about a potential activity, to get is the right thing to use.","output":"Regarding the use of in with time: There's a couple of common expressions that use in with time (there's probably more than below): In time - means before an understood deadline of some sort. It differs from on time - on time means you arrived at the correct time - in time may mean you got there early. (\"In time\" can mean \"when circumstances allow\" or \"eventually\" - it will usually but not always start the sentence, or precede the subject-verb part of the sentence, i.e. In time, we will conquer the enemy or *If you keep working at it, in time you will succeed.) In plenty of time - means with an ample amount of time left over. For in time and in plenty of time, the point of time that you arrive is \"within\" or \"inside of\" the range of time you have to be at the destination, so \"in\" makes sense. Let's say we are talking about a train - the train leaves at 5:00PM, and you learned of the train leaving then at 3:00PM. You arrived at 4:45PM. 4:45PM is in the range of 3:00PM to 5:00PM. Some others: In good time - equivalent to in plenty of time (people racing one another comes to mind with this) In enough time - when something is ready - The cookies are baking. In enough time we can eat them. In no time - means something has taken no time to happen, or a very short duration of time passed. - I was driving recklessly and got to the station in no time. So... I like getting to the station in plenty of time. I like to get to the station in plenty of time. These sound fine to me, but are something you'd hear in speech more than see in writing in my opinion. Regarding the difference between getting and to get: In my initial opinion as a native speaker, there is not a difference between them. However, this says the following: Using a gerund (-ing form) suggests that you are referring to real activities or experiences. Using an infinitive (to X) suggests that you are talking about potential or possible activities or experiences. So, since you are talking about a potential activity, to get is the right thing to use."}
{"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\nSuppose Bryan wants to say \"If you do that, then (i) I will leave, (ii) I will never go back, and (iii) I do not want to see you again.\". My question is how to use punctuation to prevent the enumerations (i), (ii), (iii)? My guess is to rewrite it as \"then I will leave; I will never go back; I do not want to see you again.\". Is this understandable without causing confusion in the sense that the reader could get it that the idea is there are three consequents? Should I use commas instead of semicolons?","question":"Suppose Bryan wants to say \"If you do that, then (i) I will leave, (ii) I will never go back, and (iii) I do not want to see you again.\". My question is how to use punctuation to prevent the enumerations (i), (ii), (iii)? My guess is to rewrite it as \"then I will leave; I will never go back; I do not want to see you again.\". Is this understandable without causing confusion in the sense that the reader could get it that the idea is there are three consequents? Should I use commas instead of semicolons?","answer":"You have correctly used the semicolons, since each of your enumerations in a complete sentence. And your sentence is clear, forceful, and understandable. Nicely done, not everyone can use semicolons correctly! As you suggest, however, using commas can simplify the statement. If you do that I will leave, never go back, and I will not want to see you again. The new sentence is more conversational, easier to read, but not as forceful as your semicolons.","output":"You have correctly used the semicolons, since each of your enumerations in a complete sentence. And your sentence is clear, forceful, and understandable. Nicely done, not everyone can use semicolons correctly! As you suggest, however, using commas can simplify the statement. If you do that I will leave, never go back, and I will not want to see you again. The new sentence is more conversational, easier to read, but not as forceful as your semicolons."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"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\nHere in Brazil we have the word \"contracheque\". It's an official document an employee receives every month showing his gross income and deductions. Is there anything like it in English? PS. American English is preferred, because I need it for Johns Hopkins University.","question":"Here in Brazil we have the word \"contracheque\". It's an official document an employee receives every month showing his gross income and deductions. Is there anything like it in English? PS. American English is preferred, because I need it for Johns Hopkins University.","answer":"You could mean pay stub, which shows how much you received in a paycheck but is not a check itself. You might also mean W2 form, which shows a calendar year's worth of earnings. This is typically only for the income tax folks, rather than, for instance, a company deciding whether to offer you credit.","output":"You could mean pay stub, which shows how much you received in a paycheck but is not a check itself. You might also mean W2 form, which shows a calendar year's worth of earnings. This is typically only for the income tax folks, rather than, for instance, a company deciding whether to offer you credit."}
{"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\nYou run your ass off. Can ass be the object of run? Why isn't it just \"you run\"?","question":"You run your ass off. Can ass be the object of run? Why isn't it just \"you run\"?","answer":"You run your ass off implies that you are running so hard that your buttocks fall off. Obviously that never happens, but it is a figurative way of stating that you are doing something to the point of exhaustion and beyond. It is a familiar trope used with other pursuits as well: I worked my ass off on that project. We're going to party our asses off once we graduate. And so on.","output":"You run your ass off implies that you are running so hard that your buttocks fall off. Obviously that never happens, but it is a figurative way of stating that you are doing something to the point of exhaustion and beyond. It is a familiar trope used with other pursuits as well: I worked my ass off on that project. We're going to party our asses off once we graduate. And so on."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI understand all the words, but not quite the meaning of the following passage, from Milton's Paradise Lost, Book I: 635 For me be witness all the host of heaven, 636 If counsels different, or danger shunn'd, 637 By me, have lost our hopes, Also, I'd like to know if there are some references online where one can look up passages from this book. My edition has some footnotes, but they're not very thorough. Thanks!","question":"I understand all the words, but not quite the meaning of the following passage, from Milton's Paradise Lost, Book I: 635 For me be witness all the host of heaven, 636 If counsels different, or danger shunn'd, 637 By me, have lost our hopes, Also, I'd like to know if there are some references online where one can look up passages from this book. My edition has some footnotes, but they're not very thorough. Thanks!","answer":"Let the entire Host of Heaven be witness for me: [I ask] whether our hopes were lost through [my] advice, differing [from theirs], or [my] avoiding dangers [which they faced]? There's at least one translation in print \u2014a sample is available at www.paradiselost.org\/\u2014 but I cannot recommend reading Milton this way. If you use a crib the whole way through you'll learn little, and slowly, and miss Milton's cunning; whereas if you'll go to the trouble of climbing the admittedly very steep learning curve for a Book or so you'll eventually get to the point of thinking in Milton's language, which is only distantly related to English. That will make it much easier to get through the rest of this exceptionally demanding and wearisome work.","output":"Let the entire Host of Heaven be witness for me: [I ask] whether our hopes were lost through [my] advice, differing [from theirs], or [my] avoiding dangers [which they faced]? There's at least one translation in print \u2014a sample is available at www.paradiselost.org\/\u2014 but I cannot recommend reading Milton this way. If you use a crib the whole way through you'll learn little, and slowly, and miss Milton's cunning; whereas if you'll go to the trouble of climbing the admittedly very steep learning curve for a Book or so you'll eventually get to the point of thinking in Milton's language, which is only distantly related to English. That will make it much easier to get through the rest of this exceptionally demanding and wearisome work."}
{"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\nWhat is the word for the action of telling the horse you are on to move forward, turn left, turn right, or the like? I assume \"driving\" would be the easiest to understand, but it sounds like it does not fit a living thing like a horse. The word \"controlling\" seems most accurate, yet controlling an animal gives negative connotations, does it not?","question":"What is the word for the action of telling the horse you are on to move forward, turn left, turn right, or the like? I assume \"driving\" would be the easiest to understand, but it sounds like it does not fit a living thing like a horse. The word \"controlling\" seems most accurate, yet controlling an animal gives negative connotations, does it not?","answer":"You can turn a horse, stop a horse, check a horse (slow down or stop it), spur a horse (tell it to go faster). But if you want the verb that corresponds to drive a car, it's ride a horse. This is similar to a motorcycle; you can steer, turn, accelerate, or brake a motorcycle, but the verb that encompasses all of these is ride.","output":"You can turn a horse, stop a horse, check a horse (slow down or stop it), spur a horse (tell it to go faster). But if you want the verb that corresponds to drive a car, it's ride a horse. This is similar to a motorcycle; you can steer, turn, accelerate, or brake a motorcycle, but the verb that encompasses all of these is ride."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am a bit confused about the rule of setting the definite article in a sentence when it is associated to two nouns. The beginning and end of the channel. The beginning and the end of the channel. The arguments belong to the request and to data function. The arguments belong to the request and to the data function.","question":"I am a bit confused about the rule of setting the definite article in a sentence when it is associated to two nouns. The beginning and end of the channel. The beginning and the end of the channel. The arguments belong to the request and to data function. The arguments belong to the request and to the data function.","answer":"In English, you are allowed to (but need not) drop repeated elements in parallel structures. The problem with your second example is that you are dropping the elements in the wrong order. The following are all grammatical, and mean the same thing (although the third is ambiguous as it could mean the request function or just the request): The arguments belong to the request function and to the data function. The arguments belong to the request function and the data function. The arguments belong to the request and the data function. The arguments belong to the request and data functions. Your second suggestion, The arguments belong to the request and to the data function. is correct if you mean to say that the arguments belong to the request, and not the request function. Your first suggestion, *The arguments belong to the request and to data function. is incorrect because you dropped the and didn't drop to. For your first example, both sentences are correct.","output":"In English, you are allowed to (but need not) drop repeated elements in parallel structures. The problem with your second example is that you are dropping the elements in the wrong order. The following are all grammatical, and mean the same thing (although the third is ambiguous as it could mean the request function or just the request): The arguments belong to the request function and to the data function. The arguments belong to the request function and the data function. The arguments belong to the request and the data function. The arguments belong to the request and data functions. Your second suggestion, The arguments belong to the request and to the data function. is correct if you mean to say that the arguments belong to the request, and not the request function. Your first suggestion, *The arguments belong to the request and to data function. is incorrect because you dropped the and didn't drop to. For your first example, both sentences are correct."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhy do we often say \"kith and kin\" and not \"kin and kith\"? I was taught to believe that family comes first and the other later, and I do still believe in what I was taught.","question":"Why do we often say \"kith and kin\" and not \"kin and kith\"? I was taught to believe that family comes first and the other later, and I do still believe in what I was taught.","answer":"\"Kith and Kin\" is an example of an irreversible binomial. An irreversible binomial is a co-ordination of words, usually of the same word class (so both nouns, both adjectives and so forth), whose order is idiomatically fixed. Some writers refer to binomials as freezes. The reasons why these phrases fossilise in a particular order is quite complex. If you're seriously interested you could have alook at this paper here, or this early one by Cooper and Ross. Most people, including me, find binomials quite fun and interesting to spot. Here's a few for your delectation (As Janus points out in a helpful comment below, some of these might be 'reversible binomials'): Binomials from nouns: bacon and eggs knife and fork kith and Kin bow and arrow ladies and gentlemen life and soul head and shoulders heaven and hell rythm and blues your money or your life thunder and lightning Binomials from verbs: duck and dive stand and deliver pushing and shoving wait and see umming and ahing Binomials with prepositions: above and beyond in and out up and down round and round (not sure if this counts) And of course there's trinomials too: men, women and children. sex and drugs and rock'nroll (really more of a quadrinomial). in no way, shape or form blood, sweat and tears tall, dark and handsome me, myself and I Possible explanation for the ordering of \"kith and kin\" I cannot give an expert opinion on why kith and kin fossilized in this order. However, from the little I know from Cooper and Ross's paper, one theory would be this: kith and kin have similar meanings and the beginnings of the words are phonetically very similar; they both begin with \/k\u026a\/. It's quite likely that the main factor under such circumstances is that we would prefer the last word to end with a nasal consonant such as \/n\/, over a fricative such as \/\u03b8\/. Cooper and Ross give the following hierarchy for words that differ only in their final consonant (in those pairings where there is no ordering based on semantics for various reasons). Words that end with the types of consonants further to the right in the list below are likely to be in the final position. Stops - Aspirants - Nasals - Liquids - Glides Basically the more obstruent-like the final consonant the more likely that word is to be first in the pairing. In case you aren't au fait with phonetic terminology, the more \"consonant-like\" the final consonant is the more likely that word is to be first in the pairing. The more \"vowel-like\" it is the more likely it is to be second. The final consonant in kith is the fricative \/\u03b8\/ which would count as an aspirant. The final consonant in kin is the nasal \/n\/, so this would account for the pairing here. The reason for my reluctance to state this as the definitive reason is that the meaning of these words has changed over time and there might be some semantic reason that I'm unaware of, why the ordering should be this way.","output":"\"Kith and Kin\" is an example of an irreversible binomial. An irreversible binomial is a co-ordination of words, usually of the same word class (so both nouns, both adjectives and so forth), whose order is idiomatically fixed. Some writers refer to binomials as freezes. The reasons why these phrases fossilise in a particular order is quite complex. If you're seriously interested you could have alook at this paper here, or this early one by Cooper and Ross. Most people, including me, find binomials quite fun and interesting to spot. Here's a few for your delectation (As Janus points out in a helpful comment below, some of these might be 'reversible binomials'): Binomials from nouns: bacon and eggs knife and fork kith and Kin bow and arrow ladies and gentlemen life and soul head and shoulders heaven and hell rythm and blues your money or your life thunder and lightning Binomials from verbs: duck and dive stand and deliver pushing and shoving wait and see umming and ahing Binomials with prepositions: above and beyond in and out up and down round and round (not sure if this counts) And of course there's trinomials too: men, women and children. sex and drugs and rock'nroll (really more of a quadrinomial). in no way, shape or form blood, sweat and tears tall, dark and handsome me, myself and I Possible explanation for the ordering of \"kith and kin\" I cannot give an expert opinion on why kith and kin fossilized in this order. However, from the little I know from Cooper and Ross's paper, one theory would be this: kith and kin have similar meanings and the beginnings of the words are phonetically very similar; they both begin with \/k\u026a\/. It's quite likely that the main factor under such circumstances is that we would prefer the last word to end with a nasal consonant such as \/n\/, over a fricative such as \/\u03b8\/. Cooper and Ross give the following hierarchy for words that differ only in their final consonant (in those pairings where there is no ordering based on semantics for various reasons). Words that end with the types of consonants further to the right in the list below are likely to be in the final position. Stops - Aspirants - Nasals - Liquids - Glides Basically the more obstruent-like the final consonant the more likely that word is to be first in the pairing. In case you aren't au fait with phonetic terminology, the more \"consonant-like\" the final consonant is the more likely that word is to be first in the pairing. The more \"vowel-like\" it is the more likely it is to be second. The final consonant in kith is the fricative \/\u03b8\/ which would count as an aspirant. The final consonant in kin is the nasal \/n\/, so this would account for the pairing here. The reason for my reluctance to state this as the definitive reason is that the meaning of these words has changed over time and there might be some semantic reason that I'm unaware of, why the ordering should be this way."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe all know the phrase: \"The onus of proof is on you\" or \"The onus is on you to do some thing or the other.\" Ok, so the onus was put on me and I have done that thing or the other. Now, with respect to the onus, what have I done? Have I \"carried the onus\"? \"Met the onus\"? That doesn't sound right. And I haven't \"removed the onus\", that's just undoing it being put on me. So what's the word or phrase I'm looking for?","question":"We all know the phrase: \"The onus of proof is on you\" or \"The onus is on you to do some thing or the other.\" Ok, so the onus was put on me and I have done that thing or the other. Now, with respect to the onus, what have I done? Have I \"carried the onus\"? \"Met the onus\"? That doesn't sound right. And I haven't \"removed the onus\", that's just undoing it being put on me. So what's the word or phrase I'm looking for?","answer":"The onus has been discharged. See, for example this extract from Equity and Trusts: Text, Cases and Materials by Paul S. Davies, which refers to a case called Re Harwood, and cites an extract from the judge's decision: 'The evidence in this case is so unsatisfactory that I cannot say that the onus has been discharged' If an onus is discharged, it means the person on whom it rested has taken care of it. It doesn't mean that someone has decided they don't need to do it. In the specific example here, the judge was saying the evidence in the case was so poor that he couldn't decide whether the onus had been discharged at all. A person may 'bear a burden' or 'have an onus placed on him', in just the same way that someone can hand you responsibility for something, metaphorically speaking. But once that burden has been dealt with (fully), the onus is lifted or discharged. \"Discharging an onus\" - in legal terms - simply means doing what needed to be done; there's no implication of it being 'early'. Finally, just because a term is used in legal works doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be used in more general conversation too. 1:","output":"The onus has been discharged. See, for example this extract from Equity and Trusts: Text, Cases and Materials by Paul S. Davies, which refers to a case called Re Harwood, and cites an extract from the judge's decision: 'The evidence in this case is so unsatisfactory that I cannot say that the onus has been discharged' If an onus is discharged, it means the person on whom it rested has taken care of it. It doesn't mean that someone has decided they don't need to do it. In the specific example here, the judge was saying the evidence in the case was so poor that he couldn't decide whether the onus had been discharged at all. A person may 'bear a burden' or 'have an onus placed on him', in just the same way that someone can hand you responsibility for something, metaphorically speaking. But once that burden has been dealt with (fully), the onus is lifted or discharged. \"Discharging an onus\" - in legal terms - simply means doing what needed to be done; there's no implication of it being 'early'. Finally, just because a term is used in legal works doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be used in more general conversation too. 1:"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAre these sentences correct? If so, what do they mean? I am working in IBM. I am working for IBM. I am working with IBM. I am working at IBM.","question":"Are these sentences correct? If so, what do they mean? I am working in IBM. I am working for IBM. I am working with IBM. I am working at IBM.","answer":"Prepositions tend to be very variable in usage: everyone has their own preferences. These are guidelines, not rules: For a company, in does not really work. You could, however say I am working in the accounts department at IBM. If you are an employee of the company, the best choice would be I work for IBM. If you have been working for IBM a long time, you could also say I have been with IBM for 15 years. If you are consultant or advisor, or you work for a company that is a business partner of IBM, you would say I work with IBM. - together with If you are a builder and you are currently doing some work on the premises of the local IBM facility, you could say I work at IBM. - on the premises","output":"Prepositions tend to be very variable in usage: everyone has their own preferences. These are guidelines, not rules: For a company, in does not really work. You could, however say I am working in the accounts department at IBM. If you are an employee of the company, the best choice would be I work for IBM. If you have been working for IBM a long time, you could also say I have been with IBM for 15 years. If you are consultant or advisor, or you work for a company that is a business partner of IBM, you would say I work with IBM. - together with If you are a builder and you are currently doing some work on the premises of the local IBM facility, you could say I work at IBM. - on the premises"}
{"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\nHow to say correct: That house is my friend's That house is of my friend That house is of my friend's","question":"How to say correct: That house is my friend's That house is of my friend That house is of my friend's","answer":"The most natural way of saying it is: That is my friend's house. If you really want to be using that house, then the following is okay: That house is my friend's (house). (The extra house at the end is optional; I'd avoid it, personally, but it's not wrong or unnatural in my experience.) Finally, one other option: That is the house of my friend. That comes across as stilted\/archaic. Most of the time, genitive -'s is more natural and idiomatic than genitive of when talking about actual possession or close association with a person. If there's a concept or inanimate objects, you might use genitive of: Hey, look! There's a house of mirrors!","output":"The most natural way of saying it is: That is my friend's house. If you really want to be using that house, then the following is okay: That house is my friend's (house). (The extra house at the end is optional; I'd avoid it, personally, but it's not wrong or unnatural in my experience.) Finally, one other option: That is the house of my friend. That comes across as stilted\/archaic. Most of the time, genitive -'s is more natural and idiomatic than genitive of when talking about actual possession or close association with a person. If there's a concept or inanimate objects, you might use genitive of: Hey, look! There's a house of mirrors!"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nJust to clarify, I'm not talking about the Lush product of the same name. In Australia, the washing up fairy is a mythical creature. People leave their dishes unwashed overnight, and lo and behold, the next morning the dishes are clean thanks to the washing up fairy. Sadly, she (I assume it's a she) is more often noted in her absence than her presence. As in \"The washing up fairy didn't come, I'll have to do the dishes now.\" An example of her being mentioned: Her theory is simple \u2013 we must replace the behaviours we don\u2019t want with those we do. For example, leaving dirty dishes on the kitchen bench for the washing-up fairy to tidy should be replaced with loading the dirty dishes in the dishwasher. Her existence has been documented neither by Wiktionary nor Urban Dictionary. Is her distribution limited to Australia, and presumably New Zealand, plus the households of those who have moved from these countries?","question":"Just to clarify, I'm not talking about the Lush product of the same name. In Australia, the washing up fairy is a mythical creature. People leave their dishes unwashed overnight, and lo and behold, the next morning the dishes are clean thanks to the washing up fairy. Sadly, she (I assume it's a she) is more often noted in her absence than her presence. As in \"The washing up fairy didn't come, I'll have to do the dishes now.\" An example of her being mentioned: Her theory is simple \u2013 we must replace the behaviours we don\u2019t want with those we do. For example, leaving dirty dishes on the kitchen bench for the washing-up fairy to tidy should be replaced with loading the dirty dishes in the dishwasher. Her existence has been documented neither by Wiktionary nor Urban Dictionary. Is her distribution limited to Australia, and presumably New Zealand, plus the households of those who have moved from these countries?","answer":"I'm in the U.S., and I've never heard of the Washing-Up Fairy. Still, using a fairy to explain an unexplained yet serendipitous discovery is not unheard of. When I Googled \"a fairy came and cleaned\", I found: my mother would call me the next day, \u201cOh! a Fairy came and cleaned the house\u201d [in a Yahoo! answer] \u201cLet's pretend a fairy came and cleaned up your room.\u201d [from a parenting book] Every morning, it's as if a fairy came and cleaned the house for me. [from a Roomba vacuum review on amazon.com] Miraculously, when I came downstairs I found that a fairy came and cleaned up the party mess inside (thank you Daddy!) [from a 2004 blog] So, such \"pay-it-forward\" cleaning acts of kindness are often attributed to fairy folk. I never realized until today, though, that the Tooth Fairy had a cousin called the Washing Up Fairy, at least by those Down Under.","output":"I'm in the U.S., and I've never heard of the Washing-Up Fairy. Still, using a fairy to explain an unexplained yet serendipitous discovery is not unheard of. When I Googled \"a fairy came and cleaned\", I found: my mother would call me the next day, \u201cOh! a Fairy came and cleaned the house\u201d [in a Yahoo! answer] \u201cLet's pretend a fairy came and cleaned up your room.\u201d [from a parenting book] Every morning, it's as if a fairy came and cleaned the house for me. [from a Roomba vacuum review on amazon.com] Miraculously, when I came downstairs I found that a fairy came and cleaned up the party mess inside (thank you Daddy!) [from a 2004 blog] So, such \"pay-it-forward\" cleaning acts of kindness are often attributed to fairy folk. I never realized until today, though, that the Tooth Fairy had a cousin called the Washing Up Fairy, at least by those Down Under."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\"To God Be The Glory\" is a common phrase I see in many places, but when I type it on Word, it suggests it to be \"To God Is The Glory\". Is \"be\" in the phrase grammatically incorrect?","question":"\"To God Be The Glory\" is a common phrase I see in many places, but when I type it on Word, it suggests it to be \"To God Is The Glory\". Is \"be\" in the phrase grammatically incorrect?","answer":"In this context, I think be is the preferable word over is. The phrase means, essentially, \"May all the glory be ascribed to God.\" One could use is and still be grammatically correct \u2013 as in, \"All the glory is ascribed to God\" \u2013 however, humankind seems to have trouble doing that on a consistent basis. That's why we usually say the former (which expresses a hope for a desired state) rather than the latter (which expresses a seldom-observed statement of fact).","output":"In this context, I think be is the preferable word over is. The phrase means, essentially, \"May all the glory be ascribed to God.\" One could use is and still be grammatically correct \u2013 as in, \"All the glory is ascribed to God\" \u2013 however, humankind seems to have trouble doing that on a consistent basis. That's why we usually say the former (which expresses a hope for a desired state) rather than the latter (which expresses a seldom-observed statement of fact)."}
{"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"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":"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\nIs this sentence correct? I recently read it in an article: \"How does younger generation spend their money.\" I want to know whether the usage of \"their\" in the above is correct","question":"Is this sentence correct? I recently read it in an article: \"How does younger generation spend their money.\" I want to know whether the usage of \"their\" in the above is correct","answer":"Collective nouns such as 'audience', 'team', or 'committee' can take singular or plural verbs depending on the notional reference in the speaker's or writer's mind. In this case, the reference, judging by the verb, is to 'members of the younger generation', which makes sense. Quirk, Leech et al give a potentially ambiguous example, 'the audience were large' as potentially meaning a large number of people, or a number of large people, and suggest maintaining concord in writing, admitting a more relaxed use in practice when it comes to speech.","output":"Collective nouns such as 'audience', 'team', or 'committee' can take singular or plural verbs depending on the notional reference in the speaker's or writer's mind. In this case, the reference, judging by the verb, is to 'members of the younger generation', which makes sense. Quirk, Leech et al give a potentially ambiguous example, 'the audience were large' as potentially meaning a large number of people, or a number of large people, and suggest maintaining concord in writing, admitting a more relaxed use in practice when it comes to speech."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am struggling with understanding the difference here: It will be done at that point in the future. It will have been done at point in the future. I know in theory what future perfect tense means but here I cannot see the difference.","question":"I am struggling with understanding the difference here: It will be done at that point in the future. It will have been done at point in the future. I know in theory what future perfect tense means but here I cannot see the difference.","answer":"Let's call that point in the future \"tomorrow, 16:00 h\". It will be done at that point in the future. No-one is doing anything, until tomorrow, 16:00 h. Then what needs to be done, will be done. It will have been done at point in the future. At some point in time between now and tomorrow, 16:00 h , what needs to be done will be done. We do not know when exactly it will be done, but will certainly have finished by tomorrow, 16:00 h.","output":"Let's call that point in the future \"tomorrow, 16:00 h\". It will be done at that point in the future. No-one is doing anything, until tomorrow, 16:00 h. Then what needs to be done, will be done. It will have been done at point in the future. At some point in time between now and tomorrow, 16:00 h , what needs to be done will be done. We do not know when exactly it will be done, but will certainly have finished by tomorrow, 16:00 h."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI don't think that a screenshot is a photograph, of course it is an image but that doesn't mean that it is a photograph. A photograph is taken by using light from some source from the environment outside. A screenshot uses the data that are displayed in the monitor. Am i correct?","question":"I don't think that a screenshot is a photograph, of course it is an image but that doesn't mean that it is a photograph. A photograph is taken by using light from some source from the environment outside. A screenshot uses the data that are displayed in the monitor. Am i correct?","answer":"You are right. Both a screenshot and a photograph are images, that is visible impressions obtained by a device, or displayed on a computer or video screen. But a photograph is always a picture made using a camera. And a screenshot is an image of the data displayed on the screen of a computer or mobile device.","output":"You are right. Both a screenshot and a photograph are images, that is visible impressions obtained by a device, or displayed on a computer or video screen. But a photograph is always a picture made using a camera. And a screenshot is an image of the data displayed on the screen of a computer or mobile device."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAccording to the Middle Consonant Rule, shouldn't we syllabicate the word riding as Ri-ding (ra\u026a-d\u026a\u014b)? Why are we syllabicating it as Rid-ing (ra\u026ad.\u026a\u014b)? What's the rule for this?","question":"According to the Middle Consonant Rule, shouldn't we syllabicate the word riding as Ri-ding (ra\u026a-d\u026a\u014b)? Why are we syllabicating it as Rid-ing (ra\u026ad.\u026a\u014b)? What's the rule for this?","answer":"It's syllabified as ra\u026ad.\u026a\u014b because there's a morpheme boundary between the two syllables (the -ing is a different morpheme). Morpheme boundaries can override other syllabification rules and morpheme boundaries are usually syllable boundaries, so it's syllabified that way. According to Prof John Wells: In polymorphemic words, consonants belong to the syllable appropriate to the morpheme of which they form a part. This applies only to synchronic, psychologically real morphemes. [Wells Syllabification - UCL]","output":"It's syllabified as ra\u026ad.\u026a\u014b because there's a morpheme boundary between the two syllables (the -ing is a different morpheme). Morpheme boundaries can override other syllabification rules and morpheme boundaries are usually syllable boundaries, so it's syllabified that way. According to Prof John Wells: In polymorphemic words, consonants belong to the syllable appropriate to the morpheme of which they form a part. This applies only to synchronic, psychologically real morphemes. [Wells Syllabification - UCL]"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI came across this phrase today in a rather humorous column: The last time I did [something] ... was 2000-never. I've never seen this construct before. My guess is, that this means, the author did something the last time before the year 2000. Is that correct? Could I get some more examples? Here is the phrase in context, to help give a better idea of how it's being used: For example, ordering anything on the internet and paying more than the cost of the item in shipping fees is pretty depressing. As a general rule, that puts a halt to my eCommerce experience before I press the \"checkout\" button. The last time I paid $15 for a great t-shirt and paid $16 to ship it was 2000-never. The author seems to have a very good command of the English language, so now I'm wondering how prevalent this expression might be.","question":"I came across this phrase today in a rather humorous column: The last time I did [something] ... was 2000-never. I've never seen this construct before. My guess is, that this means, the author did something the last time before the year 2000. Is that correct? Could I get some more examples? Here is the phrase in context, to help give a better idea of how it's being used: For example, ordering anything on the internet and paying more than the cost of the item in shipping fees is pretty depressing. As a general rule, that puts a halt to my eCommerce experience before I press the \"checkout\" button. The last time I paid $15 for a great t-shirt and paid $16 to ship it was 2000-never. The author seems to have a very good command of the English language, so now I'm wondering how prevalent this expression might be.","answer":"I've never heard this phrase before, but what it sounds like the speaker is trying to say is that they've never before done whatever \"it\" refers to. For example if you said \"The last time I did [x] was 2002,\" you'd be stating the last time you did it. \"two thousand-never\" (instead of \"two thousand-two\") seems to be a funny way of saying you've never done something. So I'd say the sentence probably has identical meaning if you just remove the \"2000-\" and say \"The last time I did [x] was never.\" Now note that this isn't grammatically correct; you can't actually say \"The last time I did [x] was never.\" The correct thing to say would be \"I have never done [x]\". But the joke still stands, I think.","output":"I've never heard this phrase before, but what it sounds like the speaker is trying to say is that they've never before done whatever \"it\" refers to. For example if you said \"The last time I did [x] was 2002,\" you'd be stating the last time you did it. \"two thousand-never\" (instead of \"two thousand-two\") seems to be a funny way of saying you've never done something. So I'd say the sentence probably has identical meaning if you just remove the \"2000-\" and say \"The last time I did [x] was never.\" Now note that this isn't grammatically correct; you can't actually say \"The last time I did [x] was never.\" The correct thing to say would be \"I have never done [x]\". But the joke still stands, I think."}
{"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\nThis may be as simple as a synonym for hallmark, but with a negative connotation. An example: A security consultant publishes an article on security practices that is so egregiously erroneous that it reflects poorly on 3rd parties who cite the article or author. The poor reflection is what I'm trying to describe. Black mark is close, but I'd like to find a word taking a stronger stance - one could have multiple black marks that are overcome by strong qualities, while this word\/phrase is effectively the end of the discussion. Maybe deal breaker, but less vernacular.","question":"This may be as simple as a synonym for hallmark, but with a negative connotation. An example: A security consultant publishes an article on security practices that is so egregiously erroneous that it reflects poorly on 3rd parties who cite the article or author. The poor reflection is what I'm trying to describe. Black mark is close, but I'd like to find a word taking a stronger stance - one could have multiple black marks that are overcome by strong qualities, while this word\/phrase is effectively the end of the discussion. Maybe deal breaker, but less vernacular.","answer":"The word you may be looking for is stigma: stigma, noun : An association of disgrace or public disapproval with something, such as an action or condition [AHED] : a mark of shame or discredit [MW]","output":"The word you may be looking for is stigma: stigma, noun : An association of disgrace or public disapproval with something, such as an action or condition [AHED] : a mark of shame or discredit [MW]"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nEven today, _____ have been living in the past ( ____ = habitants of rural areas) Note- The inhabitants can be sophisticated or unsophisticated, literate or illiterate. They should just live in a non-urban place.","question":"Even today, _____ have been living in the past ( ____ = habitants of rural areas) Note- The inhabitants can be sophisticated or unsophisticated, literate or illiterate. They should just live in a non-urban place.","answer":"Similar and related to k1eran's answer, countryfolk would meet the criteria for being a closed compound, and carry the same effective meaning as country people in this context. Merriam-Webster and Collins attest it, though the latter as an open compound. Edit: Some examples from around the web, showing the wide range of living situations covered and usage by country-folk, themselves: I am directing all of my energies to the areas of the NC Foothills and the Northwest Blue Ridge Mountains. This area ranges in elevation from 800\u2032 to over 5,000\u2032 above sea level. The Foothills offer warmer temperatures, more precipitation, more opportunity for large farms, and have two federally designated American Vita-Cultural Areas for the growing wine industry. The Blue Ridge Mountain area offers longer range views, cooler temperatures, beautiful mountain peaks, and a thriving year-round vacation industry. Please don\u2019t hesitate using me or my website to find that very special piece of land in what we \u201cCountry Folk\u201d call God\u2019s Country! (from a real estate website) We own that moonshine and we're sippin' on Bacardi We showin' Vegas how we country folk party What happens in the backwoods Stays in the backwoods (Crank it Up, Colt Ford) Our 6ft 4in cicerone selected his prime favourite lamb chops, not cutlets, and steaks from young bullock carcasses which had not yet grown all their teeth. 'That's where we country-folk score in our small licensed slaughterer butchers.' She smiled contentedly. (How to Jug a Hare: The Telegraph Book of the Kitchen, 2015)","output":"Similar and related to k1eran's answer, countryfolk would meet the criteria for being a closed compound, and carry the same effective meaning as country people in this context. Merriam-Webster and Collins attest it, though the latter as an open compound. Edit: Some examples from around the web, showing the wide range of living situations covered and usage by country-folk, themselves: I am directing all of my energies to the areas of the NC Foothills and the Northwest Blue Ridge Mountains. This area ranges in elevation from 800\u2032 to over 5,000\u2032 above sea level. The Foothills offer warmer temperatures, more precipitation, more opportunity for large farms, and have two federally designated American Vita-Cultural Areas for the growing wine industry. The Blue Ridge Mountain area offers longer range views, cooler temperatures, beautiful mountain peaks, and a thriving year-round vacation industry. Please don\u2019t hesitate using me or my website to find that very special piece of land in what we \u201cCountry Folk\u201d call God\u2019s Country! (from a real estate website) We own that moonshine and we're sippin' on Bacardi We showin' Vegas how we country folk party What happens in the backwoods Stays in the backwoods (Crank it Up, Colt Ford) Our 6ft 4in cicerone selected his prime favourite lamb chops, not cutlets, and steaks from young bullock carcasses which had not yet grown all their teeth. 'That's where we country-folk score in our small licensed slaughterer butchers.' She smiled contentedly. (How to Jug a Hare: The Telegraph Book of the Kitchen, 2015)"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"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\nLet's assume the context where a woman approaches a bank to secure a loan for her bold but lucrative business idea but she gets turned down because she doesn't have anything for collateral and her financial record (bank transactions, any previous smaller loans, the CIBIL Score for the requested loan amount and so on) is next to nothing. Overall, the banks don't have anything to proceed with other than the business idea itself. My question is that is there a phrase to describe her lack of financial record? I understand that the question sounded particularly vague but the context would help you better understand it. Edit: \"Credit Score\" or \"CIBIL Score\" does fit the context very much. But what I wish to have is a phrase or an idiom. So I have changed the tags now. Sorry for the discrepancy.","question":"Let's assume the context where a woman approaches a bank to secure a loan for her bold but lucrative business idea but she gets turned down because she doesn't have anything for collateral and her financial record (bank transactions, any previous smaller loans, the CIBIL Score for the requested loan amount and so on) is next to nothing. Overall, the banks don't have anything to proceed with other than the business idea itself. My question is that is there a phrase to describe her lack of financial record? I understand that the question sounded particularly vague but the context would help you better understand it. Edit: \"Credit Score\" or \"CIBIL Score\" does fit the context very much. But what I wish to have is a phrase or an idiom. So I have changed the tags now. Sorry for the discrepancy.","answer":"This person is lacking a useful credit history, which is the record of her debts and repayments over time. It's not necessarily that she has a poor record, just that she doesn't have much of a record at all. An oft-repeated piece of financial advice is to keep longstanding but unused credit cards active, as they contribute to a person's credit history over time - having no record isn't much better than having a bad record.","output":"This person is lacking a useful credit history, which is the record of her debts and repayments over time. It's not necessarily that she has a poor record, just that she doesn't have much of a record at all. An oft-repeated piece of financial advice is to keep longstanding but unused credit cards active, as they contribute to a person's credit history over time - having no record isn't much better than having a bad record."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhy is the sentence \" There is (62) days left until we have to take the exam.\" correct? It must be like \"There are (62) days left until we have to take the exam.\"?","question":"Why is the sentence \" There is (62) days left until we have to take the exam.\" correct? It must be like \"There are (62) days left until we have to take the exam.\"?","answer":"The grammatically sound sentence should be: There are 62 days left. However, the simplified version There is (most commonly, if not exclusively in its contracted form There's) seems to be gaining increasing popularity, possibly under the influence of non-native speakers of English. Francophones, too, have no plural construction for this: \"il y a\" means both there is and there are. Part of this trend among Anglophones seems to be corresponding with the theory that languages become more simplified over time, as people break the established patterns. Also, part of the confusion could be because when distances, periods of time, sums of money, etc. are used as subjects, they're considered as units and hence get singular verbs: Ten miles is too far to walk. 100 dollars is too much to pay. Five years is too long for that offense.","output":"The grammatically sound sentence should be: There are 62 days left. However, the simplified version There is (most commonly, if not exclusively in its contracted form There's) seems to be gaining increasing popularity, possibly under the influence of non-native speakers of English. Francophones, too, have no plural construction for this: \"il y a\" means both there is and there are. Part of this trend among Anglophones seems to be corresponding with the theory that languages become more simplified over time, as people break the established patterns. Also, part of the confusion could be because when distances, periods of time, sums of money, etc. are used as subjects, they're considered as units and hence get singular verbs: Ten miles is too far to walk. 100 dollars is too much to pay. Five years is too long for that offense."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI came across the phrase \"That's a mercy!\" in a textbook dialogue. To put it in context I've reproduced the whole dialogue as below: Bobbie: You look like hell, dad. What's on? Sam: Nothing special. You snored a lot last night, and I thought it was a thunder so I closed the windows one by one. Then you began grinding your teeth from midnight. Bobbie: And you thought a mouse was coming into the kitchen and watched out the whole night? Sam: That's a mercy! The whole dialogue makes sense as some sort of family teasing. It's just Sam's reply in the end \"That's a mercy\" which stands out a bit for me. What does this mean? Is this some kind of quick repartee? In what context do we normally use it? The textbook has a slant of American English, to put in context.","question":"I came across the phrase \"That's a mercy!\" in a textbook dialogue. To put it in context I've reproduced the whole dialogue as below: Bobbie: You look like hell, dad. What's on? Sam: Nothing special. You snored a lot last night, and I thought it was a thunder so I closed the windows one by one. Then you began grinding your teeth from midnight. Bobbie: And you thought a mouse was coming into the kitchen and watched out the whole night? Sam: That's a mercy! The whole dialogue makes sense as some sort of family teasing. It's just Sam's reply in the end \"That's a mercy\" which stands out a bit for me. What does this mean? Is this some kind of quick repartee? In what context do we normally use it? The textbook has a slant of American English, to put in context.","answer":"\"That's a mercy\" means approximately \"Well, that at least is something to be grateful for\"; it expresses satisfaction or, more often, relief upon perceiving some redeeming positive feature in an otherwise distressing situation. I'd guess that it originated in pious circles\u2014we may presume that the \"mercy\" involved is God's mercy in sparing us a worse outcome\u2014but it long since lost any explicit religious reference. It is not an exclusively American expression; Joost Kiefte gives you an example from Shaw, and Google will show you examples from Wodehouse and Dickens. It's quite old-fashioned now, but not yet defunct. Here's a recent example from a public radio station in upstate New York: [G]roundhogs are a type of rodent called a marmot. They\u2019re related to other marmots and to ground squirrels out west, but in the northeast they have no close kin. Given what a marmot can eat, that\u2019s a mercy. I can see no reason for its use in the passage you give. Like Robusto, I'm pretty sure the passage was written by someone with an imperfect understanding of English.","output":"\"That's a mercy\" means approximately \"Well, that at least is something to be grateful for\"; it expresses satisfaction or, more often, relief upon perceiving some redeeming positive feature in an otherwise distressing situation. I'd guess that it originated in pious circles\u2014we may presume that the \"mercy\" involved is God's mercy in sparing us a worse outcome\u2014but it long since lost any explicit religious reference. It is not an exclusively American expression; Joost Kiefte gives you an example from Shaw, and Google will show you examples from Wodehouse and Dickens. It's quite old-fashioned now, but not yet defunct. Here's a recent example from a public radio station in upstate New York: [G]roundhogs are a type of rodent called a marmot. They\u2019re related to other marmots and to ground squirrels out west, but in the northeast they have no close kin. Given what a marmot can eat, that\u2019s a mercy. I can see no reason for its use in the passage you give. Like Robusto, I'm pretty sure the passage was written by someone with an imperfect understanding of English."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIEEE 754-1985 section 7.4(Underflow) says After rounding - when a nonzero result computed as though the exponent range were unbounded would lie strictly between K(which is some value). The following is my interpretation.when a nonzero result computed as thought the exponent range unbounded is adverb clause.would lie is verb phrase.strictly between K is prepositional phrase.So, when removing adverb clause and prepositional phrase, only verb remains there is no subject. Therefore my thought is wrong. What structure is used and what does it mean?","question":"IEEE 754-1985 section 7.4(Underflow) says After rounding - when a nonzero result computed as though the exponent range were unbounded would lie strictly between K(which is some value). The following is my interpretation.when a nonzero result computed as thought the exponent range unbounded is adverb clause.would lie is verb phrase.strictly between K is prepositional phrase.So, when removing adverb clause and prepositional phrase, only verb remains there is no subject. Therefore my thought is wrong. What structure is used and what does it mean?","answer":"This is not a sentence at all, it's an adverbial clause. As an entry in a bulleted list, it should be combined with the introductory sentence fragment: \"Tininess may be detected ...\" The completed sentence is then: Tininess may be detected after rounding - when a nonzero result computed as though the exponent range were unbounded would lie strictly between +\/- k. The fragment \"computed as though the exponent range were unbounded\" is a restrictive clause, and would be clearer if set off by commas and marked with \"that is.\" This does not change the parsing of the sentence. Tininess may be detected after rounding - when a nonzero result, that is computed as though the exponent range were unbounded, would lie strictly between +\/- k. The sentence should be understood like this: If one makes a calculation, ... by assuming an unbounded exponent range, ... and gets a nonzero result, ... and rounds the result, ... and the result is between +\/- k, ... then that result is called \"tiny.\"","output":"This is not a sentence at all, it's an adverbial clause. As an entry in a bulleted list, it should be combined with the introductory sentence fragment: \"Tininess may be detected ...\" The completed sentence is then: Tininess may be detected after rounding - when a nonzero result computed as though the exponent range were unbounded would lie strictly between +\/- k. The fragment \"computed as though the exponent range were unbounded\" is a restrictive clause, and would be clearer if set off by commas and marked with \"that is.\" This does not change the parsing of the sentence. Tininess may be detected after rounding - when a nonzero result, that is computed as though the exponent range were unbounded, would lie strictly between +\/- k. The sentence should be understood like this: If one makes a calculation, ... by assuming an unbounded exponent range, ... and gets a nonzero result, ... and rounds the result, ... and the result is between +\/- k, ... then that result is called \"tiny.\""}
{"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn the sentence \"Their work involves commercial solar heating systems,\" should there be a comma after the word \"commercial\"? These are solar heating systems for commercial use as opposed to private homes, so I see the entire phrase as descriptive of the systems and therefore not needing a comma.","question":"In the sentence \"Their work involves commercial solar heating systems,\" should there be a comma after the word \"commercial\"? These are solar heating systems for commercial use as opposed to private homes, so I see the entire phrase as descriptive of the systems and therefore not needing a comma.","answer":"No, the comma is not needed. Although commas are sometimes used to separate adjectives, they are used in that way only in certain circumstances: Use commas to separate two or more coordinate adjectives that describe the same noun. Be sure never to add an extra comma between the final adjective and the noun itself or to use commas with non-coordinate adjectives. Coordinate adjectives are adjectives with equal (\"co\"-ordinate) status in describing the noun; neither adjective is subordinate to the other. You can decide if two adjectives in a row are coordinate by asking the following questions: Does the sentence make sense if the adjectives are written in reverse order? Does the sentence make sense if the adjectives are written with and between them? If you answer yes to these questions, then the adjectives are coordinate and should be separated by a comma. Because the adjectives in your sentence aren't coordinate(check them out), no comma is needed.","output":"No, the comma is not needed. Although commas are sometimes used to separate adjectives, they are used in that way only in certain circumstances: Use commas to separate two or more coordinate adjectives that describe the same noun. Be sure never to add an extra comma between the final adjective and the noun itself or to use commas with non-coordinate adjectives. Coordinate adjectives are adjectives with equal (\"co\"-ordinate) status in describing the noun; neither adjective is subordinate to the other. You can decide if two adjectives in a row are coordinate by asking the following questions: Does the sentence make sense if the adjectives are written in reverse order? Does the sentence make sense if the adjectives are written with and between them? If you answer yes to these questions, then the adjectives are coordinate and should be separated by a comma. Because the adjectives in your sentence aren't coordinate(check them out), no comma is needed."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI asked about the meaning and usage of meta a few days ago, quoting Maureen Dowd\u2019s review of the movie, \u201cJ. Edgar\u201d in New York Times. I received six answers. But I still don\u2019t get a clear idea of what \u201cIt\u2019s meta\u201d means because I don't understand (or have a total inability to comprehend) the concept of \u201cself-referential.\u201d An answerer answered: \u201cMeta in this fairly recent, casual context is supposed to mean self-referential, or recursive in some way. This is the sense in which my teenagers would use this term.\u201d So let me resubmit the question on \u201cmeta\u201d in simpler format. When your teenager boy says \u201cIt\u2019s (or this is) meta,\u201d what does it mean? In what situation and of what sort of object they use this phrase? I\u2019m sorry for many users who lent me kind answers to my previous question. But I would like to get it fully on the meaning and usage of \u201cit\u2019s meta,\u201d as a colloquial expression, not the meaning of meta as a prefix.","question":"I asked about the meaning and usage of meta a few days ago, quoting Maureen Dowd\u2019s review of the movie, \u201cJ. Edgar\u201d in New York Times. I received six answers. But I still don\u2019t get a clear idea of what \u201cIt\u2019s meta\u201d means because I don't understand (or have a total inability to comprehend) the concept of \u201cself-referential.\u201d An answerer answered: \u201cMeta in this fairly recent, casual context is supposed to mean self-referential, or recursive in some way. This is the sense in which my teenagers would use this term.\u201d So let me resubmit the question on \u201cmeta\u201d in simpler format. When your teenager boy says \u201cIt\u2019s (or this is) meta,\u201d what does it mean? In what situation and of what sort of object they use this phrase? I\u2019m sorry for many users who lent me kind answers to my previous question. But I would like to get it fully on the meaning and usage of \u201cit\u2019s meta,\u201d as a colloquial expression, not the meaning of meta as a prefix.","answer":"Something is meta (and self referential) if it is about itself. (Strictly speaking, you can be meta by being about the thing's own category, rather than this specific individual thing, but the key is \"about\".) If you substitute the word \"about\" where you see meta in a sentence longer than \"it's meta\", you will get close to the meaning, even though the sentence you make won't necessarily be grammatically correct. Some examples of meta things: in a meeting, time spent discussing the meeting itself - how long it will last, who will talk first, whether everyone can see the screen - is meta. It's about the meeting, rather than being about the topic the meeting is supposed to be about. when a married couple is arguing about a decision (where to spend Christmas, let's say) and one of them says \"you always interrupt me\" or \"don't yell\" the argument has turned meta. They're arguing about arguing now, not about Christmas plans. when a character in a TV show says to another character \"this isn't a movie, this is real life\" it's a little meta too, because of course it isn't real life, and by saying this, talking about their situation, they've brought up their own fictionality to you. there are also books about writing a book, plays about being in a play, movies about making movies, and so on. Meta doesn't just apply to a conversation, a meeting, or an argument. In fact, the name of https:\/\/english.meta.stackexchange.com\/ should make sense now - it's for questions and answers about questions and answers :-) In my experience, Kids These Days call things meta if they are truly meta (arguing about the argument), or off topic, or just not what they wanted to talk about. Some of them love the self-referential thrill of meta (my youngest once used the new label maker we bought to make a label that said label maker and stuck it onto the label maker with delight), but most don't and think it's something to be avoided. Your kids may vary.","output":"Something is meta (and self referential) if it is about itself. (Strictly speaking, you can be meta by being about the thing's own category, rather than this specific individual thing, but the key is \"about\".) If you substitute the word \"about\" where you see meta in a sentence longer than \"it's meta\", you will get close to the meaning, even though the sentence you make won't necessarily be grammatically correct. Some examples of meta things: in a meeting, time spent discussing the meeting itself - how long it will last, who will talk first, whether everyone can see the screen - is meta. It's about the meeting, rather than being about the topic the meeting is supposed to be about. when a married couple is arguing about a decision (where to spend Christmas, let's say) and one of them says \"you always interrupt me\" or \"don't yell\" the argument has turned meta. They're arguing about arguing now, not about Christmas plans. when a character in a TV show says to another character \"this isn't a movie, this is real life\" it's a little meta too, because of course it isn't real life, and by saying this, talking about their situation, they've brought up their own fictionality to you. there are also books about writing a book, plays about being in a play, movies about making movies, and so on. Meta doesn't just apply to a conversation, a meeting, or an argument. In fact, the name of https:\/\/english.meta.stackexchange.com\/ should make sense now - it's for questions and answers about questions and answers :-) In my experience, Kids These Days call things meta if they are truly meta (arguing about the argument), or off topic, or just not what they wanted to talk about. Some of them love the self-referential thrill of meta (my youngest once used the new label maker we bought to make a label that said label maker and stuck it onto the label maker with delight), but most don't and think it's something to be avoided. Your kids may vary."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nPip chats to Lilian at The Bull. Pip puts up a poster touting for relief milking work, but manages not to let slip about Bridge Farm. When Spencer rings Pip whilst she\u2019s there, Pip tells him all about it. (thearchers.co.uk) There are words and phrasal verbs which are unclear to me; I fail to understand the highlighted sentence. Could you provide me the sense of the sentence?","question":"Pip chats to Lilian at The Bull. Pip puts up a poster touting for relief milking work, but manages not to let slip about Bridge Farm. When Spencer rings Pip whilst she\u2019s there, Pip tells him all about it. (thearchers.co.uk) There are words and phrasal verbs which are unclear to me; I fail to understand the highlighted sentence. Could you provide me the sense of the sentence?","answer":"Tout is a verb that means, \"to try to persuade people to buy your goods or services, especially by going to them and asking them directly.\" It can be transitive or intransitive. in the first case, tout is not followed by for; the direct object is the good or service that person is trying to sell. In the second case, tout is not followed by a direct object. Take \"the problem of unlicensed taxi drivers touting for business at airports\" as example. The phrase doesn't explicitly say which service the taxi drivers are trying to sell, but since the phrase says \"for business\" it's implicit the service is taking people somewhere, which is what taxi drivers do as business.","output":"Tout is a verb that means, \"to try to persuade people to buy your goods or services, especially by going to them and asking them directly.\" It can be transitive or intransitive. in the first case, tout is not followed by for; the direct object is the good or service that person is trying to sell. In the second case, tout is not followed by a direct object. Take \"the problem of unlicensed taxi drivers touting for business at airports\" as example. The phrase doesn't explicitly say which service the taxi drivers are trying to sell, but since the phrase says \"for business\" it's implicit the service is taking people somewhere, which is what taxi drivers do as business."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe pronunciation of the first syllable of butcher as \/\u02c8b\u028at\u0361\u0283 ....\/ is for non-native speakers astonishing. From spelling alone, one would probably guess that it's pronunciation would be more like that of \"but\" \/b\u028ct\/. Surely there must be historic reasons for this (guessing sound-shifts, time of borrowing from french, etc.). What are the reasons for butcher being pronounced the way it is today?","question":"The pronunciation of the first syllable of butcher as \/\u02c8b\u028at\u0361\u0283 ....\/ is for non-native speakers astonishing. From spelling alone, one would probably guess that it's pronunciation would be more like that of \"but\" \/b\u028ct\/. Surely there must be historic reasons for this (guessing sound-shifts, time of borrowing from french, etc.). What are the reasons for butcher being pronounced the way it is today?","answer":"There are a number of words in which a 'u' is pronounced \/\u028a\/ even in dialects (such as South Eastern English) where it is normally \/\u028c\/. They all or nearly all have a labial consonant preceding it: Eg: Pull, push, put, puss, bull, bush, full. This is not a reliable environment: consider puck, buck, pus, putt, which have \/\u028c\/ in such dialects. So there is nothing anomalous about \"butcher\": it belongs to an established class of words with \/\u028a\/","output":"There are a number of words in which a 'u' is pronounced \/\u028a\/ even in dialects (such as South Eastern English) where it is normally \/\u028c\/. They all or nearly all have a labial consonant preceding it: Eg: Pull, push, put, puss, bull, bush, full. This is not a reliable environment: consider puck, buck, pus, putt, which have \/\u028c\/ in such dialects. So there is nothing anomalous about \"butcher\": it belongs to an established class of words with \/\u028a\/"}
{"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 were playing. So a girl got eliminated.(out). What's a more natural to say that? Why did you out me? I mean doesn't \"eliminate\" sounds a bit formal. I know \"out me\" sounds unnatural. What would you use?","question":"We were playing. So a girl got eliminated.(out). What's a more natural to say that? Why did you out me? I mean doesn't \"eliminate\" sounds a bit formal. I know \"out me\" sounds unnatural. What would you use?","answer":"In British English there is the word knockout, see the Oxford Dictionary. A tournament in which the loser in each round is eliminated. So it isn't just used in a boxing match, when the opponent is floored. One example given is: They qualify from their group but fall to Argentina in the first round of knockout matches after a penalty shoot-out. So you could say The girl was knocked out of the game. The girl could ask Why was I knocked out of the game?","output":"In British English there is the word knockout, see the Oxford Dictionary. A tournament in which the loser in each round is eliminated. So it isn't just used in a boxing match, when the opponent is floored. One example given is: They qualify from their group but fall to Argentina in the first round of knockout matches after a penalty shoot-out. So you could say The girl was knocked out of the game. The girl could ask Why was I knocked out of the game?"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it wrong to use the phrase \"The alive animal\"? Is it alright to say, \"The animal was alive.\"?","question":"Is it wrong to use the phrase \"The alive animal\"? Is it alright to say, \"The animal was alive.\"?","answer":"The animal was alive is a correct sentence. The alive animal is a noun phrase and therefore not a sentence, since at the very least it is missing a verb. Having said that, I interpret the question as asking whether it is possible to place the adjective alive in front of a noun. In other words, can alive be used attributively? Most adjectives can be used both attributively (before the noun) and predicatively (following a copula such as the verbs to be, to seem, to look). So happy can be used both attributively and predicatively: The happy child [played in the sand]. The child looked happy. But some adjectives can only be used predicatively; they cannot be used attributively. Alive is one such adjective, so the alive animal is ungrammatical. There are many other non-attributive adjectives beginning with the letter a. For example, it is ungrammatical to say: *the afraid child .. *the asleep child .. *the alone child .. Other adjectives can only be used attributively; they cannot be used predicatively. For example: my maiden aunt (*my aunt is maiden) my sole pleasure (*my pleasure is sole).","output":"The animal was alive is a correct sentence. The alive animal is a noun phrase and therefore not a sentence, since at the very least it is missing a verb. Having said that, I interpret the question as asking whether it is possible to place the adjective alive in front of a noun. In other words, can alive be used attributively? Most adjectives can be used both attributively (before the noun) and predicatively (following a copula such as the verbs to be, to seem, to look). So happy can be used both attributively and predicatively: The happy child [played in the sand]. The child looked happy. But some adjectives can only be used predicatively; they cannot be used attributively. Alive is one such adjective, so the alive animal is ungrammatical. There are many other non-attributive adjectives beginning with the letter a. For example, it is ungrammatical to say: *the afraid child .. *the asleep child .. *the alone child .. Other adjectives can only be used attributively; they cannot be used predicatively. For example: my maiden aunt (*my aunt is maiden) my sole pleasure (*my pleasure is sole)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm talking about percentage of letters, not words, in case it isn't clear. Is there a way to gauge this?","question":"I'm talking about percentage of letters, not words, in case it isn't clear. Is there a way to gauge this?","answer":"Between 2\u20134%, depending on the text and the genre. To determine this, I downloaded a variety of texts from Project Gutenberg, then wrote a simple program to count the total number of alphabetic characters and the total number of capitalized characters in each file. Here are the raw numbers: Title (Author) LetterCount CapsCount PercentCaps Pride and Prejudice (Austen) 2,641,527 14,177 2.56% History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Gibbon) 1,295,410 34,893 2.69% Moby Dick (Melville) 968,516 28,204 2.91% Great Expectations (Dickens) 777,248 23,668 3.05% Shunned House (Lovecraft) 66,779 2,223 3.32% Tom Sawyer (Twain) 312,196 10,746 3.44% Somebody Comes to Town, Somebody Leaves Town (Doctorow) 495,594 17,366 3.50% Bible (King James Version) 3,343,105 117,344 3.51% Ulysses (Joyce) 1,203,807 55,244 4.58% Hamlet (Shakespeare) 139,132 7,812 5.61% Hamlet comes in with the highest percentage capitals, probably because it\u2019s a script and the repeated character names are always capitalized. Ulysses is also unusually high, because Joyce is weird and uses lots of capitals in unexpected places. The other texts run from about 2.5% to 3.5%. Edit: Added Melville, Lovecraft, Dickens, Doctorow to fill out the comparison of contemporary, early 20th century, and 19th century authors. I\u2019m not seeing much of a trend here, with the most contemporary authors actually having a somewhat higher percentage of capitals than the earlier models. I suspect that more modern writers have shorter sentences, and therefore more sentence-initial capitalization, and that this effect swamps the effect of freer capitalization in earlier texts.","output":"Between 2\u20134%, depending on the text and the genre. To determine this, I downloaded a variety of texts from Project Gutenberg, then wrote a simple program to count the total number of alphabetic characters and the total number of capitalized characters in each file. Here are the raw numbers: Title (Author) LetterCount CapsCount PercentCaps Pride and Prejudice (Austen) 2,641,527 14,177 2.56% History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Gibbon) 1,295,410 34,893 2.69% Moby Dick (Melville) 968,516 28,204 2.91% Great Expectations (Dickens) 777,248 23,668 3.05% Shunned House (Lovecraft) 66,779 2,223 3.32% Tom Sawyer (Twain) 312,196 10,746 3.44% Somebody Comes to Town, Somebody Leaves Town (Doctorow) 495,594 17,366 3.50% Bible (King James Version) 3,343,105 117,344 3.51% Ulysses (Joyce) 1,203,807 55,244 4.58% Hamlet (Shakespeare) 139,132 7,812 5.61% Hamlet comes in with the highest percentage capitals, probably because it\u2019s a script and the repeated character names are always capitalized. Ulysses is also unusually high, because Joyce is weird and uses lots of capitals in unexpected places. The other texts run from about 2.5% to 3.5%. Edit: Added Melville, Lovecraft, Dickens, Doctorow to fill out the comparison of contemporary, early 20th century, and 19th century authors. I\u2019m not seeing much of a trend here, with the most contemporary authors actually having a somewhat higher percentage of capitals than the earlier models. I suspect that more modern writers have shorter sentences, and therefore more sentence-initial capitalization, and that this effect swamps the effect of freer capitalization in earlier texts."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn this article paragraph five reads as follows: - Like the trend for \u201cwellness\u201d and clean eating, attachment parenting posits that the modern world has corrupted what was once pure, through scientific intervention. Rejecting modernity has become the ultimate aspirational signifier, from fetishising cycling over driving to praising farmers\u2019 markets over supermarkets; after all, in order to reject something, you not only need access to it, you have to have so many options, you don\u2019t even need it. It also has about it a touch of anti-intellectualism, an increasingly popular stance in everything from politics to nutrition. The writer uses the word ' signifier' but based on my understanding of a 'signifier' , it usually means ' sound-image'. For example, when I write the word ' dog ', it produces the inscription 'dog ', but also the concept of a dog: a four-legged canine creature. The first is thus called ' signifier' based on Saussure's understanding of a sign. But what does the word 'signifier' in this article mean or imply in the article? Or can I replace the word 'signifier' with another word like 'objective' or 'goal'?","question":"In this article paragraph five reads as follows: - Like the trend for \u201cwellness\u201d and clean eating, attachment parenting posits that the modern world has corrupted what was once pure, through scientific intervention. Rejecting modernity has become the ultimate aspirational signifier, from fetishising cycling over driving to praising farmers\u2019 markets over supermarkets; after all, in order to reject something, you not only need access to it, you have to have so many options, you don\u2019t even need it. It also has about it a touch of anti-intellectualism, an increasingly popular stance in everything from politics to nutrition. The writer uses the word ' signifier' but based on my understanding of a 'signifier' , it usually means ' sound-image'. For example, when I write the word ' dog ', it produces the inscription 'dog ', but also the concept of a dog: a four-legged canine creature. The first is thus called ' signifier' based on Saussure's understanding of a sign. But what does the word 'signifier' in this article mean or imply in the article? Or can I replace the word 'signifier' with another word like 'objective' or 'goal'?","answer":"The key part of the paragraph for this question I would say is this: - ...Rejecting modernity has become the ultimate aspirational signifier, from fetishising cycling over driving to praising farmers\u2019 markets over supermarkets... Signifier (Merriam-Webster): A symbol, sound, or image (as a word) that represents an underlying concept or meaning In this case the the 'reject[ion of] modernity' is signifying aspiration. The signal here is a symbol, and that symbol is the rejection of modernity. What is it signifying? In the context of the piece and this paragraph the second definition of aspirational here, appears to be the best match:- Aspirational (Dictionary.com) Aimed at or appealing to people who want to attain a higher social position or standard of living The 'rejection of modernity' here is signifying that the person that is engaged in this act of rejection is trying to 'attain a higher social position or standard of living'. Specifically here I would argue that both 'higher social position' and 'standard of living' apply. As there is a distinct air of aloofness in the way these individuals are characterised in the article. Which would lend credence to the 'higher social position' motive: - \"In order to reject something, you not only need access to it, you have to have so many options, you don\u2019t even need it. It also has about it a touch of anti-intellectualism, an increasingly popular stance in everything from politics to nutrition.\" While the striving for an improved quality of life is also evident: - From fetishising cycling over driving to praising farmers\u2019 markets over supermarkets In answer to your question, signifier would appear to be the best choice of word here. The words 'goal' or 'objective' would not work, because the word 'signifier' is setting up a relationship between the 'rejection of modernity' and an 'aspirational approach to life'. That relationship element is lost if you simply say, the goal (or objective) is an 'aspirational life'. I think the piece is fairly well written. But as an aid to comprehension you could convey the same ideas with slightly simpler vocabulary like this: Rejecting the modern life has become the ultimate indicator of an aspirational approach to life.","output":"The key part of the paragraph for this question I would say is this: - ...Rejecting modernity has become the ultimate aspirational signifier, from fetishising cycling over driving to praising farmers\u2019 markets over supermarkets... Signifier (Merriam-Webster): A symbol, sound, or image (as a word) that represents an underlying concept or meaning In this case the the 'reject[ion of] modernity' is signifying aspiration. The signal here is a symbol, and that symbol is the rejection of modernity. What is it signifying? In the context of the piece and this paragraph the second definition of aspirational here, appears to be the best match:- Aspirational (Dictionary.com) Aimed at or appealing to people who want to attain a higher social position or standard of living The 'rejection of modernity' here is signifying that the person that is engaged in this act of rejection is trying to 'attain a higher social position or standard of living'. Specifically here I would argue that both 'higher social position' and 'standard of living' apply. As there is a distinct air of aloofness in the way these individuals are characterised in the article. Which would lend credence to the 'higher social position' motive: - \"In order to reject something, you not only need access to it, you have to have so many options, you don\u2019t even need it. It also has about it a touch of anti-intellectualism, an increasingly popular stance in everything from politics to nutrition.\" While the striving for an improved quality of life is also evident: - From fetishising cycling over driving to praising farmers\u2019 markets over supermarkets In answer to your question, signifier would appear to be the best choice of word here. The words 'goal' or 'objective' would not work, because the word 'signifier' is setting up a relationship between the 'rejection of modernity' and an 'aspirational approach to life'. That relationship element is lost if you simply say, the goal (or objective) is an 'aspirational life'. I think the piece is fairly well written. But as an aid to comprehension you could convey the same ideas with slightly simpler vocabulary like this: Rejecting the modern life has become the ultimate indicator of an aspirational approach to life."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nQuotes, sayings, aphorisms, maxims. What's the difference between all these, especially aphorism vs. maxim?","question":"Quotes, sayings, aphorisms, maxims. What's the difference between all these, especially aphorism vs. maxim?","answer":"An aphorism is a synonym for a proverb, that's also short and to the point. Usually, it's supposed to impart some important moral lesson. Here's a well-known example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. A maxim is a slogan or a personal prescription for some generality of life; importantly, it does not have the same moral connotations as an aphorism. Maxims can be downright dangerous; consider Four legs good, two legs baaaddd. from the famous Orwell satire Animal Farm, a phrase famous for connoting the kind of totalitarian mindset required for enforcing the simplistic sociology Orwell found in communism. A big difference between the two words is that aphorisms need be drawn from society somehow -- they are known to people other than yourself, they are received wisdom. In contrast, one can have personal maxims; it's fairly common nowadays for people to tattoo such on their bodies, things like \"Faith and Family\" in elaborate script to apparently remind them how to live.","output":"An aphorism is a synonym for a proverb, that's also short and to the point. Usually, it's supposed to impart some important moral lesson. Here's a well-known example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. A maxim is a slogan or a personal prescription for some generality of life; importantly, it does not have the same moral connotations as an aphorism. Maxims can be downright dangerous; consider Four legs good, two legs baaaddd. from the famous Orwell satire Animal Farm, a phrase famous for connoting the kind of totalitarian mindset required for enforcing the simplistic sociology Orwell found in communism. A big difference between the two words is that aphorisms need be drawn from society somehow -- they are known to people other than yourself, they are received wisdom. In contrast, one can have personal maxims; it's fairly common nowadays for people to tattoo such on their bodies, things like \"Faith and Family\" in elaborate script to apparently remind them how to live."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat's the difference between \"incarnation\" and \"embodiment\"? I didn't get a clear distinction from Webster. Is it like \"incarnation\" is more about a state and \"embodiment\" is more about an action? Or is it like \"incarnation\" is more about a living being and \"embodiment\" is more about an idea or a notion?","question":"What's the difference between \"incarnation\" and \"embodiment\"? I didn't get a clear distinction from Webster. Is it like \"incarnation\" is more about a state and \"embodiment\" is more about an action? Or is it like \"incarnation\" is more about a living being and \"embodiment\" is more about an idea or a notion?","answer":"Incarnation is all about the previous state and a transformation after its life. If you say \"This dog must be a rabbit incarnate\", you are saying that the dog has a lot of rabbit like qualities. This may be physical (like ears), or the fact that they like to hop around. This also implies that the animal\/person lived another life. You would always be an incarnate of a living thing. Embodiment is to embrace or display a trait. You may say \"This dog is the embodiment of joy\". You can embody a lot of things, unlike incarnation, these can be non-living things. While they can mean roughly the same thing, there is some nuances in usage as well as meaning.","output":"Incarnation is all about the previous state and a transformation after its life. If you say \"This dog must be a rabbit incarnate\", you are saying that the dog has a lot of rabbit like qualities. This may be physical (like ears), or the fact that they like to hop around. This also implies that the animal\/person lived another life. You would always be an incarnate of a living thing. Embodiment is to embrace or display a trait. You may say \"This dog is the embodiment of joy\". You can embody a lot of things, unlike incarnation, these can be non-living things. While they can mean roughly the same thing, there is some nuances in usage as well as meaning."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have seen the question on when to capitalize mom and dad, but I am confused why the rule would not apply equally to Brother vs. brother and Sister vs. sister. I.e., if the rule is to use capitals when speaking of a specific mom, as in \"my Mom\", then should the rule compel me to refer to siblings as \"my Sister\" and \"my Brother\"? It looks perfectly acceptable to capitalize parents, but capitalizing siblings looks extremely odd.","question":"I have seen the question on when to capitalize mom and dad, but I am confused why the rule would not apply equally to Brother vs. brother and Sister vs. sister. I.e., if the rule is to use capitals when speaking of a specific mom, as in \"my Mom\", then should the rule compel me to refer to siblings as \"my Sister\" and \"my Brother\"? It looks perfectly acceptable to capitalize parents, but capitalizing siblings looks extremely odd.","answer":"Mom and Dad are capitalized when they're used in place of names, e.g. Hi, Mom at the beginning of a letter or email. Sister and brother are not usually used in this way. If you were to refer to a sibling using the relationship, it's more common to use diminutives Sis and Bro. If you write Hi, Sis, you should capitalize it for the same reason as Mom above. You don't capitalize them when you're using them as ordinary nouns. So you would write \"My mom was home and she made dinner for my sister\".","output":"Mom and Dad are capitalized when they're used in place of names, e.g. Hi, Mom at the beginning of a letter or email. Sister and brother are not usually used in this way. If you were to refer to a sibling using the relationship, it's more common to use diminutives Sis and Bro. If you write Hi, Sis, you should capitalize it for the same reason as Mom above. You don't capitalize them when you're using them as ordinary nouns. So you would write \"My mom was home and she made dinner for my sister\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs the semicolon correct in this sentence? Being taught and raised in a society; where art and design is an awful career option, I still manage myself pursuing my inner desire anyway.","question":"Is the semicolon correct in this sentence? Being taught and raised in a society; where art and design is an awful career option, I still manage myself pursuing my inner desire anyway.","answer":"A semicolon is used to separate two independent clauses. In this case, Being taught and raised in a society is not an independent clause. Using your words, I would rephrase your sentence as: Being taught and raised in a society where art and design is an awful career option, I still manage myself pursuing my inner desire anyway. But that is a little wordy. If you really want to use a semicolon, you could do: I was raised in a society that considered art and design awful career options; despite what they taught me, I still manage myself pursuing my inner desire anyway.","output":"A semicolon is used to separate two independent clauses. In this case, Being taught and raised in a society is not an independent clause. Using your words, I would rephrase your sentence as: Being taught and raised in a society where art and design is an awful career option, I still manage myself pursuing my inner desire anyway. But that is a little wordy. If you really want to use a semicolon, you could do: I was raised in a society that considered art and design awful career options; despite what they taught me, I still manage myself pursuing my inner desire anyway."}
{"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 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\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm looking for a one (or two word if necessary) expression that describes the character trait of mindfulness and a desire to stay focused on completing a purpose in a period of time. This implies the quality that one is not easily distracted but doesn't have to imply competence or effectiveness. The context I'm describing the core values of our company, so this word will be listed along other words such as \"Authenticity\", \"Curiousity\", etc. Here's some words that don't quite work Punctual is only a partial hit, because I'm not necessarily talking about \"showing up\" for the starting and stopping of a task. EDIT - This word also implies a cold indifference where I'm trying to imply a respect for the limits time Focused also only covers part of what I'm looking for, but doesn't cover the intention to complete a task within a window. Effective is somewhat implied, but not quite it either as I want to isolate the intention and ability to deliver the requirements on time without speaking to the quality of the work (at least for this word)","question":"I'm looking for a one (or two word if necessary) expression that describes the character trait of mindfulness and a desire to stay focused on completing a purpose in a period of time. This implies the quality that one is not easily distracted but doesn't have to imply competence or effectiveness. The context I'm describing the core values of our company, so this word will be listed along other words such as \"Authenticity\", \"Curiousity\", etc. Here's some words that don't quite work Punctual is only a partial hit, because I'm not necessarily talking about \"showing up\" for the starting and stopping of a task. EDIT - This word also implies a cold indifference where I'm trying to imply a respect for the limits time Focused also only covers part of what I'm looking for, but doesn't cover the intention to complete a task within a window. Effective is somewhat implied, but not quite it either as I want to isolate the intention and ability to deliver the requirements on time without speaking to the quality of the work (at least for this word)","answer":"conscientious(ness) It\u2019s not clear if you want a noun (like \"curiosity\") or an adjective (like \"punctual\"), but the difference is easily addressed. From Collins via TFD: Conscientious (adj) involving or taking great care; painstaking; diligent It implies that care is taken in everything, especially task\/time management.","output":"conscientious(ness) It\u2019s not clear if you want a noun (like \"curiosity\") or an adjective (like \"punctual\"), but the difference is easily addressed. From Collins via TFD: Conscientious (adj) involving or taking great care; painstaking; diligent It implies that care is taken in everything, especially task\/time management."}
{"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\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nEquippable, while not a really a word, seems to be accepted by the gaming community as a term for this can be equipped. Is there a more appropriate word which is real, singular and essentially means the same? For example, I may pick the item up and carry it. However, whether I may put it in my hand or not would be distinguished by whether it is equippable.","question":"Equippable, while not a really a word, seems to be accepted by the gaming community as a term for this can be equipped. Is there a more appropriate word which is real, singular and essentially means the same? For example, I may pick the item up and carry it. However, whether I may put it in my hand or not would be distinguished by whether it is equippable.","answer":"Long-time gamer here and I'd go with carriable: Able to be carried; portable. It's expected that if you can carry an item, you can use it \"on the go.\" Also remember that considering language is a communication system of which the primary aim is to understand each other, you still can use equippable. If the listener clearly understands what you mean, the purpose of language is fulfilled and no \"law\" has been broken :)","output":"Long-time gamer here and I'd go with carriable: Able to be carried; portable. It's expected that if you can carry an item, you can use it \"on the go.\" Also remember that considering language is a communication system of which the primary aim is to understand each other, you still can use equippable. If the listener clearly understands what you mean, the purpose of language is fulfilled and no \"law\" has been broken :)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI would like to know what would be the correct sentence here. I just want to say that I left the city on the weekend. I went out of the city on Saturday. I went outside the city on Saturday.","question":"I would like to know what would be the correct sentence here. I just want to say that I left the city on the weekend. I went out of the city on Saturday. I went outside the city on Saturday.","answer":"Your sentences are fine. As J.R. mentioned, it's better to say, I left the city on Saturday. Out of is better suited in situations like, I am out of town right now, I will get back to you when I return. Although outside the city is grammatically correct, it sounds a bit unorthodox in this context.","output":"Your sentences are fine. As J.R. mentioned, it's better to say, I left the city on Saturday. Out of is better suited in situations like, I am out of town right now, I will get back to you when I return. Although outside the city is grammatically correct, it sounds a bit unorthodox in this context."}
{"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\nJoseph Conrad, \"The Nigger Of The \"Narcissus: A Tale Of The Forecastle\": Donkin gulped greedily, glaring over the rim. Belfast made us laugh when with grimacing mouth he shouted:\u2014\u201cPass it this way. We're all taytottlers here.\u201d So the sailors are passing the water to each other after the storm. And some of them are saying that it's better than rum. I couldn't find the word on lexico.com or Merriam-Webster. When I googled it, it showed me the results with different versions of this same book and then another book in some strange English. Any clues?","question":"Joseph Conrad, \"The Nigger Of The \"Narcissus: A Tale Of The Forecastle\": Donkin gulped greedily, glaring over the rim. Belfast made us laugh when with grimacing mouth he shouted:\u2014\u201cPass it this way. We're all taytottlers here.\u201d So the sailors are passing the water to each other after the storm. And some of them are saying that it's better than rum. I couldn't find the word on lexico.com or Merriam-Webster. When I googled it, it showed me the results with different versions of this same book and then another book in some strange English. Any clues?","answer":"Conrad means the word \"teetotaler\", someone who doesn't drink alcohol: teetotalism: the principle or practice of complete abstinence from alcoholic drinks Almost all the dialogue in Conrad's short novel is written in a way that emulates the accents of the men speaking. As a result you can't assume any words are correctly spelled, but sometimes have to guess what the word should be. As ben says, since the character of \"Belfast\" is presumably from Belfast, if you were to write out the way someone with that Irish accent sounds when speaking the word \"teetotalers\", \"taytotallers\" is probably pretty close.","output":"Conrad means the word \"teetotaler\", someone who doesn't drink alcohol: teetotalism: the principle or practice of complete abstinence from alcoholic drinks Almost all the dialogue in Conrad's short novel is written in a way that emulates the accents of the men speaking. As a result you can't assume any words are correctly spelled, but sometimes have to guess what the word should be. As ben says, since the character of \"Belfast\" is presumably from Belfast, if you were to write out the way someone with that Irish accent sounds when speaking the word \"teetotalers\", \"taytotallers\" is probably pretty close."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI know \"No, thank you\" means rejection. Me: Hey, Bob. You want some drink? Bob: No, thank you. But I was involved with this kind of conversation Me: Thanks, Mr Jordan for teaching me. Mr.Jordan: No! Thank you! Did he reject my thanks? Does this mean that it's something like No Problem, or is he trying to say that I'm the one who should thank you!. Or has he had enough of me? He has taught me for 5 years, so we have a good relationship (I hope).","question":"I know \"No, thank you\" means rejection. Me: Hey, Bob. You want some drink? Bob: No, thank you. But I was involved with this kind of conversation Me: Thanks, Mr Jordan for teaching me. Mr.Jordan: No! Thank you! Did he reject my thanks? Does this mean that it's something like No Problem, or is he trying to say that I'm the one who should thank you!. Or has he had enough of me? He has taught me for 5 years, so we have a good relationship (I hope).","answer":"He is saying that you don't owe him thanks, he owes you thanks. He clearly regards you as the sort of student who makes teaching rewarding. He may even imply that he has learned from you, from the sorts of questions you have asked which made him think about things which he took for granted.","output":"He is saying that you don't owe him thanks, he owes you thanks. He clearly regards you as the sort of student who makes teaching rewarding. He may even imply that he has learned from you, from the sorts of questions you have asked which made him think about things which he took for granted."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nJust curious: Which words are often used in everyday English? I came across the Wikipedia article about List of German expressions in English. There are listed thousands of words. I was surprised about the mass and that almost every word that I checked has its entry in Oxford Dictionary; but though, I can barely think of that all these words are known by native English, let alone frequently used. One example of which I know that it is used is zeitgeist, at least the Guardian has a rubric zeitgeist.","question":"Just curious: Which words are often used in everyday English? I came across the Wikipedia article about List of German expressions in English. There are listed thousands of words. I was surprised about the mass and that almost every word that I checked has its entry in Oxford Dictionary; but though, I can barely think of that all these words are known by native English, let alone frequently used. One example of which I know that it is used is zeitgeist, at least the Guardian has a rubric zeitgeist.","answer":"This is a difficult question to answer, because it is unclear what is meant. Must the words in English be unaltered in appearance compared with their use in German? Must the words in English be unaltered in meaning compared with their use in German? Words in common parlance or technical use? Whose common parlance? Does slang count? Do phrases count, like for example \u201c\u00fcber alles\u201d? Is a productive prefix like \u00fcber- a word? Does it matter if the words are more often, even exclusively, used only in spoken or only in written English? If written, then in which corpus or corpora? Would a word whose use were limited to the U.S. still count? What about if it were limited to South Africa? Is there a time limit? For example, do words entering English from German in 2010 count the same as those entering in 1910? What about 1610? Or 1010? Do words shared in common between Modern German and Modern English solely as a result of those two languages\u2019 shared ancestry count? Do words that we once used but are not considered obsolete still count, or only words in current use? Without answers to these sorts of questions, and probably others, no reasonable answer seems possible. The OED reports that the number of terms of German origin still considered current and whose first attested written use in English dates from various periods is: 6 words first entered English from German over the past 25 years. 79 words first entered English from German over the past 50 years. 821 words first entered English from German over the past 100 years. 2985 words first entered English from German over the past 500 years. 3122 words first entered English from German over the past 1,000 years. 7 words first entered English from German over 1,000 years ago. One of these is the prefix fore-. Here are the 79 terms of German (including Yiddish) origin that the OED reports having entered English over the past 50 years: bashert, n. 1975 \u2026In Jewish usage: a person's predestined romantic partner; a soulmate\u2026. bashert, adj. 1963 \u2026In Jewish usage: destined, fated; preordained\u2026. bioturbation, n. 1963 \u2026The disturbance of sediment by burrowing or other activity of living organisms; the disturbed state that results\u2026. Eisbock, n. 1977 \u2026A type of strong lager chilled to sub-zero temperatures after fermentation so that ice crystals may be strained off, thereby concentrating the flavour and alcohol content. Cf. ice beerice\u2026. Eiswein, n. 1963 \u2026Wine made from ripe grapes picked while the frost is on them, and still frozen when they go into the press\u2026. flehmen, n. 1970 \u2026A behaviour seen in many mammals in response to certain olfactory stimuli, esp. sex pheromones, characterized by a curling of the upper lip and a raising of the head. Freq. attrib\u2026. Foosball, n. 1966 \u2026A table football game in which players rotate rods attached to opposing ranks of miniature representations of footballers in order to direct a ball into their opponent's goal. Also: the ball used\u2026 fundi, n.2 and adj. 1984 \u2026Originally and esp. in Germany: a member of the radical wing of the Green Party; (later, also) a radical or extreme environmentalist. Contrasted with realo\u2026 Gastarbeiter, n. 1966 \u2026A person with temporary permission to work in another country, an immigrant worker. Applied esp. to those encouraged into Germany after 1945 to assist in the post-war economic revival\u2026. Gesellschaft, n. 1964 \u2026A social relationship between individuals based on duty to society or to an organization; contrasted with Gemeinschaft So Gesellschaft-like adj. Germangesellschaftlich\u2026. glitzy, adj. 1966 \u2026Characterized by glitter or extravagant show; ostentatious, glamorous; hence, tawdry, gaudy; glitteringly spectacular, but in poor taste. Cf. glittering2, glitterati\u2026 Grepo, n. 1964 \u2026An East Berlin border guard\u2026. heimisch, adj. 1964 \u2026Homely; unpretentious\u2026. Historikerstreit, n. 1987 \u2026A controversial scholarly debate in West Germany in 19867 as to the interpretation and significance of the Holocaust, and in particular whether the atrocities committed by the Nazis can\u2026 imhofite, n. 1965 \u2026A soft, white sulphide of thallium and arsenic occurring as tiny monoclinic plates\u2026. klutz, n. 1968 \u2026A clumsy, awkward person, esp. one considered socially inept; a fool. Also as \u2026 kombi, n. 1963 \u2026A kind of minibus or van, originally manufactured by Volkswagen, which has removable seating at the rear, enabling it to transport passengers or goods (or a combination of the two); (S\u2026. kvell, v. 1967 \u2026intr. To boast; to feel proud or happy; to gloat\u2026. kvetch, n. 1964 \u2026A term of personal abuse: spec. a person who complains a great deal, a fault-finder\u2026. lagerst\u00e4tte, n. 1972 \u2026A fossil deposit of exceptional richness or interest. Also more fully fossil-lagerstatte. Usu. in pl\u2026. lithotripter, n. 1982 \u2026A machine used for ultrasound lithotripsy which generates ultrasonic waves and focuses them on a chosen site in the body. Cf. lithotriptor\u2026 mameloshen, n. 1968 \u2026In Jewish usage: a mother tongue, esp. Yiddish\u2026. marka, n. 1997 \u2026The principal monetary unit of Bosnia and Herzegovina, consisting of 100 fenings. Also more fully convertible marka. Cf. mark2e\u2026. meister, n. 1975 \u2026A person skilled in or strongly associated with something (usually indicated by the first element), an expert; a person in control of an enterprise or undertaking\u2026. meisterwerk, n. 1964 \u2026A work perceived as the greatest of a particular artist or genre. Cf. masterwork\u2026 memorat, n. 1965 \u2026In folklore studies: a narrative relating personal experience\u2026. metachrony, n. 1964 \u2026Occurrence in sequence (as opposed to in synchrony); spec. the orderly sequential movement of cilia in a progressive wave\u2026. metaphyton, n. 1964 \u2026Aggregated freshwater algae that are not attached to a substrate; (originally) spec. those found between or loosely associated with water plants\u2026. mieskeit, n. 1968 \u2026Esp. in Jewish usage: an ugly person\u2026. milbemycin, n. 1975 \u2026Any of a group of macrolide antibiotics structurally related to the avermectins, used in veterinary medicine for the treatment and prevention of various ecto- and endoparasitic infestations\u2026. minerotrophic, adj. 1963 \u2026Esp. of a swamp, fen, or peatland: fed chiefly by ground and surface water and hence supplied with dissolved minerals. Cf. ombrotrophic\u2026 mitteleurop\u00e4isch, adj. 1963 \u2026= Middle-European\u2026 moganite, n. 1984 \u2026A microcrystalline form of monoclinic silica\u2026. muscimol, n. 1967 \u2026An alkaloid with hallucinogenic and narcotic properties which is an analogue of gamma-aminobutyric acid and occurs naturally in the fly agaric (Amanita muscaria) and certain other fungi; 3-hydroxy-5-aminomethylisoxazole, C\u2026 neuraminate, n. 1970 \u2026A salt or ester of neuraminic acid\u2026. O-Bahn, n. 1982 \u2026A track on which a bus, by means of special locking wheels, may run without needing to be steered; a bus or bus service which uses such a track\u2026. ODESSA, n. 1964 \u2026An organization arranging the escape from Germany of high-ranking Nazis at the end of the Second World War\u2026. omi, n.2 1988 \u2026Originally among German communities: a grandmother. Freq. as an affectionate form of address\u2026. opi, n. 1988 \u2026Originally among German communities: a grandfather. Freq. as an affectionate form of address\u2026. Ossi, n. 1989 \u2026Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989: a citizen of the former German Democratic Republic; an East German. Cf. Wessi\u2026 paracladium, n. 1965 \u2026In certain types of compound inflorescence: a subsidiary branch that has the same branching structure as the main axis\u2026. parafango, n. 1969 \u2026A medicinal bath made with volcanic mud and paraffin wax\u2026. propafenone, n. 1975 \u2026A drug with anti-arrhythmic and local anaesthetic properties, used in the treatment of cardiac arrhythmia\u2026. punim, n. 1965 \u2026In Jewish usage: the face\u2026. Qualit\u00e4tswein, n. 1971 \u2026In Germany and Austria: high-quality wine produced under stricter controls than ordinary table wine\u2026. Ratrac, n. 1971 \u2026A tracked vehicle designed for travelling on snow-covered terrain, used esp. for compacting snow on a ski slope. Cf. snowcat\u2026 realo, n. and adj. 1984 \u2026Originally and esp. in Germany: a member of the pragmatic or more moderate wing of the Green Party; (later, also) a moderate or pragmatic environmentalist. Contrasted with fundi\u2026. rotaxane, n. 1969 \u2026Any compound having a molecular structure in which a chain of atoms is threaded through a ring and, though not chemically bonded to the ring, is mechanically constrained in position by the\u2026 rumspringa, n. 1963 \u2026In some Amish communities: a period of adolescence in which boys and girls are given greater personal freedom and allowed to begin courting, usually beginning around the age of sixteen and ending\u2026 schlep, n.2 1964 \u2026A troublesome business, a piece of hard work\u2026. schlong, n. 1969 \u2026The penis. Also applied contemptuously to a person\u2026. schlub, n. 1964 \u2026A worthless person, a \u2018jerk\u2019, an oaf\u2026. schmatte, n. 1970 \u2026A rag, a ragged garment; any garment. Also fig\u2026. schmoll, n. 1967 \u2026An idiot, a fool\u2026. schmutz, n. 1968 \u2026Dirt, filth, rubbish. Also fig\u2026. scleromyx\u0153dema, n. 1964 \u2026A disease characterized by the extensive proliferation of fibroblasts and deposition of mucopolysaccharides in the skin, causing distortions of the features and lichenous eruptions\u2026. Seilbahn, n. 1963 \u2026A cable railway; an aerial cableway\u2026. shtup, v. 1968 \u2026trans. To push. Hence also as \u2026 Stasi, n. 1964 \u2026The internal security force of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), disbanded in 1990\u2026. sudoite, n. 1963 \u2026(See quot. 1963.)\u2026 Tafelwein, n. 1972 \u2026Wine of less than middle quality, suitable for drinking with an ordinary meal; = table wine Cf. vin de tablevin\u2026. taphrogenesis, n. 1978 \u2026The formation of large-scale geological structures by high-angle or block faulting, esp. as the result of tensional forces in the crust\u2026. textology, n. 1975 \u2026The study and analysis of the evolution of a text or texts, esp. through rewriting, editing, and translation; more generally, the study of text production; textual classification\u2026. Torschlusspanik, n. 1963 \u2026A sense of alarm or anxiety (said to be experienced particularly in middle age) caused by the suspicion that life's opportunities are passing (or have passed) one by; spec. that\u2026 treff, n. 1963 \u2026A secret meeting(-place), esp. for the transfer of goods or information\u2026. trockenbeerenauslese, n. 1963 \u2026(A) sweet German white wine of superior quality, made from individually selected grapes affected by noble rot\u2026. tsatske | tchotchke, n. 1968 \u2026A trinket or gewgaw; transf., a pretty girl\u2026. tummler, n. 1966 \u2026Someone who acts the clown, a prankster; spec. a professional maker of amusement and jollity at a hotel or the like\u2026. \u00fcber alles, phr. 1967 \u2026Above all else. \u2026 \u00dcberfremdung, n. 1965 \u2026The admission or presence of too many foreigners\u2026. Umwelt, n. 1964 \u2026The outer world, or reality, as it affects the organisms inhabiting it\u2026. untermensch, n. 1964 \u2026Esp. with reference to the Nazi r\u00e9gime: a racially inferior person, a sub-human person. Cf. \u00dcbermensch\u2026 viertel, n. 1967 \u2026In Germany and Austria, a quarter of a litre (of wine, etc.); a glass or jug holding this quantity\u2026. Waldsterben, n. 1983 \u2026A detrimental condition affecting some forests, in which trees and other vegetation sicken and die, esp. as a result of atmospheric pollution\u2026. Weisswurst, n. 1963 \u2026(A) whitish German sausage made chiefly of veal\u2026. Wessi, n. 1990 \u2026A term used in Germany (esp. since reunification) to denote a citizen of the former Federal Republic of Germany; a West German. Cf. Ossi\u2026 Wunderkammer, n. 1976 \u2026A chamber or cabinet of wonders; spec. a place exhibiting the collection of a connoisseur of curiosities, such as became common from the late Renaissance onwards\u2026. zeitgeber, n. 1964 \u2026A rhythmically occurring event, esp. in the environment, which acts as a cue in the regulation of certain biological rhythms in an organism\u2026. zugtrompete, n. 1978 \u2026A slide trumpet\u2026. The 50 years previous to those (read: 1913\u20131962) were even more active, with 742 terms entering English from German (again, not excluding Yiddish) during that time. A few of the more notable such terms I list below. Notice how this includes words ultimately of classical derivation, like taxon (pl. taxa). Sure, it\u2019s awfully Greek-looking, but it comes to us from A. Meyer\u2019s Logik der Morphologie of 1926, and so is considered to have arrive to English by way of German. abseil, n. 1923 \u2026A descent made by abseiling\u2026. allele, n. 1931 \u2026= allelomorph\u2026 alpenrose, n. 1914 \u2026= rose of the Alpsrose5a\u2026. angst, n. 1944 \u2026Anxiety, anguish, neurotic fear; guilt, remorse\u2026. bagel, n. 1919 \u2026A hard ring-shaped salty roll of bread. Also attrib\u2026. ballerino, n. 1934 \u2026A male ballet dancer. Cf. ballerina\u2026 bierhaus, n. 1930 \u2026A German public house or ale-house\u2026. Blitzkrieg | blitzkrieg, n. 1939 \u2026(See blitz)\u2026 boxer, n.5 1934 \u2026A smooth-coated, square-built, fawn or brindle breed of dog of the bulldog type, originating in Germany\u2026. boychick, n. 1921 \u2026Esp. in Jewish usage: a boy, a young man; a lad, a \u2018kid\u2019. Freq. as a familiar form of address\u2026. carotenoid | carotinoid, n. 1913 \u2026Any one of a group of pigments including the carotenes, the xanthophylls, and fucoxanthin, found in many plants and animals. Also attrib. or as \u2026 citrin, n. 1936 \u2026A water-soluble flavonoid found in citrus fruits, formerly considered to be a source of vitamin P\u2026. Deutsche Mark | Deutschemark, n. 1948 \u2026The monetary unit of the German Federal Republic, instituted in June 1948; also, a coin representing one Deutsche Mark. Abbrev. D.M. or D-mark\u2026. diktat, n. 1922 \u2026A severe settlement or decision, esp. one imposed by a victorious nation upon a defeated nation\u2026. dreck, n. 1922 \u2026Rubbish, trash, worthless debris\u2026. dunk, v. 1919 \u2026trans. To dip (bread, cake, etc.) into a beverage or other liquid. Also absol., transf., and fig\u2026. \u02c8eigenvalue, n. 1927 \u2026One of those special values of a parameter in an equation for which the equation has a solution (see quot. 1938)\u2026. exergy, n. 1959 \u2026The maximum amount of work that can be obtained from a given process, or from a given system by reversible processes\u2026. existentialism, n. 1919 \u2026A doctrine that concentrates on the existence of the individual, who, being free and responsible, is held to be what he makes himself by the self-development of his essence through acts of\u2026 fenster, n. 1925 \u2026An opening or \u2018window\u2019 eroded through an older stratum in a region of overfolding or overthrusting, exposing a younger stratum beneath\u2026. flak, n. 1938 \u2026An anti-aircraft gun; also (the usual sense in English), anti-aircraft fire. Also attrib. So flak-happyflak jacketflak ship\u2026 F\u00fchrer, n. 1934 \u2026Part of the title (F\u00fchrer und Reichskanzler) assumed by Adolf Hitler (see Hitler) in 1934 as head of the German Reich, after the model of \u2026 Gestalt | gestalt, n. 1922 \u2026A \u2018shape\u2019, \u2018configuration\u2019, or \u2018structure\u2019 which as an object of perception forms a specific whole or unity incapable of expression simply in terms of its parts (e.g. a melody in\u2026 Gestapo, n. 1934 \u2026The secret police of the Nazi regime in Germany. Also transf\u2026. gesundheit, int. 1914 \u2026An exclamation used to wish good health to a person, esp. to someone who sneezes\u2026. Gew\u00fcrztraminer, n. 1940 \u2026A variety of Traminer grape grown chiefly in the Rhine valley, Alsace, and Austria; the aromatic white wine made from it\u2026. gunsel, n. 1914 \u2026A (na\u00efve) youth; a tramp's young companion, male lover; a homosexual youth\u2026. heterochromatin, n. 1932 \u2026Heterochromatic chromosome material\u2026. h\u00fcgelite, n. 1914 \u2026A yellow or brown mineral originally described as a hydrated vanadate of lead and zinc but later shown to be a hydrated arsenate of lead and uranium\u2026. intersex, n. 1917 \u2026In a di\u0153cious species, an abnormal form or individual having characteristics of both sexes; the condition of being of this type\u2026. isogloss, n. 1925 \u2026In Linguistic Geography, the boundary of an area of local concentration or dominance of a significant feature (as of vocabulary or pronunciation). Also, a line plotted on a map indicating the area\u2026 Judenrat, n. 1950 \u2026A council representing a Jewish community in a locality controlled by the Germans during the war of 193945\u2026. karabiner, n. 1932 \u2026A coupling device consisting of a metal oval or D-shaped link with a gate protected against accidental opening. Cf. krab\u2026 kegler, n. 1932 \u2026One who plays tenpin bowling, skittles, ninepins, etc\u2026. keller, n. 1927 \u2026A beer-cellar in Austria or Germany. Also attrib\u2026. kibitz, v. 1930 \u2026intr. To look on at cards, or some other activity, esp. in an interfering manner (e.g. by standing close to the shoulders of the players); to offer gratuitous advice to a\u2026 kitsch, n. 1926 \u2026Art or objets d'art characterized by worthless pretentiousness; the qualities associated with such art or artifacts. Also attrib., Comb., and transf\u2026. klezmer, n. and adj. 1929 \u2026A performer of Jewish folk music, traditionally itinerant and playing in small groups at festivals and family events\u2026. knackwurst, n. 1939 \u2026A type of German sausage\u2026. konditorei, n. 1935 \u2026Confectionery; a confectioner's shop, a shop where pastries are sold\u2026. lager, v. 1946 \u2026To store (beer) (see quots.)\u2026. latke, n. 1927 \u2026In Jewish cookery, a pancake, esp. one made with grated potato\u2026. lederhosen, n. 1937 \u2026Leather shorts, as worn in Alpine regions\u2026. lox, n.2 1941 \u2026A kind of smoked salmon\u2026. LSD, n.2 1950 \u2026Lysergic acid diethylamide (see lysergic). Freq. with the number 25 appended\u2026. Luftwaffe, n. 1935 \u2026The German air force before, and until the end of, the 193945 war. Also attrib\u2026. macroglobulin, n. 1952 \u2026Any blood plasma globulin of high molecular weight (usually, greater than 400,000); esp. immunoglobulin M\u2026. maven, n. 1950 \u2026An expert, a connoisseur; a knowledgeable enthusiast, an aficionado\u2026. mensch, n. 1930 \u2026In Jewish usage: a person of integrity or rectitude; a person who is morally just, honest, or honourable\u2026. mictic, adj. 1925 \u2026Originally: designating females (of various species) that are capable of sexual reproduction (i.e. that are not obligately parthenogenetic). Later also: of, relating to, or involving mixis. Also (in extended use): of mixed\u2026 mogul, n.2 1956 \u2026A bump on a ski slope, by which a skier's progress may be impeded. Freq. attrib., esp. designating an area where such bumps or undulations are to be found. Also\u2026 monoblast, n. 1925 \u2026An immature monocyte\u2026. motza, n. 1936 \u2026A great deal of money, a fortune; a lucrative or profitable situation\u2026. muesli, n. 1939 \u2026A mixture of cereals (esp. rolled oats), fresh or dried fruit, nuts, etc., typically eaten with milk at breakfast; a dish consisting of this\u2026. Nazi, n. and adj. 1930 \u2026A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (now hist.); a member of any similar organization. Also more generally, usu. in pl.: the German government or armed\u2026 Neanderthaler, n. 1913 \u2026A Neanderthal hominid\u2026. noodge, v. 1960 \u2026trans. To pester, to nag at. Also intr.: to whine, to complain persistently\u2026. noodle, v.5 1937 \u2026trans. and intr. Chiefly Jazz. To play or sing (a piece of music) in a tentative, playful, or improvisatory way; (also) to play an elaborate or decorative\u2026 Oktoberfest, n. 1929 \u2026Originally: an annual festival celebrated in Munich in late September and early October (often with particular reference to the beer festival which forms part of it). Now (also): a similar autumn festival\u2026 oy vey, int. 1914 \u2026Esp. in Jewish usage: expressing grief, horror, or pain; \u2018oh pain\u2019, \u2018oh woe\u2019. Cf. oy\u2026 paraprotein, n. 1949 \u2026A protein found in the blood only in certain abnormal conditions; spec. a monoclonal immunoglobulin\u2026. pastrami, n. 1914 \u2026Highly seasoned smoked beef, usually served in thin slices; (as a count noun) a serving of this, esp. as a filling in a sandwich. Later also in extended use: other meat or\u2026 pletzel, n. 1952 \u2026A flat roll, similar to a bagel, with a crisp or chewy texture\u2026. plotz, v. c1920 \u2026intr. To burst, explode. Chiefly fig.: to demonstrate or exhibit extreme anger, surprise, etc\u2026. porphyrism, n. 1923 \u2026A (supposed) predisposition to the development of porphyria\u2026. psilocybin, n. 1958 \u2026An alkaloid, found in several mushrooms native to Central America (esp. of the genus Psilocybe), which when ingested produces hallucinogenic effects similar to those of LSD but milder and more\u2026 putsch, n. 1919 \u2026An attempt to overthrow a government, esp. by violent means; an insurrection or coup d'\u00e9tat\u2026. putz, n.2 1928 \u2026Originally in Jewish usage, now more generally: a stupid or worthless person; a fool\u2026. radon, n. 1918 \u2026A short-lived radioactive chemical element, atomic number 86, which is a member of the group of noble gases and occurs naturally in trace amounts as a result of the decay of radium\u2026 riboflavin, n. 1935 \u2026Vitamin B2; a yellow flavin with a ribityl side chain, essential for metabolic energy production and cellular respiration\u2026. S-bahn, n. 1962 \u2026In some German cities, a fast (sub)urban railway line or system\u2026. schizophrene, n. 1925 \u2026A schizophrenic, or a person with a predisposition towards schizophrenia. Also attrib. and loosely\u2026. schlep, v. 1922 \u2026trans. To haul, carry, drag. Also transf. and fig\u2026. schlock, n. 1915 \u2026Cheap, shoddy, or defective goods; inferior material, junk, \u2018trash\u2019 (freq. applied to the arts or entertainment). Also attrib. or as , and Comb. in \u02c8schlockmeister\u2026 schmaltz, n. 1935 \u2026Melted chicken fat; schmaltz herring, a form of pickled herring\u2026. schmeer, v. 1930 \u2026trans. To flatter; to bribe. Also absol\u2026. schmooze, n. 1939 \u2026Chat; gossip; a long and intimate conversation\u2026. schnauzer, n. 1923 \u2026A black or pepper-and-salt wire-haired terrier belonging to the breed so called, which includes large, standard, and miniature dogs distinguished by a stocky, robust build, docked tail, blunt, bearded muzzle, and ears\u2026 schnozz, n. 1940 \u2026The nose, nostril\u2026. schvartze | schvartzer, n. 1961 \u2026A black person; spec. (in the U.S., with the ending -a or -e) a black maid\u2026. snorkel | schnorkel, n. 1944 \u2026Usu. in forms schnorkel, Schnorkel. An airshaft, invented in the Netherlands and developed in Germany, which was fitted to diesel-engined submarines so that air could reach the engines,\u2026 Sp\u00e4tlese, n. 1935 \u2026A white wine made (esp. in Germany) from grapes gathered later than the general harvest\u2026. spritz, v. 1917 \u2026trans. To sprinkle, squirt, or spray\u2026. spritzer, n. 1961 \u2026A mixture of wine and soda water; a drink of this mixture\u2026. strafe, v. 1915 \u2026trans. Used (originally by British soldiers in the war against Germany) in various senses suggested by its origin: To punish; to do damage to; to attack fiercely; to heap imprecations on;\u2026 Stuka, n. 1940 \u2026A dive-bomber of the German air force, esp. as used in the war of 193945\u2026. taxon, n. 1929 \u2026A taxonomic group, as a genus or species. Also fig\u2026. textura, n. 1929 \u2026One of a group of typefaces first used in the earliest printed books, distinguished by narrow, angular letters and a strong vertical emphasis; also, the manuscript hand on which these typefaces were\u2026 Third Reich, n. 1930 \u2026The German state under the rule of Hitler and the Nazi party, 193345; the regime of Hitler. \u2026 thoron, n. 1918 \u2026A radioactive isotope of radon, atomic weight 220, that is a gaseous decay product of thorium, being formed by the decay of radium 224; thorium emanation\u2026. transvestism, n. 1928 \u2026The action of dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex; the condition of having an abnormal desire to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex\u2026. transvestite, n. and adj. 1922 \u2026A person with an abnormal desire to wear the clothes of the opposite sex\u2026. U-bahn, n. 1938 \u2026The underground railway in any of several of the major cities of Germany and Austria\u2026. U-boat, n. 1916 \u2026A (German) submarine. Also attrib\u2026. Westpolitik, n. 1934 \u2026Policy towards Western nations; spec. (in European politics) a policy of establishing or developing diplomatic and trading relations with Western nations, esp. (now chiefly hist.) on the part\u2026 yenta, n. 1923 \u2026A gossip or busybody; a noisy, vulgar person; a scolding woman or shrew\u2026. yentz, v. 1930 \u2026trans. To cheat, to swindle (see also quot. 1939). Also fig. Cf. screw6d13\u2026. yok, n. 1923 \u2026A pejorative Jewish term for a non-Jew, a Gentile\u2026. zaftig, adj. 1937 \u2026Of a woman: plump, curvaceous, \u2018sexy\u2019\u2026.","output":"This is a difficult question to answer, because it is unclear what is meant. Must the words in English be unaltered in appearance compared with their use in German? Must the words in English be unaltered in meaning compared with their use in German? Words in common parlance or technical use? Whose common parlance? Does slang count? Do phrases count, like for example \u201c\u00fcber alles\u201d? Is a productive prefix like \u00fcber- a word? Does it matter if the words are more often, even exclusively, used only in spoken or only in written English? If written, then in which corpus or corpora? Would a word whose use were limited to the U.S. still count? What about if it were limited to South Africa? Is there a time limit? For example, do words entering English from German in 2010 count the same as those entering in 1910? What about 1610? Or 1010? Do words shared in common between Modern German and Modern English solely as a result of those two languages\u2019 shared ancestry count? Do words that we once used but are not considered obsolete still count, or only words in current use? Without answers to these sorts of questions, and probably others, no reasonable answer seems possible. The OED reports that the number of terms of German origin still considered current and whose first attested written use in English dates from various periods is: 6 words first entered English from German over the past 25 years. 79 words first entered English from German over the past 50 years. 821 words first entered English from German over the past 100 years. 2985 words first entered English from German over the past 500 years. 3122 words first entered English from German over the past 1,000 years. 7 words first entered English from German over 1,000 years ago. One of these is the prefix fore-. Here are the 79 terms of German (including Yiddish) origin that the OED reports having entered English over the past 50 years: bashert, n. 1975 \u2026In Jewish usage: a person's predestined romantic partner; a soulmate\u2026. bashert, adj. 1963 \u2026In Jewish usage: destined, fated; preordained\u2026. bioturbation, n. 1963 \u2026The disturbance of sediment by burrowing or other activity of living organisms; the disturbed state that results\u2026. Eisbock, n. 1977 \u2026A type of strong lager chilled to sub-zero temperatures after fermentation so that ice crystals may be strained off, thereby concentrating the flavour and alcohol content. Cf. ice beerice\u2026. Eiswein, n. 1963 \u2026Wine made from ripe grapes picked while the frost is on them, and still frozen when they go into the press\u2026. flehmen, n. 1970 \u2026A behaviour seen in many mammals in response to certain olfactory stimuli, esp. sex pheromones, characterized by a curling of the upper lip and a raising of the head. Freq. attrib\u2026. Foosball, n. 1966 \u2026A table football game in which players rotate rods attached to opposing ranks of miniature representations of footballers in order to direct a ball into their opponent's goal. Also: the ball used\u2026 fundi, n.2 and adj. 1984 \u2026Originally and esp. in Germany: a member of the radical wing of the Green Party; (later, also) a radical or extreme environmentalist. Contrasted with realo\u2026 Gastarbeiter, n. 1966 \u2026A person with temporary permission to work in another country, an immigrant worker. Applied esp. to those encouraged into Germany after 1945 to assist in the post-war economic revival\u2026. Gesellschaft, n. 1964 \u2026A social relationship between individuals based on duty to society or to an organization; contrasted with Gemeinschaft So Gesellschaft-like adj. Germangesellschaftlich\u2026. glitzy, adj. 1966 \u2026Characterized by glitter or extravagant show; ostentatious, glamorous; hence, tawdry, gaudy; glitteringly spectacular, but in poor taste. Cf. glittering2, glitterati\u2026 Grepo, n. 1964 \u2026An East Berlin border guard\u2026. heimisch, adj. 1964 \u2026Homely; unpretentious\u2026. Historikerstreit, n. 1987 \u2026A controversial scholarly debate in West Germany in 19867 as to the interpretation and significance of the Holocaust, and in particular whether the atrocities committed by the Nazis can\u2026 imhofite, n. 1965 \u2026A soft, white sulphide of thallium and arsenic occurring as tiny monoclinic plates\u2026. klutz, n. 1968 \u2026A clumsy, awkward person, esp. one considered socially inept; a fool. Also as \u2026 kombi, n. 1963 \u2026A kind of minibus or van, originally manufactured by Volkswagen, which has removable seating at the rear, enabling it to transport passengers or goods (or a combination of the two); (S\u2026. kvell, v. 1967 \u2026intr. To boast; to feel proud or happy; to gloat\u2026. kvetch, n. 1964 \u2026A term of personal abuse: spec. a person who complains a great deal, a fault-finder\u2026. lagerst\u00e4tte, n. 1972 \u2026A fossil deposit of exceptional richness or interest. Also more fully fossil-lagerstatte. Usu. in pl\u2026. lithotripter, n. 1982 \u2026A machine used for ultrasound lithotripsy which generates ultrasonic waves and focuses them on a chosen site in the body. Cf. lithotriptor\u2026 mameloshen, n. 1968 \u2026In Jewish usage: a mother tongue, esp. Yiddish\u2026. marka, n. 1997 \u2026The principal monetary unit of Bosnia and Herzegovina, consisting of 100 fenings. Also more fully convertible marka. Cf. mark2e\u2026. meister, n. 1975 \u2026A person skilled in or strongly associated with something (usually indicated by the first element), an expert; a person in control of an enterprise or undertaking\u2026. meisterwerk, n. 1964 \u2026A work perceived as the greatest of a particular artist or genre. Cf. masterwork\u2026 memorat, n. 1965 \u2026In folklore studies: a narrative relating personal experience\u2026. metachrony, n. 1964 \u2026Occurrence in sequence (as opposed to in synchrony); spec. the orderly sequential movement of cilia in a progressive wave\u2026. metaphyton, n. 1964 \u2026Aggregated freshwater algae that are not attached to a substrate; (originally) spec. those found between or loosely associated with water plants\u2026. mieskeit, n. 1968 \u2026Esp. in Jewish usage: an ugly person\u2026. milbemycin, n. 1975 \u2026Any of a group of macrolide antibiotics structurally related to the avermectins, used in veterinary medicine for the treatment and prevention of various ecto- and endoparasitic infestations\u2026. minerotrophic, adj. 1963 \u2026Esp. of a swamp, fen, or peatland: fed chiefly by ground and surface water and hence supplied with dissolved minerals. Cf. ombrotrophic\u2026 mitteleurop\u00e4isch, adj. 1963 \u2026= Middle-European\u2026 moganite, n. 1984 \u2026A microcrystalline form of monoclinic silica\u2026. muscimol, n. 1967 \u2026An alkaloid with hallucinogenic and narcotic properties which is an analogue of gamma-aminobutyric acid and occurs naturally in the fly agaric (Amanita muscaria) and certain other fungi; 3-hydroxy-5-aminomethylisoxazole, C\u2026 neuraminate, n. 1970 \u2026A salt or ester of neuraminic acid\u2026. O-Bahn, n. 1982 \u2026A track on which a bus, by means of special locking wheels, may run without needing to be steered; a bus or bus service which uses such a track\u2026. ODESSA, n. 1964 \u2026An organization arranging the escape from Germany of high-ranking Nazis at the end of the Second World War\u2026. omi, n.2 1988 \u2026Originally among German communities: a grandmother. Freq. as an affectionate form of address\u2026. opi, n. 1988 \u2026Originally among German communities: a grandfather. Freq. as an affectionate form of address\u2026. Ossi, n. 1989 \u2026Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989: a citizen of the former German Democratic Republic; an East German. Cf. Wessi\u2026 paracladium, n. 1965 \u2026In certain types of compound inflorescence: a subsidiary branch that has the same branching structure as the main axis\u2026. parafango, n. 1969 \u2026A medicinal bath made with volcanic mud and paraffin wax\u2026. propafenone, n. 1975 \u2026A drug with anti-arrhythmic and local anaesthetic properties, used in the treatment of cardiac arrhythmia\u2026. punim, n. 1965 \u2026In Jewish usage: the face\u2026. Qualit\u00e4tswein, n. 1971 \u2026In Germany and Austria: high-quality wine produced under stricter controls than ordinary table wine\u2026. Ratrac, n. 1971 \u2026A tracked vehicle designed for travelling on snow-covered terrain, used esp. for compacting snow on a ski slope. Cf. snowcat\u2026 realo, n. and adj. 1984 \u2026Originally and esp. in Germany: a member of the pragmatic or more moderate wing of the Green Party; (later, also) a moderate or pragmatic environmentalist. Contrasted with fundi\u2026. rotaxane, n. 1969 \u2026Any compound having a molecular structure in which a chain of atoms is threaded through a ring and, though not chemically bonded to the ring, is mechanically constrained in position by the\u2026 rumspringa, n. 1963 \u2026In some Amish communities: a period of adolescence in which boys and girls are given greater personal freedom and allowed to begin courting, usually beginning around the age of sixteen and ending\u2026 schlep, n.2 1964 \u2026A troublesome business, a piece of hard work\u2026. schlong, n. 1969 \u2026The penis. Also applied contemptuously to a person\u2026. schlub, n. 1964 \u2026A worthless person, a \u2018jerk\u2019, an oaf\u2026. schmatte, n. 1970 \u2026A rag, a ragged garment; any garment. Also fig\u2026. schmoll, n. 1967 \u2026An idiot, a fool\u2026. schmutz, n. 1968 \u2026Dirt, filth, rubbish. Also fig\u2026. scleromyx\u0153dema, n. 1964 \u2026A disease characterized by the extensive proliferation of fibroblasts and deposition of mucopolysaccharides in the skin, causing distortions of the features and lichenous eruptions\u2026. Seilbahn, n. 1963 \u2026A cable railway; an aerial cableway\u2026. shtup, v. 1968 \u2026trans. To push. Hence also as \u2026 Stasi, n. 1964 \u2026The internal security force of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), disbanded in 1990\u2026. sudoite, n. 1963 \u2026(See quot. 1963.)\u2026 Tafelwein, n. 1972 \u2026Wine of less than middle quality, suitable for drinking with an ordinary meal; = table wine Cf. vin de tablevin\u2026. taphrogenesis, n. 1978 \u2026The formation of large-scale geological structures by high-angle or block faulting, esp. as the result of tensional forces in the crust\u2026. textology, n. 1975 \u2026The study and analysis of the evolution of a text or texts, esp. through rewriting, editing, and translation; more generally, the study of text production; textual classification\u2026. Torschlusspanik, n. 1963 \u2026A sense of alarm or anxiety (said to be experienced particularly in middle age) caused by the suspicion that life's opportunities are passing (or have passed) one by; spec. that\u2026 treff, n. 1963 \u2026A secret meeting(-place), esp. for the transfer of goods or information\u2026. trockenbeerenauslese, n. 1963 \u2026(A) sweet German white wine of superior quality, made from individually selected grapes affected by noble rot\u2026. tsatske | tchotchke, n. 1968 \u2026A trinket or gewgaw; transf., a pretty girl\u2026. tummler, n. 1966 \u2026Someone who acts the clown, a prankster; spec. a professional maker of amusement and jollity at a hotel or the like\u2026. \u00fcber alles, phr. 1967 \u2026Above all else. \u2026 \u00dcberfremdung, n. 1965 \u2026The admission or presence of too many foreigners\u2026. Umwelt, n. 1964 \u2026The outer world, or reality, as it affects the organisms inhabiting it\u2026. untermensch, n. 1964 \u2026Esp. with reference to the Nazi r\u00e9gime: a racially inferior person, a sub-human person. Cf. \u00dcbermensch\u2026 viertel, n. 1967 \u2026In Germany and Austria, a quarter of a litre (of wine, etc.); a glass or jug holding this quantity\u2026. Waldsterben, n. 1983 \u2026A detrimental condition affecting some forests, in which trees and other vegetation sicken and die, esp. as a result of atmospheric pollution\u2026. Weisswurst, n. 1963 \u2026(A) whitish German sausage made chiefly of veal\u2026. Wessi, n. 1990 \u2026A term used in Germany (esp. since reunification) to denote a citizen of the former Federal Republic of Germany; a West German. Cf. Ossi\u2026 Wunderkammer, n. 1976 \u2026A chamber or cabinet of wonders; spec. a place exhibiting the collection of a connoisseur of curiosities, such as became common from the late Renaissance onwards\u2026. zeitgeber, n. 1964 \u2026A rhythmically occurring event, esp. in the environment, which acts as a cue in the regulation of certain biological rhythms in an organism\u2026. zugtrompete, n. 1978 \u2026A slide trumpet\u2026. The 50 years previous to those (read: 1913\u20131962) were even more active, with 742 terms entering English from German (again, not excluding Yiddish) during that time. A few of the more notable such terms I list below. Notice how this includes words ultimately of classical derivation, like taxon (pl. taxa). Sure, it\u2019s awfully Greek-looking, but it comes to us from A. Meyer\u2019s Logik der Morphologie of 1926, and so is considered to have arrive to English by way of German. abseil, n. 1923 \u2026A descent made by abseiling\u2026. allele, n. 1931 \u2026= allelomorph\u2026 alpenrose, n. 1914 \u2026= rose of the Alpsrose5a\u2026. angst, n. 1944 \u2026Anxiety, anguish, neurotic fear; guilt, remorse\u2026. bagel, n. 1919 \u2026A hard ring-shaped salty roll of bread. Also attrib\u2026. ballerino, n. 1934 \u2026A male ballet dancer. Cf. ballerina\u2026 bierhaus, n. 1930 \u2026A German public house or ale-house\u2026. Blitzkrieg | blitzkrieg, n. 1939 \u2026(See blitz)\u2026 boxer, n.5 1934 \u2026A smooth-coated, square-built, fawn or brindle breed of dog of the bulldog type, originating in Germany\u2026. boychick, n. 1921 \u2026Esp. in Jewish usage: a boy, a young man; a lad, a \u2018kid\u2019. Freq. as a familiar form of address\u2026. carotenoid | carotinoid, n. 1913 \u2026Any one of a group of pigments including the carotenes, the xanthophylls, and fucoxanthin, found in many plants and animals. Also attrib. or as \u2026 citrin, n. 1936 \u2026A water-soluble flavonoid found in citrus fruits, formerly considered to be a source of vitamin P\u2026. Deutsche Mark | Deutschemark, n. 1948 \u2026The monetary unit of the German Federal Republic, instituted in June 1948; also, a coin representing one Deutsche Mark. Abbrev. D.M. or D-mark\u2026. diktat, n. 1922 \u2026A severe settlement or decision, esp. one imposed by a victorious nation upon a defeated nation\u2026. dreck, n. 1922 \u2026Rubbish, trash, worthless debris\u2026. dunk, v. 1919 \u2026trans. To dip (bread, cake, etc.) into a beverage or other liquid. Also absol., transf., and fig\u2026. \u02c8eigenvalue, n. 1927 \u2026One of those special values of a parameter in an equation for which the equation has a solution (see quot. 1938)\u2026. exergy, n. 1959 \u2026The maximum amount of work that can be obtained from a given process, or from a given system by reversible processes\u2026. existentialism, n. 1919 \u2026A doctrine that concentrates on the existence of the individual, who, being free and responsible, is held to be what he makes himself by the self-development of his essence through acts of\u2026 fenster, n. 1925 \u2026An opening or \u2018window\u2019 eroded through an older stratum in a region of overfolding or overthrusting, exposing a younger stratum beneath\u2026. flak, n. 1938 \u2026An anti-aircraft gun; also (the usual sense in English), anti-aircraft fire. Also attrib. So flak-happyflak jacketflak ship\u2026 F\u00fchrer, n. 1934 \u2026Part of the title (F\u00fchrer und Reichskanzler) assumed by Adolf Hitler (see Hitler) in 1934 as head of the German Reich, after the model of \u2026 Gestalt | gestalt, n. 1922 \u2026A \u2018shape\u2019, \u2018configuration\u2019, or \u2018structure\u2019 which as an object of perception forms a specific whole or unity incapable of expression simply in terms of its parts (e.g. a melody in\u2026 Gestapo, n. 1934 \u2026The secret police of the Nazi regime in Germany. Also transf\u2026. gesundheit, int. 1914 \u2026An exclamation used to wish good health to a person, esp. to someone who sneezes\u2026. Gew\u00fcrztraminer, n. 1940 \u2026A variety of Traminer grape grown chiefly in the Rhine valley, Alsace, and Austria; the aromatic white wine made from it\u2026. gunsel, n. 1914 \u2026A (na\u00efve) youth; a tramp's young companion, male lover; a homosexual youth\u2026. heterochromatin, n. 1932 \u2026Heterochromatic chromosome material\u2026. h\u00fcgelite, n. 1914 \u2026A yellow or brown mineral originally described as a hydrated vanadate of lead and zinc but later shown to be a hydrated arsenate of lead and uranium\u2026. intersex, n. 1917 \u2026In a di\u0153cious species, an abnormal form or individual having characteristics of both sexes; the condition of being of this type\u2026. isogloss, n. 1925 \u2026In Linguistic Geography, the boundary of an area of local concentration or dominance of a significant feature (as of vocabulary or pronunciation). Also, a line plotted on a map indicating the area\u2026 Judenrat, n. 1950 \u2026A council representing a Jewish community in a locality controlled by the Germans during the war of 193945\u2026. karabiner, n. 1932 \u2026A coupling device consisting of a metal oval or D-shaped link with a gate protected against accidental opening. Cf. krab\u2026 kegler, n. 1932 \u2026One who plays tenpin bowling, skittles, ninepins, etc\u2026. keller, n. 1927 \u2026A beer-cellar in Austria or Germany. Also attrib\u2026. kibitz, v. 1930 \u2026intr. To look on at cards, or some other activity, esp. in an interfering manner (e.g. by standing close to the shoulders of the players); to offer gratuitous advice to a\u2026 kitsch, n. 1926 \u2026Art or objets d'art characterized by worthless pretentiousness; the qualities associated with such art or artifacts. Also attrib., Comb., and transf\u2026. klezmer, n. and adj. 1929 \u2026A performer of Jewish folk music, traditionally itinerant and playing in small groups at festivals and family events\u2026. knackwurst, n. 1939 \u2026A type of German sausage\u2026. konditorei, n. 1935 \u2026Confectionery; a confectioner's shop, a shop where pastries are sold\u2026. lager, v. 1946 \u2026To store (beer) (see quots.)\u2026. latke, n. 1927 \u2026In Jewish cookery, a pancake, esp. one made with grated potato\u2026. lederhosen, n. 1937 \u2026Leather shorts, as worn in Alpine regions\u2026. lox, n.2 1941 \u2026A kind of smoked salmon\u2026. LSD, n.2 1950 \u2026Lysergic acid diethylamide (see lysergic). Freq. with the number 25 appended\u2026. Luftwaffe, n. 1935 \u2026The German air force before, and until the end of, the 193945 war. Also attrib\u2026. macroglobulin, n. 1952 \u2026Any blood plasma globulin of high molecular weight (usually, greater than 400,000); esp. immunoglobulin M\u2026. maven, n. 1950 \u2026An expert, a connoisseur; a knowledgeable enthusiast, an aficionado\u2026. mensch, n. 1930 \u2026In Jewish usage: a person of integrity or rectitude; a person who is morally just, honest, or honourable\u2026. mictic, adj. 1925 \u2026Originally: designating females (of various species) that are capable of sexual reproduction (i.e. that are not obligately parthenogenetic). Later also: of, relating to, or involving mixis. Also (in extended use): of mixed\u2026 mogul, n.2 1956 \u2026A bump on a ski slope, by which a skier's progress may be impeded. Freq. attrib., esp. designating an area where such bumps or undulations are to be found. Also\u2026 monoblast, n. 1925 \u2026An immature monocyte\u2026. motza, n. 1936 \u2026A great deal of money, a fortune; a lucrative or profitable situation\u2026. muesli, n. 1939 \u2026A mixture of cereals (esp. rolled oats), fresh or dried fruit, nuts, etc., typically eaten with milk at breakfast; a dish consisting of this\u2026. Nazi, n. and adj. 1930 \u2026A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (now hist.); a member of any similar organization. Also more generally, usu. in pl.: the German government or armed\u2026 Neanderthaler, n. 1913 \u2026A Neanderthal hominid\u2026. noodge, v. 1960 \u2026trans. To pester, to nag at. Also intr.: to whine, to complain persistently\u2026. noodle, v.5 1937 \u2026trans. and intr. Chiefly Jazz. To play or sing (a piece of music) in a tentative, playful, or improvisatory way; (also) to play an elaborate or decorative\u2026 Oktoberfest, n. 1929 \u2026Originally: an annual festival celebrated in Munich in late September and early October (often with particular reference to the beer festival which forms part of it). Now (also): a similar autumn festival\u2026 oy vey, int. 1914 \u2026Esp. in Jewish usage: expressing grief, horror, or pain; \u2018oh pain\u2019, \u2018oh woe\u2019. Cf. oy\u2026 paraprotein, n. 1949 \u2026A protein found in the blood only in certain abnormal conditions; spec. a monoclonal immunoglobulin\u2026. pastrami, n. 1914 \u2026Highly seasoned smoked beef, usually served in thin slices; (as a count noun) a serving of this, esp. as a filling in a sandwich. Later also in extended use: other meat or\u2026 pletzel, n. 1952 \u2026A flat roll, similar to a bagel, with a crisp or chewy texture\u2026. plotz, v. c1920 \u2026intr. To burst, explode. Chiefly fig.: to demonstrate or exhibit extreme anger, surprise, etc\u2026. porphyrism, n. 1923 \u2026A (supposed) predisposition to the development of porphyria\u2026. psilocybin, n. 1958 \u2026An alkaloid, found in several mushrooms native to Central America (esp. of the genus Psilocybe), which when ingested produces hallucinogenic effects similar to those of LSD but milder and more\u2026 putsch, n. 1919 \u2026An attempt to overthrow a government, esp. by violent means; an insurrection or coup d'\u00e9tat\u2026. putz, n.2 1928 \u2026Originally in Jewish usage, now more generally: a stupid or worthless person; a fool\u2026. radon, n. 1918 \u2026A short-lived radioactive chemical element, atomic number 86, which is a member of the group of noble gases and occurs naturally in trace amounts as a result of the decay of radium\u2026 riboflavin, n. 1935 \u2026Vitamin B2; a yellow flavin with a ribityl side chain, essential for metabolic energy production and cellular respiration\u2026. S-bahn, n. 1962 \u2026In some German cities, a fast (sub)urban railway line or system\u2026. schizophrene, n. 1925 \u2026A schizophrenic, or a person with a predisposition towards schizophrenia. Also attrib. and loosely\u2026. schlep, v. 1922 \u2026trans. To haul, carry, drag. Also transf. and fig\u2026. schlock, n. 1915 \u2026Cheap, shoddy, or defective goods; inferior material, junk, \u2018trash\u2019 (freq. applied to the arts or entertainment). Also attrib. or as , and Comb. in \u02c8schlockmeister\u2026 schmaltz, n. 1935 \u2026Melted chicken fat; schmaltz herring, a form of pickled herring\u2026. schmeer, v. 1930 \u2026trans. To flatter; to bribe. Also absol\u2026. schmooze, n. 1939 \u2026Chat; gossip; a long and intimate conversation\u2026. schnauzer, n. 1923 \u2026A black or pepper-and-salt wire-haired terrier belonging to the breed so called, which includes large, standard, and miniature dogs distinguished by a stocky, robust build, docked tail, blunt, bearded muzzle, and ears\u2026 schnozz, n. 1940 \u2026The nose, nostril\u2026. schvartze | schvartzer, n. 1961 \u2026A black person; spec. (in the U.S., with the ending -a or -e) a black maid\u2026. snorkel | schnorkel, n. 1944 \u2026Usu. in forms schnorkel, Schnorkel. An airshaft, invented in the Netherlands and developed in Germany, which was fitted to diesel-engined submarines so that air could reach the engines,\u2026 Sp\u00e4tlese, n. 1935 \u2026A white wine made (esp. in Germany) from grapes gathered later than the general harvest\u2026. spritz, v. 1917 \u2026trans. To sprinkle, squirt, or spray\u2026. spritzer, n. 1961 \u2026A mixture of wine and soda water; a drink of this mixture\u2026. strafe, v. 1915 \u2026trans. Used (originally by British soldiers in the war against Germany) in various senses suggested by its origin: To punish; to do damage to; to attack fiercely; to heap imprecations on;\u2026 Stuka, n. 1940 \u2026A dive-bomber of the German air force, esp. as used in the war of 193945\u2026. taxon, n. 1929 \u2026A taxonomic group, as a genus or species. Also fig\u2026. textura, n. 1929 \u2026One of a group of typefaces first used in the earliest printed books, distinguished by narrow, angular letters and a strong vertical emphasis; also, the manuscript hand on which these typefaces were\u2026 Third Reich, n. 1930 \u2026The German state under the rule of Hitler and the Nazi party, 193345; the regime of Hitler. \u2026 thoron, n. 1918 \u2026A radioactive isotope of radon, atomic weight 220, that is a gaseous decay product of thorium, being formed by the decay of radium 224; thorium emanation\u2026. transvestism, n. 1928 \u2026The action of dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex; the condition of having an abnormal desire to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex\u2026. transvestite, n. and adj. 1922 \u2026A person with an abnormal desire to wear the clothes of the opposite sex\u2026. U-bahn, n. 1938 \u2026The underground railway in any of several of the major cities of Germany and Austria\u2026. U-boat, n. 1916 \u2026A (German) submarine. Also attrib\u2026. Westpolitik, n. 1934 \u2026Policy towards Western nations; spec. (in European politics) a policy of establishing or developing diplomatic and trading relations with Western nations, esp. (now chiefly hist.) on the part\u2026 yenta, n. 1923 \u2026A gossip or busybody; a noisy, vulgar person; a scolding woman or shrew\u2026. yentz, v. 1930 \u2026trans. To cheat, to swindle (see also quot. 1939). Also fig. Cf. screw6d13\u2026. yok, n. 1923 \u2026A pejorative Jewish term for a non-Jew, a Gentile\u2026. zaftig, adj. 1937 \u2026Of a woman: plump, curvaceous, \u2018sexy\u2019\u2026."}
{"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\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"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\nShe denied to have seen him yesterday. She denied seeing him yesterday. She denied having seen him yesterday. Are these sentences grammatically correct? Do they mean the same?","question":"She denied to have seen him yesterday. She denied seeing him yesterday. She denied having seen him yesterday. Are these sentences grammatically correct? Do they mean the same?","answer":"This is a licensing matter. Verbs in particular (but nouns and adjectives, too) license or permit only certain sorts of complements. In this case, the verb is deny. Deny licenses: that complements (\"content clauses\") She denied that she saw him. She denied that she had seen him. Note the difference between the simple past and the past perfect in the complement clause: in the first, she claimed that she did not see him at the time she said it, in the second she claimed that she did not see him at some earlier time. gerund (-ing form) complements She denied seeing him. She denied having seen him. Again, the perfect gerund (having seen) places the act of seeing before the time at which she uttered the denial; but the simple gerund (seeing) may be understood as either a prior or a current act of seeing. Otherwise there is no semantic (meaning) difference between the versions with content clauses and those with gerunds. In some very limited contexts, wh- complements (\"embedded questions\") She denied what she was charged with. BUT NOT \u2217She denied whether she {saw \/ had seen} him. In Present-Day English deny does not license infinitival clauses: \u2217She denied to see him. \u2217She denied to have seen him. Four hundred years ago She denied to see him was acceptable (you may encounter it in Shakespeare, for instance), but it had a different sense: \"She refused to see him.\" This sense survives in utterances like \"They denied him entrance\", but today it is used only with noun phrase complements, not with clauses. \u2217 marks an utterance as ungrammatical","output":"This is a licensing matter. Verbs in particular (but nouns and adjectives, too) license or permit only certain sorts of complements. In this case, the verb is deny. Deny licenses: that complements (\"content clauses\") She denied that she saw him. She denied that she had seen him. Note the difference between the simple past and the past perfect in the complement clause: in the first, she claimed that she did not see him at the time she said it, in the second she claimed that she did not see him at some earlier time. gerund (-ing form) complements She denied seeing him. She denied having seen him. Again, the perfect gerund (having seen) places the act of seeing before the time at which she uttered the denial; but the simple gerund (seeing) may be understood as either a prior or a current act of seeing. Otherwise there is no semantic (meaning) difference between the versions with content clauses and those with gerunds. In some very limited contexts, wh- complements (\"embedded questions\") She denied what she was charged with. BUT NOT \u2217She denied whether she {saw \/ had seen} him. In Present-Day English deny does not license infinitival clauses: \u2217She denied to see him. \u2217She denied to have seen him. Four hundred years ago She denied to see him was acceptable (you may encounter it in Shakespeare, for instance), but it had a different sense: \"She refused to see him.\" This sense survives in utterances like \"They denied him entrance\", but today it is used only with noun phrase complements, not with clauses. \u2217 marks an utterance as ungrammatical"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI saw using \"I'm know\" in formal communications with native speakers. Does that sound right? I found quite a few instances among books in Google search results. The context: \"I\u2019m know you will be a great addition\" Disclaimer: I have already checked with spell-checker tools and it was wrong according to Grammarly.","question":"I saw using \"I'm know\" in formal communications with native speakers. Does that sound right? I found quite a few instances among books in Google search results. The context: \"I\u2019m know you will be a great addition\" Disclaimer: I have already checked with spell-checker tools and it was wrong according to Grammarly.","answer":"Your usage is incorrect. If you mean that you are aware of something, or understand something, then \"I know\" is correct, and \"I'm know\" is incorrect. The following examples are correct: I know that you will be a great addition to the team. I am confident that you will be a great addition to the team. If you mean that other people know you, then \"I'm known\" is correct, and \"I'm know\" is incorrect. The following examples are correct: I'm known as Jasper on this website. I'm known for a math project I did a while back. \"I'm known\" is less formal than \"I am known\". Contractions are rarely used in formal communications.","output":"Your usage is incorrect. If you mean that you are aware of something, or understand something, then \"I know\" is correct, and \"I'm know\" is incorrect. The following examples are correct: I know that you will be a great addition to the team. I am confident that you will be a great addition to the team. If you mean that other people know you, then \"I'm known\" is correct, and \"I'm know\" is incorrect. The following examples are correct: I'm known as Jasper on this website. I'm known for a math project I did a while back. \"I'm known\" is less formal than \"I am known\". Contractions are rarely used in formal communications."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI I want to have a function depicted graphically, which is better? Draw a graphic of the function Draw a plot of the function Make a graphic of the function Make a plot of the function Plot a graphic of the function Plot the function","question":"I I want to have a function depicted graphically, which is better? Draw a graphic of the function Draw a plot of the function Make a graphic of the function Make a plot of the function Plot a graphic of the function Plot the function","answer":"There are a number of ways to say this that are all acceptable. Each of your example sentences would work, though the noun graph is used, rather than graphic. We also use the verbs \"construct\" and \"sketch\" sometimes, as well as the noun \"curve\" in place of \"function.\" If I were asking my students to graph points, I would tend to use the word plot; it carries the connotation of more carefully placing the points that are drawn. If instead I were asking my students to draw the general shape of a curve (as in calculus, when you might know the concavity and slope of a curve but not many of the points) then I would probably tell them to sketch the curve. You might also just see the sentence, \"Graph f(x).\" So in short: Construct\/graph\/draw\/plot a plot\/graph\/curve of the function\/curve. (Don't \"plot a plot\" or \"graph a graph\" though.)","output":"There are a number of ways to say this that are all acceptable. Each of your example sentences would work, though the noun graph is used, rather than graphic. We also use the verbs \"construct\" and \"sketch\" sometimes, as well as the noun \"curve\" in place of \"function.\" If I were asking my students to graph points, I would tend to use the word plot; it carries the connotation of more carefully placing the points that are drawn. If instead I were asking my students to draw the general shape of a curve (as in calculus, when you might know the concavity and slope of a curve but not many of the points) then I would probably tell them to sketch the curve. You might also just see the sentence, \"Graph f(x).\" So in short: Construct\/graph\/draw\/plot a plot\/graph\/curve of the function\/curve. (Don't \"plot a plot\" or \"graph a graph\" though.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs the word \"don\" strictly used for clothing on humans? Can it be used it in a sentence like: His room, donning posters of rock stars, was a stark contrast from the rest of the house. Or is \"adorned\" a better word for this?","question":"Is the word \"don\" strictly used for clothing on humans? Can it be used it in a sentence like: His room, donning posters of rock stars, was a stark contrast from the rest of the house. Or is \"adorned\" a better word for this?","answer":"I would say no, not because \"don\" is only for clothing, but because \"don\" doesn't mean \"wear\" it means \"put on\" - an activity, not a state.","output":"I would say no, not because \"don\" is only for clothing, but because \"don\" doesn't mean \"wear\" it means \"put on\" - an activity, not a state."}
{"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\nTake a look at these two sentences: There are problems for students living away from the family. Computers play a very important role in education nowadays. Comparing them, I wonder why in the second one, 'education' is not preceded by 'the'.","question":"Take a look at these two sentences: There are problems for students living away from the family. Computers play a very important role in education nowadays. Comparing them, I wonder why in the second one, 'education' is not preceded by 'the'.","answer":"In your first sentence, \"family\" is a countable noun - that is, you can have a specific number of families. \"Education\", on the other hand, is an abstract concept and isn't countable (the concept of \"one education\" makes no sense). Because of this, \"the\" is used in your first sentence to indicate that students are living away from their specific families. If \"family\" were to be replaced with another abstract uncountable noun (for example \"friendship\"), you would drop \"the\" in that sentence as well.","output":"In your first sentence, \"family\" is a countable noun - that is, you can have a specific number of families. \"Education\", on the other hand, is an abstract concept and isn't countable (the concept of \"one education\" makes no sense). Because of this, \"the\" is used in your first sentence to indicate that students are living away from their specific families. If \"family\" were to be replaced with another abstract uncountable noun (for example \"friendship\"), you would drop \"the\" in that sentence as well."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it right to say: \"Lazy students aren't worth of free education\" or \"Lazy students aren't worth free education\"?","question":"Is it right to say: \"Lazy students aren't worth of free education\" or \"Lazy students aren't worth free education\"?","answer":"Ok, Lazy students aren't worth of free education doesn't mean anything to me. If I heard Lazy students aren't worth free education from a native speaker, then I would understand it to mean Lazy student are not worthy of a free education or It is not worth the effort to give lazy students free education. So, in my opinion, if your goal was to try to sound like a native speaker and you used 1., then congratulations, I think you did a fine job. In fact, I would probably say 1. If this was not your goal, then try to rephrase 1. to convey your true meaning.","output":"Ok, Lazy students aren't worth of free education doesn't mean anything to me. If I heard Lazy students aren't worth free education from a native speaker, then I would understand it to mean Lazy student are not worthy of a free education or It is not worth the effort to give lazy students free education. So, in my opinion, if your goal was to try to sound like a native speaker and you used 1., then congratulations, I think you did a fine job. In fact, I would probably say 1. If this was not your goal, then try to rephrase 1. to convey your true meaning."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat benchmarks or useful signs can be found to declassify neologisms? Obviously, inclusion in a dictionary is as likely as anything to declare a neologism a word but what happens just before that point? Note that I am not asking how long it takes to convert a neologism. I am asking if there are there any good indications of neologisms about to phase into the lexicon. The flip side is also interesting: When is it safe to say that a neologism is not likely to catch on without some drastic intervention? For instance, kipple is an interesting word with a distinct meaning but it seems so far outside of the cultural sphere that it seems safe to claim it will never become a recognized word. I suspect that answers to the first part (what makes a neologism stick) are likely to answer the second part via absence. As in, if a certain thing is a good sign for a neologism, its absence is evidence against the neologism.","question":"What benchmarks or useful signs can be found to declassify neologisms? Obviously, inclusion in a dictionary is as likely as anything to declare a neologism a word but what happens just before that point? Note that I am not asking how long it takes to convert a neologism. I am asking if there are there any good indications of neologisms about to phase into the lexicon. The flip side is also interesting: When is it safe to say that a neologism is not likely to catch on without some drastic intervention? For instance, kipple is an interesting word with a distinct meaning but it seems so far outside of the cultural sphere that it seems safe to claim it will never become a recognized word. I suspect that answers to the first part (what makes a neologism stick) are likely to answer the second part via absence. As in, if a certain thing is a good sign for a neologism, its absence is evidence against the neologism.","answer":"As a rule of thumb, if it appears in a general interest broadcast or publication without being accompanied by a definition, it's probably not a neologism anymore. However, this doesn't mean that a word accompanied by a definition is necessarily a neologism; it may simply be obscure or unfamiliar to the target audience.","output":"As a rule of thumb, if it appears in a general interest broadcast or publication without being accompanied by a definition, it's probably not a neologism anymore. However, this doesn't mean that a word accompanied by a definition is necessarily a neologism; it may simply be obscure or unfamiliar to the target audience."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAfter an unsuccessful search for an English-language term meaning the connection point from which water is taken from a main urban supply pipe to a house, facility, etc., I ended up here. Please note that I don't mean a water meter. With the term I am looking for, I would be able to say, for example, \"this facility has three X's\" (X being the term in question). Update: I want to know the English term for the point where the water supply company delivers a water tap to a house (company's responsibility ends) and then internal piping of the building is done from that tap. Depending on it size, a building might get several of these taps (which have to be paid for more). If we want to say my new construction will have 4 water entries to the building, what should we say? I want a term to put instead of the bold part of the sentence. Shall I use taps? Or there are better alternatives?","question":"After an unsuccessful search for an English-language term meaning the connection point from which water is taken from a main urban supply pipe to a house, facility, etc., I ended up here. Please note that I don't mean a water meter. With the term I am looking for, I would be able to say, for example, \"this facility has three X's\" (X being the term in question). Update: I want to know the English term for the point where the water supply company delivers a water tap to a house (company's responsibility ends) and then internal piping of the building is done from that tap. Depending on it size, a building might get several of these taps (which have to be paid for more). If we want to say my new construction will have 4 water entries to the building, what should we say? I want a term to put instead of the bold part of the sentence. Shall I use taps? Or there are better alternatives?","answer":"This length of pipe between the mains and the home is often called the supply line. In the US, the name for the connection between the mains and the supply line is known as the corporation stop. Sometimes the owner's responsibility ends at the curb stop. Your question is somewhat unclear since you speak about \"points\" whereas the supply line is a length of pipe. If you are interested in the boundaries, in a plumbing system they are usually marked by so-called \"stop valves\" which allow flow in only one direction.","output":"This length of pipe between the mains and the home is often called the supply line. In the US, the name for the connection between the mains and the supply line is known as the corporation stop. Sometimes the owner's responsibility ends at the curb stop. Your question is somewhat unclear since you speak about \"points\" whereas the supply line is a length of pipe. If you are interested in the boundaries, in a plumbing system they are usually marked by so-called \"stop valves\" which allow flow in only one direction."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am a learner of English and have been learning it naturally for a few months. I get confused, when I read something which does not make sense to me. Please check below sentences to understand what I mean. On newspapers: John slapped again while campaigning in New York. But John did not slap anyone but he was slapped by someone. So, I think this sentence should be written something like that: John was slapped again while campaigning in New York by a man. Or John got slapped again while campaigning in New York by a man. Or A man slapped John again while he (John) was campaigning in Mumbai. Thanks in advance.","question":"I am a learner of English and have been learning it naturally for a few months. I get confused, when I read something which does not make sense to me. Please check below sentences to understand what I mean. On newspapers: John slapped again while campaigning in New York. But John did not slap anyone but he was slapped by someone. So, I think this sentence should be written something like that: John was slapped again while campaigning in New York by a man. Or John got slapped again while campaigning in New York by a man. Or A man slapped John again while he (John) was campaigning in Mumbai. Thanks in advance.","answer":"In newspaper headlines, editors tend to leave out as many words as possible for space-economical reasons. It also helps readers to read the headlines very quickly to rouse their interest in reading the rest of the article. So \"A man was robbed while he was sitting at home\" becomes: Man Robbed At Home Some standard parts of sentences that are left out of headlines are: articles (a man -> man) auxiliary verbs (a man was slapped -> man slapped) copulative \"be\": (the new major is very happy -> New Major Very Happy) There are many more, and it can be an interesting exercise to try and reconstruct a complete, correct sentence out of condensed headlines :) Although a bit of ambiguity is not bad for a headline (it helps attract attention), in this case I do not see ambiguity. If slapped was meant as an active verb, I would have expected the object to be mentioned - otherwise it makes no sense. \"A man slapped his neighbour\" would become \"Man Slapped Neighbour\", not \"Man Slapped Visiting Neighbours House\". For a headline like \"Company Sued for Millions\", I also see little confusion: if it is the company doing the suing, it is only news while the case is ongoing, so it would be \"Company Sues For Millions\"","output":"In newspaper headlines, editors tend to leave out as many words as possible for space-economical reasons. It also helps readers to read the headlines very quickly to rouse their interest in reading the rest of the article. So \"A man was robbed while he was sitting at home\" becomes: Man Robbed At Home Some standard parts of sentences that are left out of headlines are: articles (a man -> man) auxiliary verbs (a man was slapped -> man slapped) copulative \"be\": (the new major is very happy -> New Major Very Happy) There are many more, and it can be an interesting exercise to try and reconstruct a complete, correct sentence out of condensed headlines :) Although a bit of ambiguity is not bad for a headline (it helps attract attention), in this case I do not see ambiguity. If slapped was meant as an active verb, I would have expected the object to be mentioned - otherwise it makes no sense. \"A man slapped his neighbour\" would become \"Man Slapped Neighbour\", not \"Man Slapped Visiting Neighbours House\". For a headline like \"Company Sued for Millions\", I also see little confusion: if it is the company doing the suing, it is only news while the case is ongoing, so it would be \"Company Sues For Millions\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nDo you think it's correct if I use present continuous tense in this sentence? Tonight, Mike and I are watching a film at home. I think present continuous is used for arrangement. But my teacher say that I should use \"be going to\" in stead of \"present continuous tense\". Please help me. Thanks.","question":"Do you think it's correct if I use present continuous tense in this sentence? Tonight, Mike and I are watching a film at home. I think present continuous is used for arrangement. But my teacher say that I should use \"be going to\" in stead of \"present continuous tense\". Please help me. Thanks.","answer":"Well, we use the Present Continuous to talk about something in the future that we have agreed to do: Tim and I are going to the theatre tonight, then we're having dinner at White's. Are you doing anything at the weekend? - I'm playing tennis with Mary on Saturday. So, I'd say it's OK to use the Present Continuous in your sentence about watching TV at home. Using the Present Continuous, you show your agreement to do it together. But your teacher is right too. Of course, we can say \"Mike and I are going to watch a film.\" But using to be going to, we talk about our plans, rather than arrangements. There are many grammar books that deal with the issue (Present Continuous vs. to be going to for future events). But the explanation I have given is inspired by Oxford Living Grammar intermediate.","output":"Well, we use the Present Continuous to talk about something in the future that we have agreed to do: Tim and I are going to the theatre tonight, then we're having dinner at White's. Are you doing anything at the weekend? - I'm playing tennis with Mary on Saturday. So, I'd say it's OK to use the Present Continuous in your sentence about watching TV at home. Using the Present Continuous, you show your agreement to do it together. But your teacher is right too. Of course, we can say \"Mike and I are going to watch a film.\" But using to be going to, we talk about our plans, rather than arrangements. There are many grammar books that deal with the issue (Present Continuous vs. to be going to for future events). But the explanation I have given is inspired by Oxford Living Grammar intermediate."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSometimes I see the sentence Have you done something, yet? Is it correct to write it that way? If not, what would be correct? If it is correct, why is it?","question":"Sometimes I see the sentence Have you done something, yet? Is it correct to write it that way? If not, what would be correct? If it is correct, why is it?","answer":"Yes. The usage of yet in your sentence is correct, both grammatically and in its meaning, but that comma should not be in there. \"Yet\" is an adverb which is synonymous to \"already\": Have you done this already?","output":"Yes. The usage of yet in your sentence is correct, both grammatically and in its meaning, but that comma should not be in there. \"Yet\" is an adverb which is synonymous to \"already\": Have you done this already?"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nRead these sentences? \"The red door.\" \"The blind date.\" \"The mad dog.\" I would pronounce these as \"The reddoor.\" and the \"blinddate\". Sort of pausing in the middle of the d with tongue pressed against teeth. In a way this would be how a Swedish person would pronounce the word \"reddoor\". As in here. But I have also heard people (mostly announcers of some kind) deliberately try to pronounce the D twice. As in \"The redduhdoor.\" or \"The Blinduhdate.\" or \"The madduhdog\". As in here at 0:30. I just wondered for people teaching English or pronunciation, how do would you teach your students to pronounce these words. And is this codified anywhere such as a pronunciation guide?","question":"Read these sentences? \"The red door.\" \"The blind date.\" \"The mad dog.\" I would pronounce these as \"The reddoor.\" and the \"blinddate\". Sort of pausing in the middle of the d with tongue pressed against teeth. In a way this would be how a Swedish person would pronounce the word \"reddoor\". As in here. But I have also heard people (mostly announcers of some kind) deliberately try to pronounce the D twice. As in \"The redduhdoor.\" or \"The Blinduhdate.\" or \"The madduhdog\". As in here at 0:30. I just wondered for people teaching English or pronunciation, how do would you teach your students to pronounce these words. And is this codified anywhere such as a pronunciation guide?","answer":"This is less a matter of pronunciation than diction. Diction is defined as: the accent, inflection, intonation, and speech-sound quality manifested by an individual speaker, usually judged in terms of prevailing standards of acceptability; enunciation. Unfortunately, there is going to be a considerable amount of variation from person to person on this matter. British speakers will enunciate and elide differently from Americans, and so on and so forth. Regional accents will also impact heavily upon this. As Robusto points out, the double d is usually only separated to clarify one word from another by most native speakers. But, someone whose profession requires more elocution (announcers, audiobook narrators, radio hosts, etc.) might do so as a matter of course. The British announcer in the linked video is deliberately extending his word endings in what we typically refer to as \"announcer voice\". I have an American accent, I'm from the Northeastern United States. I'd say red door as two d sounds. But, I tend to elide blind date into \"blinedate\". In this case, it has more to do with frequency the words go together. Blind date is more common than red door, and hence may have melded into one word for me.","output":"This is less a matter of pronunciation than diction. Diction is defined as: the accent, inflection, intonation, and speech-sound quality manifested by an individual speaker, usually judged in terms of prevailing standards of acceptability; enunciation. Unfortunately, there is going to be a considerable amount of variation from person to person on this matter. British speakers will enunciate and elide differently from Americans, and so on and so forth. Regional accents will also impact heavily upon this. As Robusto points out, the double d is usually only separated to clarify one word from another by most native speakers. But, someone whose profession requires more elocution (announcers, audiobook narrators, radio hosts, etc.) might do so as a matter of course. The British announcer in the linked video is deliberately extending his word endings in what we typically refer to as \"announcer voice\". I have an American accent, I'm from the Northeastern United States. I'd say red door as two d sounds. But, I tend to elide blind date into \"blinedate\". In this case, it has more to do with frequency the words go together. Blind date is more common than red door, and hence may have melded into one word for me."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe headlines from the BBC Hollywood great Rooney dies at 93 What is that word 'great' there? Can adjective be used this way? Or is it noun there? But then two nouns? Or Hollywood becomes adjective then? Really?","question":"The headlines from the BBC Hollywood great Rooney dies at 93 What is that word 'great' there? Can adjective be used this way? Or is it noun there? But then two nouns? Or Hollywood becomes adjective then? Really?","answer":"It's exactly the same as saying the noun \"legend\" in that context. It's also an unusual case in that it is grammatically correct without a comma or article. \"Legend\" in that context is the same way. So \"great\" is acting as a noun.","output":"It's exactly the same as saying the noun \"legend\" in that context. It's also an unusual case in that it is grammatically correct without a comma or article. \"Legend\" in that context is the same way. So \"great\" is acting as a noun."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhich spelling for the past participle of skew is more correct: skewen or skewn? (I recognise it is not the more common spelling of skewed, but regionally and personally skewen is more in use in Quebec.) Also, out of curiosity, is skewn even a word? Or was it ever a word? I\u2019m thinking of strew\/strewn and sew\/sewn and am wondering whether skew ever matched to skewn at any point over the course of its usage.","question":"Which spelling for the past participle of skew is more correct: skewen or skewn? (I recognise it is not the more common spelling of skewed, but regionally and personally skewen is more in use in Quebec.) Also, out of curiosity, is skewn even a word? Or was it ever a word? I\u2019m thinking of strew\/strewn and sew\/sewn and am wondering whether skew ever matched to skewn at any point over the course of its usage.","answer":"OED doesn't mention skewen or skewn, which means that the use is extremely local. Every dictionary has a lower limit below which they don't list a word; OED's is very low indeed. However, the entry dates from 1911 and an update is awaited. Their earliest citation for skew in the sense \"crooked, oblique\" is 2.a. To take an oblique course or direction; to turn aside, move sideways. 1488 (1478) Hary Actis & Deidis Schir William Wallace (Adv.) (1968\u20139) ix. l. 272 Crawfurd drew saill, skewyt by and off thaim past. It's a Middle English word, and the entry indicates that shortly after the verb entered English from Old Northern French, the past participle was [what is now] -ed rather than -n. eskiu(w)er, eskuer, escuer, variant of Old French eschuer, eschever, etc.: see eschew v.1 The later development of sense is curious, as well as the apparent use of the verb-stem in the adverb askew adv. and the adjective skew n.1 There is a slightly earlier citation from Morte Authure which uses skew in the now-obsolete sense of escape, but the snippet doesn't include the past participle to see how it was formed in that source. Sew, strew and throw are Old English and follow the Germanic form of -en for the past participle.","output":"OED doesn't mention skewen or skewn, which means that the use is extremely local. Every dictionary has a lower limit below which they don't list a word; OED's is very low indeed. However, the entry dates from 1911 and an update is awaited. Their earliest citation for skew in the sense \"crooked, oblique\" is 2.a. To take an oblique course or direction; to turn aside, move sideways. 1488 (1478) Hary Actis & Deidis Schir William Wallace (Adv.) (1968\u20139) ix. l. 272 Crawfurd drew saill, skewyt by and off thaim past. It's a Middle English word, and the entry indicates that shortly after the verb entered English from Old Northern French, the past participle was [what is now] -ed rather than -n. eskiu(w)er, eskuer, escuer, variant of Old French eschuer, eschever, etc.: see eschew v.1 The later development of sense is curious, as well as the apparent use of the verb-stem in the adverb askew adv. and the adjective skew n.1 There is a slightly earlier citation from Morte Authure which uses skew in the now-obsolete sense of escape, but the snippet doesn't include the past participle to see how it was formed in that source. Sew, strew and throw are Old English and follow the Germanic form of -en for the past participle."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am looking for a word similar to behold and hark which applies to calling attention to or attending with senses to some phenomenon using any combination of sensory methods\/channels (light, sound, touch, pressure, temperature, vibration, smell, taste) e.g. \"be-sense\", as in \"Be-sense this peculiar animal\", \"Are you be-sensing that?\" or \"they be-sensed the asteroid impact without knowing what it was\". An earlier question hark behold smell asked if there was an olfactory equivalent of behold (visual sense) and hark (auditory-sense). This question broaches the topic but doesn't address my specific question. I was hoping to use behold until I read in this forum that it tends to be used exclusively for visual sensing. I wish to exclude words which have cognitive connotations such as know, ken, perceive, notice. As suggested by FumbleFingers the word sense on its own is technically a good fit but to me has connotations of subtlety e.g. \"they sensed that something was not quite right\". I am also looking for a word that implies active concentration rather than passive registration in the manner of \"he looked at\" rather than \"he saw\", \"she listened to\" rather than \"she heard\", \" we be-sensed\" rather than \"we sensed\".","question":"I am looking for a word similar to behold and hark which applies to calling attention to or attending with senses to some phenomenon using any combination of sensory methods\/channels (light, sound, touch, pressure, temperature, vibration, smell, taste) e.g. \"be-sense\", as in \"Be-sense this peculiar animal\", \"Are you be-sensing that?\" or \"they be-sensed the asteroid impact without knowing what it was\". An earlier question hark behold smell asked if there was an olfactory equivalent of behold (visual sense) and hark (auditory-sense). This question broaches the topic but doesn't address my specific question. I was hoping to use behold until I read in this forum that it tends to be used exclusively for visual sensing. I wish to exclude words which have cognitive connotations such as know, ken, perceive, notice. As suggested by FumbleFingers the word sense on its own is technically a good fit but to me has connotations of subtlety e.g. \"they sensed that something was not quite right\". I am also looking for a word that implies active concentration rather than passive registration in the manner of \"he looked at\" rather than \"he saw\", \"she listened to\" rather than \"she heard\", \" we be-sensed\" rather than \"we sensed\".","answer":"Heed. pay attention to; take notice of.","output":"Heed. pay attention to; take notice of."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThis is a very simple question, but I just wanted to determine if the following statement is correct or not when we want to wish a friend luck who is going to do a presentation on a conference. Wishing you the very best of luck with your presentation.","question":"This is a very simple question, but I just wanted to determine if the following statement is correct or not when we want to wish a friend luck who is going to do a presentation on a conference. Wishing you the very best of luck with your presentation.","answer":"Though grammatically valid and understandable, this sounds a bit like something you might read on a greeting card. It's a bit formal, and beginning the sentence with \"Wishing you\" instead of \"I'm wishing you\" or \"We're wishing you\" adds the implied subject and sounds a bit unnatural for speech. If you're sending them a card or an email or something, this could sound perfectly fine: Wishing you the very best of luck with your presentation! Sincerely, Your Name That sounds natural in that context. If you're speaking to them in person, though, it sounds a bit odd. \"The very best of luck\" sounds oddly formal, and as I mentioned before you're removing the subject from the sentence, which isn't how people normally speak. If you're talking to them in person, you might say: I (we) wish you the best of luck with your presentation! Still a bit formal, but adding the subject makes it more natural in speech. More natural-sounding would be: Best of luck with your presentation! Or most commonly said: Good luck with your presentation!","output":"Though grammatically valid and understandable, this sounds a bit like something you might read on a greeting card. It's a bit formal, and beginning the sentence with \"Wishing you\" instead of \"I'm wishing you\" or \"We're wishing you\" adds the implied subject and sounds a bit unnatural for speech. If you're sending them a card or an email or something, this could sound perfectly fine: Wishing you the very best of luck with your presentation! Sincerely, Your Name That sounds natural in that context. If you're speaking to them in person, though, it sounds a bit odd. \"The very best of luck\" sounds oddly formal, and as I mentioned before you're removing the subject from the sentence, which isn't how people normally speak. If you're talking to them in person, you might say: I (we) wish you the best of luck with your presentation! Still a bit formal, but adding the subject makes it more natural in speech. More natural-sounding would be: Best of luck with your presentation! Or most commonly said: Good luck with your presentation!"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI just received my High School Diploma and want to make sure the following sentence is grammatically correct. The diploma contains the following line: \"This certifies that [Name] has satisfactorily completed the requirements prescribed for graduation and is therefor awarded this High School Diploma\" I've read that \"therefor\" means \"in return for\" and \"therefore\" means \"consequently.\" From those basic definitions, it seems like either word is correct here. But I figure that just can't be right. At first I thought that it must be \"therefore,\" but now I'm thinking that \"therefor\" (like they used) is probably more appropriate. Which is it?","question":"I just received my High School Diploma and want to make sure the following sentence is grammatically correct. The diploma contains the following line: \"This certifies that [Name] has satisfactorily completed the requirements prescribed for graduation and is therefor awarded this High School Diploma\" I've read that \"therefor\" means \"in return for\" and \"therefore\" means \"consequently.\" From those basic definitions, it seems like either word is correct here. But I figure that just can't be right. At first I thought that it must be \"therefore,\" but now I'm thinking that \"therefor\" (like they used) is probably more appropriate. Which is it?","answer":"At least therefor is a valid word. When these are clear-cut typos (such as \"progam\" or \"graduataion\"), this kind of thing can make national news, as it did in Maryland and Nevada earlier this year. As for your therefor, NOAD labels the word as archaic, with this definition: for that object or purpose. (Archaic language is not uncommon on formal documents; I've seen a few such oddities on some of mine \u2013 such as, \"In the year of our Lord\"). Mirriam-Webster indicates that the definition for therefor is in return for that. OneLook mentions the word is used in legal jargon, and means for that. So, with a simple substitution from these three dictionaries: Jane Doe has satisfactorily completed the requirements prescribed for graduation and is for that purpose awarded this High School Diploma. John Doe has satisfactorily completed the requirements prescribed for graduation and is in return for that awarded this High School Diploma. Jim Smith has satisfactorily completed the requirements prescribed for graduation and is for that awarded this High School Diploma. Those don't seem blatantly wrong to me. I'd be hesitant about calling it \"incorrect,\" lest the school be tempted to take the diploma back, and not issue you another one. :^)","output":"At least therefor is a valid word. When these are clear-cut typos (such as \"progam\" or \"graduataion\"), this kind of thing can make national news, as it did in Maryland and Nevada earlier this year. As for your therefor, NOAD labels the word as archaic, with this definition: for that object or purpose. (Archaic language is not uncommon on formal documents; I've seen a few such oddities on some of mine \u2013 such as, \"In the year of our Lord\"). Mirriam-Webster indicates that the definition for therefor is in return for that. OneLook mentions the word is used in legal jargon, and means for that. So, with a simple substitution from these three dictionaries: Jane Doe has satisfactorily completed the requirements prescribed for graduation and is for that purpose awarded this High School Diploma. John Doe has satisfactorily completed the requirements prescribed for graduation and is in return for that awarded this High School Diploma. Jim Smith has satisfactorily completed the requirements prescribed for graduation and is for that awarded this High School Diploma. Those don't seem blatantly wrong to me. I'd be hesitant about calling it \"incorrect,\" lest the school be tempted to take the diploma back, and not issue you another one. :^)"}
{"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 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\nIs the following use of in case natural? We stored the apples in the fridge in case they should go rotten. She didn\u2019t want me to go with her to the party in case I cramped her style.","question":"Is the following use of in case natural? We stored the apples in the fridge in case they should go rotten. She didn\u2019t want me to go with her to the party in case I cramped her style.","answer":"Is the following use of in case natural? We stored the apples in the fridge in case they should go rotten. Oh boy. This is a usage I've heard fellow native speakers use, but always ones with poorer educations, and it always strikes me as sounding wrong \u2013 it is technically incorrect in a way which makes me think the speaker doesn't understand what \"in case\" means. \"In case\" means \"so that we're prepared if it should happen\" or \"in the event\", not \"to prevent\" or \"so that it won't happen\". You probably wouldn't store the apples in the fridge so that, should the apples go rotten, they'll already be in the fridge, because you think it's a good thing for some reason that rotten apples be stored on the fridge. Rather, you'd store the apples in the fridge to prevent them going rotten. (Or, I don't know, maybe you do want the apples in the fridge in case they go rotten, so they won't stink up the whole house when they do.) She didn\u2019t want me to go with her to the party in case I cramped her style. This sounds somewhat more natural to me, and any native speaker will understand what it means perfectly, but, again, it sounds slightly off to me, because it's using \"in case\" to mean something other than \"in the event\". Here, it's being used to mean, \"because it might be that\", and it's being used, as above, to describe preventing a case, not anticipating it. Contrast: She did want me to go with her to the party in case she didn't know anyone there. Here, her desire for the speaker to go to the party is in anticipation of the situation that might arise at the party \u2013 the \"case\" \u2013 where it would be a good thing if she had someone she knew. So in an important sense, the answer to your question is \"yes, these are natural uses of 'in case'\". But in another sense, the answer is \"no, it sounds incorrect, and I don't recommend it.\" I guess I would sum up by saying, \"Don't do this in formal speech; save this for casual speech.\"","output":"Is the following use of in case natural? We stored the apples in the fridge in case they should go rotten. Oh boy. This is a usage I've heard fellow native speakers use, but always ones with poorer educations, and it always strikes me as sounding wrong \u2013 it is technically incorrect in a way which makes me think the speaker doesn't understand what \"in case\" means. \"In case\" means \"so that we're prepared if it should happen\" or \"in the event\", not \"to prevent\" or \"so that it won't happen\". You probably wouldn't store the apples in the fridge so that, should the apples go rotten, they'll already be in the fridge, because you think it's a good thing for some reason that rotten apples be stored on the fridge. Rather, you'd store the apples in the fridge to prevent them going rotten. (Or, I don't know, maybe you do want the apples in the fridge in case they go rotten, so they won't stink up the whole house when they do.) She didn\u2019t want me to go with her to the party in case I cramped her style. This sounds somewhat more natural to me, and any native speaker will understand what it means perfectly, but, again, it sounds slightly off to me, because it's using \"in case\" to mean something other than \"in the event\". Here, it's being used to mean, \"because it might be that\", and it's being used, as above, to describe preventing a case, not anticipating it. Contrast: She did want me to go with her to the party in case she didn't know anyone there. Here, her desire for the speaker to go to the party is in anticipation of the situation that might arise at the party \u2013 the \"case\" \u2013 where it would be a good thing if she had someone she knew. So in an important sense, the answer to your question is \"yes, these are natural uses of 'in case'\". But in another sense, the answer is \"no, it sounds incorrect, and I don't recommend it.\" I guess I would sum up by saying, \"Don't do this in formal speech; save this for casual speech.\""}
{"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is a good verb that describes that pain is happening suddenly and is sharp? I am not sure if there's a verb that checks these two condition, so if you can't I would like a verb that checks one or the other as a condition.","question":"What is a good verb that describes that pain is happening suddenly and is sharp? I am not sure if there's a verb that checks these two condition, so if you can't I would like a verb that checks one or the other as a condition.","answer":"a sudden, sharp pain a stabbing pain [adjective] The pain struck or stabbed him like a knife or felt like a knife [verb] a crippling pain [adjective] The pain was crippling. The pain crippled him momentarily. a piercing pain [adjective] The pain pierced him like a knife The pain coursed through him. Pain like this is often associated with knives or other pointed instruments. stabbing and piercing are common ways to describe it. There are, undoubtedly, other ways to say it as well.","output":"a sudden, sharp pain a stabbing pain [adjective] The pain struck or stabbed him like a knife or felt like a knife [verb] a crippling pain [adjective] The pain was crippling. The pain crippled him momentarily. a piercing pain [adjective] The pain pierced him like a knife The pain coursed through him. Pain like this is often associated with knives or other pointed instruments. stabbing and piercing are common ways to describe it. There are, undoubtedly, other ways to say it as well."}
{"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 have seen both idioms used in practice. The definitions I found, http:\/\/idioms.thefreedictionary.com\/get+arms+around, and http:\/\/idioms.thefreedictionary.com\/get+head+around don't indicate much difference between the two and do not give any clue as to when one is more appropriate than the other. The only significant distinction in the definitions is that \"get one's head around\" is mentioned as \"informal\", whereas \"get one's arms around\" is not. Is this distinction accurate? Are their others, both in term of meaning and usage?","question":"I have seen both idioms used in practice. The definitions I found, http:\/\/idioms.thefreedictionary.com\/get+arms+around, and http:\/\/idioms.thefreedictionary.com\/get+head+around don't indicate much difference between the two and do not give any clue as to when one is more appropriate than the other. The only significant distinction in the definitions is that \"get one's head around\" is mentioned as \"informal\", whereas \"get one's arms around\" is not. Is this distinction accurate? Are their others, both in term of meaning and usage?","answer":"I disagree that they are the same. In my mind, \"get one's head around\" is about conceptual problems, whereas \"get one's arms around\" is about more physical things or actually \"doing\" stuff. For example, I might say \"I'm having problems getting my head around this task.\" meaning that I'm struggling to conceptually understand what I'm doing. On the other hand, I might say \"I'm having problems getting my arms around this task.\" meaning that I'm struggling to complete the actual task (but not because I don't understand). As you can see, the distinction I draw is not a bright line in the sand, but I would say that it's consistent with how I've seen it used.","output":"I disagree that they are the same. In my mind, \"get one's head around\" is about conceptual problems, whereas \"get one's arms around\" is about more physical things or actually \"doing\" stuff. For example, I might say \"I'm having problems getting my head around this task.\" meaning that I'm struggling to conceptually understand what I'm doing. On the other hand, I might say \"I'm having problems getting my arms around this task.\" meaning that I'm struggling to complete the actual task (but not because I don't understand). As you can see, the distinction I draw is not a bright line in the sand, but I would say that it's consistent with how I've seen it used."}
{"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":"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\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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"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 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":"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\nAre there any differences in term of meaning between these two sentences: maybe it was with the album orders which didn't get dispatched yet that's all. maybe it was with the album orders which have not been dispatched yet that's all. does the first one implied that the albums have been sent now and the second one that the order will be sent pretty soon Why past simple and not present perfect?","question":"Are there any differences in term of meaning between these two sentences: maybe it was with the album orders which didn't get dispatched yet that's all. maybe it was with the album orders which have not been dispatched yet that's all. does the first one implied that the albums have been sent now and the second one that the order will be sent pretty soon Why past simple and not present perfect?","answer":"Your sentence as it stands has a number of other issues, so let's consider a simpler sentence: The album orders haven't been sent out yet. The album orders didn't get sent out yet. In both sentences, the orders have not been sent at the time of speaking. If you wanted, as you suggest, to say that they hadn't been sent in the past but they have been now, you'd need to say: The album orders hadn't been sent out yet. As for \"haven't been\" versus \"didn't get,\" they are more or less interchangeable. The only differences, to my ear, are that \"didn't get\" (1) is slightly more informal, and (2) places slightly more emphasis on the (implied) person responsible for shipping the albums out.","output":"Your sentence as it stands has a number of other issues, so let's consider a simpler sentence: The album orders haven't been sent out yet. The album orders didn't get sent out yet. In both sentences, the orders have not been sent at the time of speaking. If you wanted, as you suggest, to say that they hadn't been sent in the past but they have been now, you'd need to say: The album orders hadn't been sent out yet. As for \"haven't been\" versus \"didn't get,\" they are more or less interchangeable. The only differences, to my ear, are that \"didn't get\" (1) is slightly more informal, and (2) places slightly more emphasis on the (implied) person responsible for shipping the albums out."}
{"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\nWhat do you call someone who believes in using other's resources instead of wasting his own purely because of the availability of it and has a motto of \"why use mine when I can use others'?\"","question":"What do you call someone who believes in using other's resources instead of wasting his own purely because of the availability of it and has a motto of \"why use mine when I can use others'?\"","answer":"Obviously the go-to is selfish. You can look up synonyms for that pretty easily if you needed something more latinate or particular. Going beyond that, the other people having left their resources where he could get to them was a moral hazard that caused him to act as a free rider, using shared resources without contributing. (If they aren't intended to be shared with some people, he's just a thief.) When there are too many people acting that way towards a shared resource, it's called the tragedy of the commons.","output":"Obviously the go-to is selfish. You can look up synonyms for that pretty easily if you needed something more latinate or particular. Going beyond that, the other people having left their resources where he could get to them was a moral hazard that caused him to act as a free rider, using shared resources without contributing. (If they aren't intended to be shared with some people, he's just a thief.) When there are too many people acting that way towards a shared resource, it's called the tragedy of the commons."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat does grosser sense mean in this passage from Mortal Immortal by Mary Shelley? A bright flash darted before my eyes. I had forgotten the medicine of the adept; I gazed on it with wonder: flashes of admirable beauty, more bright than those which the diamond emits when the sun\u2019s rays are on it, glanced from the surface of the liquid; an odour the most fragrant and grateful stole over my sense; the vessel seemed one globe of living radiance, lovely to the eye, and most inviting to the taste. The first thought, instinctively inspired by the grosser sense, was, I will\u2014I must drink. I raised the vessel to my lips. \u201cIt will cure me of love\u2014of torture!\u201d Already I had quaffed half of the most delicious liquor ever tasted by the palate of man, when the philosopher stirred. I started\u2014I dropped the glass\u2014the fluid flamed and glanced along the floor, while I felt Cornelius\u2019s grip at my throat, as he shrieked aloud, \u201cWretch! you have destroyed the labour of my life!\u201d","question":"What does grosser sense mean in this passage from Mortal Immortal by Mary Shelley? A bright flash darted before my eyes. I had forgotten the medicine of the adept; I gazed on it with wonder: flashes of admirable beauty, more bright than those which the diamond emits when the sun\u2019s rays are on it, glanced from the surface of the liquid; an odour the most fragrant and grateful stole over my sense; the vessel seemed one globe of living radiance, lovely to the eye, and most inviting to the taste. The first thought, instinctively inspired by the grosser sense, was, I will\u2014I must drink. I raised the vessel to my lips. \u201cIt will cure me of love\u2014of torture!\u201d Already I had quaffed half of the most delicious liquor ever tasted by the palate of man, when the philosopher stirred. I started\u2014I dropped the glass\u2014the fluid flamed and glanced along the floor, while I felt Cornelius\u2019s grip at my throat, as he shrieked aloud, \u201cWretch! you have destroyed the labour of my life!\u201d","answer":"Grosser sense refers to physical desire or appetite, untempered by spiritual or rational considerations. It looked beautiful and smelled delicious, so she drank it, without stopping to think whether it was a smart thing to do, or an ethical.","output":"Grosser sense refers to physical desire or appetite, untempered by spiritual or rational considerations. It looked beautiful and smelled delicious, so she drank it, without stopping to think whether it was a smart thing to do, or an ethical."}
{"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":"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\nWhy is an article not used before the noun in sentences such as the one below? See you in (the, a) court.","question":"Why is an article not used before the noun in sentences such as the one below? See you in (the, a) court.","answer":"Generally, you use a zero article with abstract nouns: I fell in love. (not a or the love) In your example, court is being used as an abstract noun representing the legal system and its activities in general. Note the difference between court (zero article) and courtroom (article): The judge is in the courtroom this morning. (Specifies her location, but not her activity - maybe she's just sitting there catching up on paperwork.) The judge is in court this morning. (Specifies that she is actively presiding over one or more legal procedures.) Likewise, you can create the same distinction with your example: See you in the courtroom. This says that there's a place (the courtroom) where we will both be in the future, but does not specify what we will be doing: we could be involved in the trial or in the jury or even just spectators. See you in court. This says that we will be directly involved in a legal trial, usually as opposing parties on either side (although a judge might also say this to one of the litigants), and we will go through the process of holding the trial. A few people have pointed out in the comments that you can use articles in front of what seem to be abstract nouns. This tends to be used when you are narrowing down the meaning to one specific instance of that abstraction. On another site, a frequent ELL contributor (FumbleFingers) wrote this: [using] the focusses on a specific instance of something, whereas a implies one among many possibilities. Examples: The court ruled in favor of the defense. (one specific court) To continue, we need access to a court of law. (one among many possibilities) See you in court. (not specifically one instance; just the general abstract concept of formal legal proceedings and maybe I'm willing to drag you from venue to venue and through multiple appeals) Or to use abstract noun \"argument\", which was raised in the comments: This is not relevant to the argument. (the specific on we're having) They were having an argument. (one argument at a particular time) We can resolve this through argument. (the abstract concept of adversarial discussion, not necessarily confined to one single discussion) And as a digression, you do see \"the\/a court\" for other definitions of the noun court where it is a definite location. When speaking about a tennis court, for example, you could hear someone say: See you on the court [to play a match of tennis].","output":"Generally, you use a zero article with abstract nouns: I fell in love. (not a or the love) In your example, court is being used as an abstract noun representing the legal system and its activities in general. Note the difference between court (zero article) and courtroom (article): The judge is in the courtroom this morning. (Specifies her location, but not her activity - maybe she's just sitting there catching up on paperwork.) The judge is in court this morning. (Specifies that she is actively presiding over one or more legal procedures.) Likewise, you can create the same distinction with your example: See you in the courtroom. This says that there's a place (the courtroom) where we will both be in the future, but does not specify what we will be doing: we could be involved in the trial or in the jury or even just spectators. See you in court. This says that we will be directly involved in a legal trial, usually as opposing parties on either side (although a judge might also say this to one of the litigants), and we will go through the process of holding the trial. A few people have pointed out in the comments that you can use articles in front of what seem to be abstract nouns. This tends to be used when you are narrowing down the meaning to one specific instance of that abstraction. On another site, a frequent ELL contributor (FumbleFingers) wrote this: [using] the focusses on a specific instance of something, whereas a implies one among many possibilities. Examples: The court ruled in favor of the defense. (one specific court) To continue, we need access to a court of law. (one among many possibilities) See you in court. (not specifically one instance; just the general abstract concept of formal legal proceedings and maybe I'm willing to drag you from venue to venue and through multiple appeals) Or to use abstract noun \"argument\", which was raised in the comments: This is not relevant to the argument. (the specific on we're having) They were having an argument. (one argument at a particular time) We can resolve this through argument. (the abstract concept of adversarial discussion, not necessarily confined to one single discussion) And as a digression, you do see \"the\/a court\" for other definitions of the noun court where it is a definite location. When speaking about a tennis court, for example, you could hear someone say: See you on the court [to play a match of tennis]."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen would you use each? I understand \"condescend\" has another meaning of \"voluntarily lower oneself\" (Babylon definition). But in the \"look upon other\" meaning, which would you prefer in which situation?","question":"When would you use each? I understand \"condescend\" has another meaning of \"voluntarily lower oneself\" (Babylon definition). But in the \"look upon other\" meaning, which would you prefer in which situation?","answer":"There is something of a circular definition at work here: to patronise someone is to behave condescendingly toward them, and to condescend is to behave in an arrogant manner by patronising those whom you consider inferior. I'd say they're fully denotationally equivalent. Connotation-wise, however, there is a slight difference: \"patronising\" implies behaving as a parent does toward a child, while I think \"condescending\" is more general.","output":"There is something of a circular definition at work here: to patronise someone is to behave condescendingly toward them, and to condescend is to behave in an arrogant manner by patronising those whom you consider inferior. I'd say they're fully denotationally equivalent. Connotation-wise, however, there is a slight difference: \"patronising\" implies behaving as a parent does toward a child, while I think \"condescending\" is more general."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nDoes the dedication \"To my beloved John\" need a comma after \"beloved\"?","question":"Does the dedication \"To my beloved John\" need a comma after \"beloved\"?","answer":"It depends on how you want the dedication to read. There are two main options: To my beloved, John Here, beloved is a noun. This says that John is equivalent to your beloved. A fine point to this is that this implies that you have only one \"beloved\". If you happen to have multiple beloveds (or multiple Johns -- thank you, Kit), you can use beloved as an adjective by saying: To my beloved John This second option used beloved as a modifier of John. If you have multiple Johns, this can help differentiate between them. Maybe you have a \"beloved John\", \"tall John\", and \"carpenter John\". Either option is equally correct; the choice depends on how you feel about John.","output":"It depends on how you want the dedication to read. There are two main options: To my beloved, John Here, beloved is a noun. This says that John is equivalent to your beloved. A fine point to this is that this implies that you have only one \"beloved\". If you happen to have multiple beloveds (or multiple Johns -- thank you, Kit), you can use beloved as an adjective by saying: To my beloved John This second option used beloved as a modifier of John. If you have multiple Johns, this can help differentiate between them. Maybe you have a \"beloved John\", \"tall John\", and \"carpenter John\". Either option is equally correct; the choice depends on how you feel about John."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\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\nI was surprised to see the New Yorker\u2019s (February 26) article titled, \u201cBoehner defends decision to remain on ass,\u201d which was chockablock with the word, \u201cAss.\u201d \u201cMinutes after telling the United States Senate to \u201cget off their ass\u201d to avoid the deep spending cuts that will take effect this Friday, House Speaker John Boehner called an impromptu press conference to announce his intention of remaining on his ass \u201cfor the foreseeable future.\u201d Mr. Boehner\u2019s words drew a strong rebuke from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said that Mr. Boehner\u2019s suggestion that the Senate get off their ass while he remained on his \u201cseems like the height of hypocrisy, ass-wise.\u201d My question: Is it acceptable (or sometime welcome) for decent statesmen to repeat the word, \u201cass\u201d in public, e.g. in a press conference and in mass-media in western world? In our country ass is \u201cA-word,\u201d not suitable to utter in public. Is \u201cremain on one\u2019s ass\u201d a precise antonym to \u201cget off one\u2019s ass\u201d? What dose \u201cass-wise\u201d mean? Does it mean \u201cin terms of the implication of Ass\u201d? Is it used as a noun or adverbially here?","question":"I was surprised to see the New Yorker\u2019s (February 26) article titled, \u201cBoehner defends decision to remain on ass,\u201d which was chockablock with the word, \u201cAss.\u201d \u201cMinutes after telling the United States Senate to \u201cget off their ass\u201d to avoid the deep spending cuts that will take effect this Friday, House Speaker John Boehner called an impromptu press conference to announce his intention of remaining on his ass \u201cfor the foreseeable future.\u201d Mr. Boehner\u2019s words drew a strong rebuke from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said that Mr. Boehner\u2019s suggestion that the Senate get off their ass while he remained on his \u201cseems like the height of hypocrisy, ass-wise.\u201d My question: Is it acceptable (or sometime welcome) for decent statesmen to repeat the word, \u201cass\u201d in public, e.g. in a press conference and in mass-media in western world? In our country ass is \u201cA-word,\u201d not suitable to utter in public. Is \u201cremain on one\u2019s ass\u201d a precise antonym to \u201cget off one\u2019s ass\u201d? What dose \u201cass-wise\u201d mean? Does it mean \u201cin terms of the implication of Ass\u201d? Is it used as a noun or adverbially here?","answer":"When you read biographies of politicians and other public figures going back many decades, you see that crude language is by no means a recent phenomenon in the precincts of power. What has changed dramatically in recent decades is the willingness of some news outlets to reproduce their salty language. The New Yorker is among the publications that have adopted this relatively new approach. And of course, many online-only outlets are even less circumspect about crude language than The New Yorker. It hardly comes as a surprise these days that if political opponents start talking colorfully about one another's posteriors (or \"keisters,\" as one politician preferred to call them), the verbatim version of the language will come out. On the other hand, as far as I know, the Associated Press still hews to the older standards of diffidence toward coarse language. To that end, the Associated Press Stylebook (2002) lays down the following guidelines for handling such words: obscenities, profanities, vulgarities Do not use them unless they are part of direct quotations and there is a compelling reason for them. When a profanity, obscenity or vulgarity is used, flag the story at the top: Eds: Note contents of 4th graf. Then confine the offending language in quotation marks, to a separate paragraph that can be deleted easily by editors who do not want it. In reporting profanity that normally would use the words damn or god, lowercase god and use the following forms: damn, damn it, goddamn it. Do not, however, change the offending words to euphemisms.Do not, for example, change damn it to darn it. If a full quote that contains profanity, obscenity or vulgarity cannot be dropped but there is no compelling reason for the offensive language, replace letters of an offensive word with a hyphen. When the subject matter of a story may be considered offensive, but the story does not contain quoted profanity, obscenities or vulgarities,flag the story at the top: Editors: The contents may be offensive to some readers. Regrettably, AP fails to identify which words are obscene, which profane, and which vulgar, perhaps to avoid shocking the reporters and editors who occupy a typical newsroom. It's a darned (I mean d-----) shame, really. But to answer your questions: In much of the United States, \"ass\" continues to be viewed as unacceptably vulgar language, though probably not as outright obscene in most places. \u201cRemain on one\u2019s ass\u201d is as precise an antonym for \u201cget off one\u2019s ass\u201d as I can readily imagine. \"Ass-wise\" (as opposed to \"wise-ass\") is not a word in common use in this country, but it undoubtedly means something along the lines of \"with regard to, on the subject of, or in connection with asses.\"","output":"When you read biographies of politicians and other public figures going back many decades, you see that crude language is by no means a recent phenomenon in the precincts of power. What has changed dramatically in recent decades is the willingness of some news outlets to reproduce their salty language. The New Yorker is among the publications that have adopted this relatively new approach. And of course, many online-only outlets are even less circumspect about crude language than The New Yorker. It hardly comes as a surprise these days that if political opponents start talking colorfully about one another's posteriors (or \"keisters,\" as one politician preferred to call them), the verbatim version of the language will come out. On the other hand, as far as I know, the Associated Press still hews to the older standards of diffidence toward coarse language. To that end, the Associated Press Stylebook (2002) lays down the following guidelines for handling such words: obscenities, profanities, vulgarities Do not use them unless they are part of direct quotations and there is a compelling reason for them. When a profanity, obscenity or vulgarity is used, flag the story at the top: Eds: Note contents of 4th graf. Then confine the offending language in quotation marks, to a separate paragraph that can be deleted easily by editors who do not want it. In reporting profanity that normally would use the words damn or god, lowercase god and use the following forms: damn, damn it, goddamn it. Do not, however, change the offending words to euphemisms.Do not, for example, change damn it to darn it. If a full quote that contains profanity, obscenity or vulgarity cannot be dropped but there is no compelling reason for the offensive language, replace letters of an offensive word with a hyphen. When the subject matter of a story may be considered offensive, but the story does not contain quoted profanity, obscenities or vulgarities,flag the story at the top: Editors: The contents may be offensive to some readers. Regrettably, AP fails to identify which words are obscene, which profane, and which vulgar, perhaps to avoid shocking the reporters and editors who occupy a typical newsroom. It's a darned (I mean d-----) shame, really. But to answer your questions: In much of the United States, \"ass\" continues to be viewed as unacceptably vulgar language, though probably not as outright obscene in most places. \u201cRemain on one\u2019s ass\u201d is as precise an antonym for \u201cget off one\u2019s ass\u201d as I can readily imagine. \"Ass-wise\" (as opposed to \"wise-ass\") is not a word in common use in this country, but it undoubtedly means something along the lines of \"with regard to, on the subject of, or in connection with asses.\""}
{"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\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the difference between fox and box versus ox, that the first two are pluralized as foxes and boxes, whereas the last one is pluralized oxen? Note: I know how to pluralize them. What I want to know is what makes them different from each other, why they are pluralized as they are. Joking: the plural of box is boxen. [Kudos to Mark for that first link]","question":"What is the difference between fox and box versus ox, that the first two are pluralized as foxes and boxes, whereas the last one is pluralized oxen? Note: I know how to pluralize them. What I want to know is what makes them different from each other, why they are pluralized as they are. Joking: the plural of box is boxen. [Kudos to Mark for that first link]","answer":"The word ox comes from the Old English oxa. In Old English, as in Indo-European languages in general (historically and even today), the number of a noun (singular or plural) and its function in a sentence\u2014whether it was the subject, direct object, indirect object, or had some other relation to a verb or another noun\u2014was largely (not solely) governed by sets of endings tacked onto it, or changes made to the vowels in it. These sets of endings or changes were called declensions, and each type of relationship associated with an ending is called a case. There were a number of declensions in Old English; the two most prominent were the weak declension, containing the weak nouns, and the strong declension, containing the strong nouns. Old English oxa was a weak noun. The forms that we have of its descendant today are derived from the nominative case endings; these are the forms that would indicate that a noun is the subject of a sentence, or the forms that would be used when writing a list of nouns. Since oxa was a weak noun, its plural form (the nominative plural form) was oxan. Over the course of centuries, the a \"weakened\" to an e, giving us oxen. Fox, on the other hand, comes from the Old English fox, which was a strong noun; its Old English plural was foxas, whence we get foxes. The source I used to confirm the declension of fox has an entry for the Old English box; however, it has no declension information. Using this translator, however, it appears that the nominative plural was boxas, giving us boxes. Although Modern English has largely dropped the declensional suffixes we got from Old English, we occasionally see them peeking through, as we do here.","output":"The word ox comes from the Old English oxa. In Old English, as in Indo-European languages in general (historically and even today), the number of a noun (singular or plural) and its function in a sentence\u2014whether it was the subject, direct object, indirect object, or had some other relation to a verb or another noun\u2014was largely (not solely) governed by sets of endings tacked onto it, or changes made to the vowels in it. These sets of endings or changes were called declensions, and each type of relationship associated with an ending is called a case. There were a number of declensions in Old English; the two most prominent were the weak declension, containing the weak nouns, and the strong declension, containing the strong nouns. Old English oxa was a weak noun. The forms that we have of its descendant today are derived from the nominative case endings; these are the forms that would indicate that a noun is the subject of a sentence, or the forms that would be used when writing a list of nouns. Since oxa was a weak noun, its plural form (the nominative plural form) was oxan. Over the course of centuries, the a \"weakened\" to an e, giving us oxen. Fox, on the other hand, comes from the Old English fox, which was a strong noun; its Old English plural was foxas, whence we get foxes. The source I used to confirm the declension of fox has an entry for the Old English box; however, it has no declension information. Using this translator, however, it appears that the nominative plural was boxas, giving us boxes. Although Modern English has largely dropped the declensional suffixes we got from Old English, we occasionally see them peeking through, as we do here."}
{"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 searching for a word in English that means \"something to compare against\", or \"the other side of the compare\". Is there a single word for this?","question":"I'm searching for a word in English that means \"something to compare against\", or \"the other side of the compare\". Is there a single word for this?","answer":"Comparand is the term used in technical contexts for the objects being compared, similarly to operand. \u2013 Kris May 3 '13 at 12:03 It means (linguistics, computing) A thing to which something is compared. [Wiktionary] Comparator, on the other hand, is the thing (device or algorithm) that performs the comparison.","output":"Comparand is the term used in technical contexts for the objects being compared, similarly to operand. \u2013 Kris May 3 '13 at 12:03 It means (linguistics, computing) A thing to which something is compared. [Wiktionary] Comparator, on the other hand, is the thing (device or algorithm) that performs the comparison."}
{"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\nIf someone who is a linguistics expert could explain this to me in a way I can understand, I'd really appreciate it. I get that \/\u028c\/ is used on stressed vowels and \/\u0259\/ on reduced vowels, but they sound exactly the same to me. 'Strut' (\/str\u028ct\/) is given as an example word for the former, and 'comma' (\/\u02c8k\u0252m\u0259\/) for the latter, but I pronounce both of those words the same. I'm confused as to how these differ from a sound perspective.","question":"If someone who is a linguistics expert could explain this to me in a way I can understand, I'd really appreciate it. I get that \/\u028c\/ is used on stressed vowels and \/\u0259\/ on reduced vowels, but they sound exactly the same to me. 'Strut' (\/str\u028ct\/) is given as an example word for the former, and 'comma' (\/\u02c8k\u0252m\u0259\/) for the latter, but I pronounce both of those words the same. I'm confused as to how these differ from a sound perspective.","answer":"\"I get that \/\u028c\/ is used on stressed vowels and \/\u0259\/ on reduced vowels.\" No. Yes, \"\/\u028c\/ is used on stressed vowels\", but there is no phoneme \/\u0259\/ in English. There is only an allophone [\u0259] of various unstressed vowel phonemes, including \/\u028c\/. (I am giving you my own idiosyncratic opinion here -- some linguists will disagree.) You're not going to be able to deal with the difference you're concerned about until you have some idea of the difference between phonemes and allophones. Phonemes are perceptual, while allophones are actually pronounced. Unless they have some training in phonetics, or are just naturally very good at phonetics, English speakers don't hear schwa at all, because there is no such phoneme. They will hear a schwa as some similar vowel phoneme, probably caret \/\u028c\/. But there is nothing intrinsically impossible about hearing and pronouncing both sounds, it is just being stuck with the English phonological pattern that makes for the difficulty. You have to get beyond the usual limitations of English speakers in order to control both schwa and caret. I suggest taking careful note of your tongue position as you say various unstressed vowels. I find that my tongue is retracted toward the back of my mouth when I say caret, but not retracted when I say schwa.","output":"\"I get that \/\u028c\/ is used on stressed vowels and \/\u0259\/ on reduced vowels.\" No. Yes, \"\/\u028c\/ is used on stressed vowels\", but there is no phoneme \/\u0259\/ in English. There is only an allophone [\u0259] of various unstressed vowel phonemes, including \/\u028c\/. (I am giving you my own idiosyncratic opinion here -- some linguists will disagree.) You're not going to be able to deal with the difference you're concerned about until you have some idea of the difference between phonemes and allophones. Phonemes are perceptual, while allophones are actually pronounced. Unless they have some training in phonetics, or are just naturally very good at phonetics, English speakers don't hear schwa at all, because there is no such phoneme. They will hear a schwa as some similar vowel phoneme, probably caret \/\u028c\/. But there is nothing intrinsically impossible about hearing and pronouncing both sounds, it is just being stuck with the English phonological pattern that makes for the difficulty. You have to get beyond the usual limitations of English speakers in order to control both schwa and caret. I suggest taking careful note of your tongue position as you say various unstressed vowels. I find that my tongue is retracted toward the back of my mouth when I say caret, but not retracted when I say schwa."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am writing a story, but I got stuck on this sentence: No one dared to volunteer, as that meant risking one's life. Does this sound correct\/natural? Or should I change this sentence to: No one dared to volunteer, as that would mean risking one's life. Which seems better and more correctly stated? Thank you.","question":"I am writing a story, but I got stuck on this sentence: No one dared to volunteer, as that meant risking one's life. Does this sound correct\/natural? Or should I change this sentence to: No one dared to volunteer, as that would mean risking one's life. Which seems better and more correctly stated? Thank you.","answer":"Both are correct. The choice is yours: If you want to convey that risking one's life is certain if one volunteered, then \"No one dared to volunteer, as that meant risking one's life.\" is better. If you want to express risking one's life as a hypothetical situation or something that might happen if one volunteered, then \"No one dared to volunteer, as that would mean risking one's life.\" is better.","output":"Both are correct. The choice is yours: If you want to convey that risking one's life is certain if one volunteered, then \"No one dared to volunteer, as that meant risking one's life.\" is better. If you want to express risking one's life as a hypothetical situation or something that might happen if one volunteered, then \"No one dared to volunteer, as that would mean risking one's life.\" is better."}
{"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\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAs far as I understand, along came is used when one needs to describe an event of less importance. However, can I use this phrase with a positive connotation? Example: I want to state that it is only after Mr.Abe's arrival, that our company's profits soared and made heads turn in the international market. I am highlighting his achievements. So I have written: Along came Mr.Abe to our company, and the rest is history! Have I written it right or do I need to re-phrase it?","question":"As far as I understand, along came is used when one needs to describe an event of less importance. However, can I use this phrase with a positive connotation? Example: I want to state that it is only after Mr.Abe's arrival, that our company's profits soared and made heads turn in the international market. I am highlighting his achievements. So I have written: Along came Mr.Abe to our company, and the rest is history! Have I written it right or do I need to re-phrase it?","answer":"I don't think it refers to an event of \"less importance\", at all. Read this poem and you will see it is the turning point of the story. Little Miss Muffet Sat on a tuffet, Eating her curds and whey; Along came a spider Who sat down beside her And frightened Miss Muffet away. In that example, the event is not positive either, so I don't believe that is the connotation you get from the phrase. It can go either way, making the direct answer to your question a 'no'. Personally, I like the feel of \"Along came Mr.Abe, and the rest is history!\". I believe it does sound positive, but the extra connotation from phrasing it that way is that the event was a turning point somehow, that the mere presence of the spider or of Mr.Abe was significant enough to turn events. Including \"to our company\" in the sentence feels a little forced to me; since it is a poetic phrase it seems susceptible to alterations.","output":"I don't think it refers to an event of \"less importance\", at all. Read this poem and you will see it is the turning point of the story. Little Miss Muffet Sat on a tuffet, Eating her curds and whey; Along came a spider Who sat down beside her And frightened Miss Muffet away. In that example, the event is not positive either, so I don't believe that is the connotation you get from the phrase. It can go either way, making the direct answer to your question a 'no'. Personally, I like the feel of \"Along came Mr.Abe, and the rest is history!\". I believe it does sound positive, but the extra connotation from phrasing it that way is that the event was a turning point somehow, that the mere presence of the spider or of Mr.Abe was significant enough to turn events. Including \"to our company\" in the sentence feels a little forced to me; since it is a poetic phrase it seems susceptible to alterations."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was reading a short story and I found this phrasal verb so difficult to understand even with using Monolingual dictionary. \u201cWhy don\u2019t you come down to the pony farm with me tomorrow?\u201c","question":"I was reading a short story and I found this phrasal verb so difficult to understand even with using Monolingual dictionary. \u201cWhy don\u2019t you come down to the pony farm with me tomorrow?\u201c","answer":"\"Up\" and \"down\" are not only used to describe ascension and descent in terms of height. They are also used to describe travel north and south. For example, if you live north of somebody, you might say \"come up and see me\". Similarly, they might say \"come down and see me\". When travelling east and west, the alternative is \"come over and see me\". Your example is specifically about a farm, and I have to say I am far more familiar with the expression \"down on the farm\" than any that contains \"up\". I wanted to add that this may be an idiom, that farms are always spoken of in terms of being lower land. However, this ngram shows that while that might have been the case at one time, expressions using \"up\" are now just as common.","output":"\"Up\" and \"down\" are not only used to describe ascension and descent in terms of height. They are also used to describe travel north and south. For example, if you live north of somebody, you might say \"come up and see me\". Similarly, they might say \"come down and see me\". When travelling east and west, the alternative is \"come over and see me\". Your example is specifically about a farm, and I have to say I am far more familiar with the expression \"down on the farm\" than any that contains \"up\". I wanted to add that this may be an idiom, that farms are always spoken of in terms of being lower land. However, this ngram shows that while that might have been the case at one time, expressions using \"up\" are now just as common."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the difference between talk with people and talk live with people? I think all kinds of talk is live. If so, why we would say talk live with people?","question":"What is the difference between talk with people and talk live with people? I think all kinds of talk is live. If so, why we would say talk live with people?","answer":"'Talk live' is used in the broadcast media industry to differentiate between real time interviews and pre-recorded content. The term can also mean have a talk 'in person', as opposed to over the phone, via email, or texting.","output":"'Talk live' is used in the broadcast media industry to differentiate between real time interviews and pre-recorded content. The term can also mean have a talk 'in person', as opposed to over the phone, via email, or texting."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCurrently listening to the audio book \"Digital Fortress\", I came across the word \"cadaver\" in reference to a dead human body for the first time. Somehow it struck me as a degrading way of referring to it. So I started wondering what governs the choice of the three words body, cadaver and corpse (and potentially stiff and lich) for a dead human body. I.e. would cadaver carry a more formal or medically correct connotation compared to body or corpse?","question":"Currently listening to the audio book \"Digital Fortress\", I came across the word \"cadaver\" in reference to a dead human body for the first time. Somehow it struck me as a degrading way of referring to it. So I started wondering what governs the choice of the three words body, cadaver and corpse (and potentially stiff and lich) for a dead human body. I.e. would cadaver carry a more formal or medically correct connotation compared to body or corpse?","answer":"Corpse and cadaver are both medical\/legal terms for a dead body. I would not call them degrading per se, but perhaps dehumanizing, and that is not necessarily for ill intent: we use clinical and legal terminology to be precise as well as to avoid emotional or cultural connotations of alternative terms that can be a distraction (e.g. pinna as opposed to ear, vertebral column as opposed to backbone). Although cadaver is the older word, it has come to refer in particular to a dead body used for medical or scientific purposes, for example, for medical students to dissect, while corpse is used more generally. I do find corpse to be somewhat more evocative than simply dead body, as it brings to my mind an embalmed dead body, or the reanimation thereof, but that is likely the fault of too many zombie films. A more elevated alternative would be remains, and remains which have been elevated for religious purposes are termed relics. If on the other hand you did want to disrespect the dead, you could call the dead body a carcass, the word for a dead animal body used for food, whether processed by abattoir or buzzard. Etymonline says it is \"not used of humans after c.1750, except contemptuously.\"","output":"Corpse and cadaver are both medical\/legal terms for a dead body. I would not call them degrading per se, but perhaps dehumanizing, and that is not necessarily for ill intent: we use clinical and legal terminology to be precise as well as to avoid emotional or cultural connotations of alternative terms that can be a distraction (e.g. pinna as opposed to ear, vertebral column as opposed to backbone). Although cadaver is the older word, it has come to refer in particular to a dead body used for medical or scientific purposes, for example, for medical students to dissect, while corpse is used more generally. I do find corpse to be somewhat more evocative than simply dead body, as it brings to my mind an embalmed dead body, or the reanimation thereof, but that is likely the fault of too many zombie films. A more elevated alternative would be remains, and remains which have been elevated for religious purposes are termed relics. If on the other hand you did want to disrespect the dead, you could call the dead body a carcass, the word for a dead animal body used for food, whether processed by abattoir or buzzard. Etymonline says it is \"not used of humans after c.1750, except contemptuously.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhich one is correct: 'Something suits your needs the best' or 'Something best suits your needs'?","question":"Which one is correct: 'Something suits your needs the best' or 'Something best suits your needs'?","answer":"Either is fine, but (American here) I think \"Something that best suits your needs\" would be the most common way of saying it.","output":"Either is fine, but (American here) I think \"Something that best suits your needs\" would be the most common way of saying it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm increasingly hearing the phrase \"out of pocket\" used in America as a colloquialism to mean \"away from the office\", \"unavailable\", or \"incommunicado\". I apologize for not replying sooner; I have been out of pocket. What is the etymology of this usage? It always sounds odd to me, since I had previously always associated the phrase with expenses, e.g., \"I had to pay for the service out of pocket,\" meaning, \"I had to pay for the service using my own money.\" Should either of these usages be avoided? What is the extent of their acceptance?","question":"I'm increasingly hearing the phrase \"out of pocket\" used in America as a colloquialism to mean \"away from the office\", \"unavailable\", or \"incommunicado\". I apologize for not replying sooner; I have been out of pocket. What is the etymology of this usage? It always sounds odd to me, since I had previously always associated the phrase with expenses, e.g., \"I had to pay for the service out of pocket,\" meaning, \"I had to pay for the service using my own money.\" Should either of these usages be avoided? What is the extent of their acceptance?","answer":"Here's a cite from the OED: 1946 Sunday Times-Signal (Zanesville, Ohio) 12 May I. 7\/1 [They] told citizens here that somebody was \u2018out of pocket\u2019 in Bowie and Miller counties the nights of the killings, and urged them to recall whether anyone they knew was missing on those dates. 1973 J. PETERSON Sicilian Slaughter 53 Her hands shook as she dialed. But her connection was out of pocket. 1974 Anderson (S. Carolina) Independent 20 Apr. 1A\/1 If you..have ever been sick and the only doctor is out of pocket for the weekend, then you know we need more doctors. 2002 A. PHILLIPS Prague III. viii. 229 Five-day weekend for me, Charlie, starting in eighteen minutes. I'll be out of pocket until Tuesday. I first heard this in the US Southern states, and some attest to it being common on the East Coast. This is a regionalism, and while quite old, it should be considered informal and would not be universally understood by all US speakers. Those on the West Coast, for example, would be largely unfamiliar with it, and only use \"out of pocket\" to refer to self-expense payments.","output":"Here's a cite from the OED: 1946 Sunday Times-Signal (Zanesville, Ohio) 12 May I. 7\/1 [They] told citizens here that somebody was \u2018out of pocket\u2019 in Bowie and Miller counties the nights of the killings, and urged them to recall whether anyone they knew was missing on those dates. 1973 J. PETERSON Sicilian Slaughter 53 Her hands shook as she dialed. But her connection was out of pocket. 1974 Anderson (S. Carolina) Independent 20 Apr. 1A\/1 If you..have ever been sick and the only doctor is out of pocket for the weekend, then you know we need more doctors. 2002 A. PHILLIPS Prague III. viii. 229 Five-day weekend for me, Charlie, starting in eighteen minutes. I'll be out of pocket until Tuesday. I first heard this in the US Southern states, and some attest to it being common on the East Coast. This is a regionalism, and while quite old, it should be considered informal and would not be universally understood by all US speakers. Those on the West Coast, for example, would be largely unfamiliar with it, and only use \"out of pocket\" to refer to self-expense payments."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nPlease critique my sentences below. Make sure we are aligned on this issue. Make sure we are aligned with this issue. I have heard people say \"I am aligned\" or I am aligned with this issue.\" Does anyone have any other suggestions?","question":"Please critique my sentences below. Make sure we are aligned on this issue. Make sure we are aligned with this issue. I have heard people say \"I am aligned\" or I am aligned with this issue.\" Does anyone have any other suggestions?","answer":"The correct usage would be to align with people (or other sources of opinion) on topics. Here are some good example sentences: \"Make sure we are aligned on this issue.\" \"Make sure you are aligned with us.\" \"Make sure we are aligned with the CEO on this issue.\" \"This aligns with corporate policy.\"","output":"The correct usage would be to align with people (or other sources of opinion) on topics. Here are some good example sentences: \"Make sure we are aligned on this issue.\" \"Make sure you are aligned with us.\" \"Make sure we are aligned with the CEO on this issue.\" \"This aligns with corporate policy.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"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\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am looking for a single word for \"very expensive\". It is going to be used, e.g., I bought [very expensive] software.","question":"I am looking for a single word for \"very expensive\". It is going to be used, e.g., I bought [very expensive] software.","answer":"You can try extravagant: Excessively high Extravagant expenses; extravagant prices. Extravagant definition by Dictionary.com Or if you believe that price to be unreasonably high, you can try exorbitant. Exceeding the bounds of custom, propriety, or reason, especially in amount or extent; highly excessive: To charge an exorbitant price; exorbitant luxury. Exorbitant definition by Dictionary.com","output":"You can try extravagant: Excessively high Extravagant expenses; extravagant prices. Extravagant definition by Dictionary.com Or if you believe that price to be unreasonably high, you can try exorbitant. Exceeding the bounds of custom, propriety, or reason, especially in amount or extent; highly excessive: To charge an exorbitant price; exorbitant luxury. Exorbitant definition by Dictionary.com"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat does the sentence mean \" hit me with the quick fix, John \"","question":"What does the sentence mean \" hit me with the quick fix, John \"","answer":"The colloquial Hit me with it! (meaning Give it to me) is more commonly used where \"it\" is some unpleasant or surprising information, but OP's cited usage isn't uncommon. A quick fix (also colloquial, but nowhere near as \"slangy\" as Hit me...) simply means an easy and quick repair or remedy. A common equivalent today (that only really works in the written form) is Gimme teh codez (Don't bother explaining how I should solve my programming problem - just give me some code I can use without thinking).","output":"The colloquial Hit me with it! (meaning Give it to me) is more commonly used where \"it\" is some unpleasant or surprising information, but OP's cited usage isn't uncommon. A quick fix (also colloquial, but nowhere near as \"slangy\" as Hit me...) simply means an easy and quick repair or remedy. A common equivalent today (that only really works in the written form) is Gimme teh codez (Don't bother explaining how I should solve my programming problem - just give me some code I can use without thinking)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the difference of \"to account for something\" and \"take something into account\"? Example: a) Spatial regression models must take into account spatial dependence. b) The search for regional characteristics should take place using spatial econometric methods that account for spatial dependence. Are both examples correct? What is the difference in usage of account for\/take into account in the example sentences?","question":"What is the difference of \"to account for something\" and \"take something into account\"? Example: a) Spatial regression models must take into account spatial dependence. b) The search for regional characteristics should take place using spatial econometric methods that account for spatial dependence. Are both examples correct? What is the difference in usage of account for\/take into account in the example sentences?","answer":"'Take into account' is used in contexts where an entity is regarded\/considered\/given thought for an operation\/action. Eg: A football club must take into account the fans' feelings before selling off their star player. 'Account for' refers to provisioning for an entity's involvement in an action\/operation. Eg: A good football club must account for player salaries when preparing their annual budget. The key difference is the tone implied by the two phrases. When you 'take something into account' you take it into consideration while performing an action. If you have to 'account for something', you have to make clear provisions for it during your action. Let's look at the following to sentences: 1. A football club must take into account the fans' feelings before selling off their star player. 2. A good football club must account for fans' feelings before selling off their star player. Sentence 1 implies that a football club must give thought to the fans' feelings before selling their star player. The club should consider the fans' emotions and morale before they go ahead with the player sale. Sentence 2 implies that a good football club must make provisions for the damage incurred by fans' feelings due to the sale. The club could either make another star signing or reduce ticket rates or do something to account for the fans' feelings.","output":"'Take into account' is used in contexts where an entity is regarded\/considered\/given thought for an operation\/action. Eg: A football club must take into account the fans' feelings before selling off their star player. 'Account for' refers to provisioning for an entity's involvement in an action\/operation. Eg: A good football club must account for player salaries when preparing their annual budget. The key difference is the tone implied by the two phrases. When you 'take something into account' you take it into consideration while performing an action. If you have to 'account for something', you have to make clear provisions for it during your action. Let's look at the following to sentences: 1. A football club must take into account the fans' feelings before selling off their star player. 2. A good football club must account for fans' feelings before selling off their star player. Sentence 1 implies that a football club must give thought to the fans' feelings before selling their star player. The club should consider the fans' emotions and morale before they go ahead with the player sale. Sentence 2 implies that a good football club must make provisions for the damage incurred by fans' feelings due to the sale. The club could either make another star signing or reduce ticket rates or do something to account for the fans' feelings."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm sure I'm not the only one who has a couple of acquaintances on Facebook telling us how we're all being fooled and that COVID-19 is not real, or is just an average flu, etc. Are people already favouring one term to refer to such people over other possible variations? Here are some but not all possibilities: Covid denier? Coronavirus sceptic? Covid denialist? covidiot? Corona unbeliever? One of these or something else? No clear leading term so far?","question":"I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a couple of acquaintances on Facebook telling us how we're all being fooled and that COVID-19 is not real, or is just an average flu, etc. Are people already favouring one term to refer to such people over other possible variations? Here are some but not all possibilities: Covid denier? Coronavirus sceptic? Covid denialist? covidiot? Corona unbeliever? One of these or something else? No clear leading term so far?","answer":"Denialism has been used for another disease: HIV. HIV\/AIDS denialism is the belief, contradicted by conclusive evidence, that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). The people who engage in denialism are called denialists. In 2000, South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki invited several HIV\/AIDS denialists to join his Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel. Paul Krugman, in his imitable style, has a NYT Op-ed piece entitled \"Covid-19 Brings Out All the Usual Zombies: Why virus denial resembles climate denial.\" Source Other terms may emerge, as the pandemic is still nascent.","output":"Denialism has been used for another disease: HIV. HIV\/AIDS denialism is the belief, contradicted by conclusive evidence, that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). The people who engage in denialism are called denialists. In 2000, South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki invited several HIV\/AIDS denialists to join his Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel. Paul Krugman, in his imitable style, has a NYT Op-ed piece entitled \"Covid-19 Brings Out All the Usual Zombies: Why virus denial resembles climate denial.\" Source Other terms may emerge, as the pandemic is still nascent."}
{"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 am trying to find alternative ways to refer to a very necessary thing or thing that someone must have. Can I use the word needful for this purpose? A person said that needful means the thing needs something but not that somebody needs it.","question":"I am trying to find alternative ways to refer to a very necessary thing or thing that someone must have. Can I use the word needful for this purpose? A person said that needful means the thing needs something but not that somebody needs it.","answer":"I will only offer this data point: In 1991, best-selling author Stephen King published a novel (later made into a movie), called Needful Things. From the Wikipedia entry: A new shop named \"Needful Things\" opens in the town of Castle Rock, Maine, sparking the curiosity of its citizens. The proprietor, Leland Gaunt, is a charming elderly gentleman who always seems to have an item in stock that is perfectly suited to any customer who comes through his door. ... It is revealed that Gaunt has traveled the world for centuries, selling useless junk that appears to be whatever the customers desire most. It is obvious that the meaning of needful in this title is not \"things that are needy\" but \"things that people think they really need\" (i.e., that they find necessary and feel they simply have to possess). Now, I will agree in advance that this usage is a bit formal and obscure, with an air of the rural or rustic about it, and that it is not in common usage. Nevertheless, the fact that a best-selling author can use the word in the title of a popular novel suggests that the word is not so obscure that people will not understand it. There are plenty of little-used words that native speakers understand without using themselves. This brings up the question of what constitutes usage. If everyone understands a word, that seems to me to be evidence that the word is common even if it is rarely spoken. How often do we use words like \"umbrage\"? Rarely, if ever. Yet when they come up we know exactly what they mean. That feels to me like some form of currency.","output":"I will only offer this data point: In 1991, best-selling author Stephen King published a novel (later made into a movie), called Needful Things. From the Wikipedia entry: A new shop named \"Needful Things\" opens in the town of Castle Rock, Maine, sparking the curiosity of its citizens. The proprietor, Leland Gaunt, is a charming elderly gentleman who always seems to have an item in stock that is perfectly suited to any customer who comes through his door. ... It is revealed that Gaunt has traveled the world for centuries, selling useless junk that appears to be whatever the customers desire most. It is obvious that the meaning of needful in this title is not \"things that are needy\" but \"things that people think they really need\" (i.e., that they find necessary and feel they simply have to possess). Now, I will agree in advance that this usage is a bit formal and obscure, with an air of the rural or rustic about it, and that it is not in common usage. Nevertheless, the fact that a best-selling author can use the word in the title of a popular novel suggests that the word is not so obscure that people will not understand it. There are plenty of little-used words that native speakers understand without using themselves. This brings up the question of what constitutes usage. If everyone understands a word, that seems to me to be evidence that the word is common even if it is rarely spoken. How often do we use words like \"umbrage\"? Rarely, if ever. Yet when they come up we know exactly what they mean. That feels to me like some form of currency."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have two questions. In the UK, to do (or is it read?) a roll call is commonly referred to as \"calling out the register\". It's been so long since I was a child that I'm not absolutely sure how students responded. I think it was \"Present, miss\/sir\" I also seem to remember students just raising their hands. Are there different responses in the rest of the English speaking world? Secondly, I am experiencing difficulty in pronouncing roll call. I can say each word separately without any trouble but when I join the two together it sounds as if I'm saying \"rolkol\"; \"rolekol\" or \"rol kol\" I've looked in wiktionary and TFD but neither have the pronunciation. Should I pronounce roll in \"roll call\" as \/r\u0259\u028al\/ or \/ro\u028al\/? EDIT It seems responding to the roll call with \"present\" has become dated both in the UK and the US whether it holds true for Canada and Australia is unknown. Apparently, British students responded with \"Yes, miss\/sir\" until the 70s but now the simple, \"Here\" is heard on both sides of the Atlantic. The Longman Contemporary English Dictionary, claims that call\/take the register is old fashioned in the UK, but I wonder if that really is the case, and whether in the US \"calling the roll\" is becoming dated as suggested by the Google Ngram chart in @bib's answer.","question":"I have two questions. In the UK, to do (or is it read?) a roll call is commonly referred to as \"calling out the register\". It's been so long since I was a child that I'm not absolutely sure how students responded. I think it was \"Present, miss\/sir\" I also seem to remember students just raising their hands. Are there different responses in the rest of the English speaking world? Secondly, I am experiencing difficulty in pronouncing roll call. I can say each word separately without any trouble but when I join the two together it sounds as if I'm saying \"rolkol\"; \"rolekol\" or \"rol kol\" I've looked in wiktionary and TFD but neither have the pronunciation. Should I pronounce roll in \"roll call\" as \/r\u0259\u028al\/ or \/ro\u028al\/? EDIT It seems responding to the roll call with \"present\" has become dated both in the UK and the US whether it holds true for Canada and Australia is unknown. Apparently, British students responded with \"Yes, miss\/sir\" until the 70s but now the simple, \"Here\" is heard on both sides of the Atlantic. The Longman Contemporary English Dictionary, claims that call\/take the register is old fashioned in the UK, but I wonder if that really is the case, and whether in the US \"calling the roll\" is becoming dated as suggested by the Google Ngram chart in @bib's answer.","answer":"In the US, the most common answer is Here. While Present was also heard in the 1950s and earlier, this has largely disappeared except in smug exaggeration. There are slight variances in regions across the US with a more significant oh (as in bowl) heard in the Northeast, and less so in the Midwest. SUPPLEMENT: Calling the roll was used in schools through the late 20th century, and roll call is still used in the military and uniformed services, such as fire and police, and in legislative bodies (as in a roll call vote). Since the 1980s, the phrase taking attendance has become more common, as reflected in this ngram.","output":"In the US, the most common answer is Here. While Present was also heard in the 1950s and earlier, this has largely disappeared except in smug exaggeration. There are slight variances in regions across the US with a more significant oh (as in bowl) heard in the Northeast, and less so in the Midwest. SUPPLEMENT: Calling the roll was used in schools through the late 20th century, and roll call is still used in the military and uniformed services, such as fire and police, and in legislative bodies (as in a roll call vote). Since the 1980s, the phrase taking attendance has become more common, as reflected in this ngram."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMay I know which one is grammatical? the battery power is limited on mobile devices the battery powers are limited on mobile devices","question":"May I know which one is grammatical? the battery power is limited on mobile devices the battery powers are limited on mobile devices","answer":"Power is uncountable, so it's the first one. the battery power is limited on mobile devices","output":"Power is uncountable, so it's the first one. the battery power is limited on mobile devices"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was in London and visited the Tower Bridge. Afterwards, I went to a pub called The Tower Bridge. Just to be clear, the pub is named after the bridge. Which of the following are correct? The bridge is the eponym of the pub. The pub is the eponym of the bridge. From the pub, I could see the eponymous bridge. After I saw the bridge, I went to the eponymous pub. The bridge is the namesake of the pub. The pub is the namesake of the bridge.","question":"I was in London and visited the Tower Bridge. Afterwards, I went to a pub called The Tower Bridge. Just to be clear, the pub is named after the bridge. Which of the following are correct? The bridge is the eponym of the pub. The pub is the eponym of the bridge. From the pub, I could see the eponymous bridge. After I saw the bridge, I went to the eponymous pub. The bridge is the namesake of the pub. The pub is the namesake of the bridge.","answer":"I found a couple of entries in the New York Times \"After Deadline\" column useful. The first: In precise, traditional usage, an \u201ceponym\u201d is someone or something that gives its name to something else. So \u201ceponymous\u201d describes the giver of the name, NOT the receiver. A restaurateur named Joe Smith could be described as the eponymous owner of Joe Smith\u2019s Restaurant, but the establishment is not \u201cMr. Smith\u2019s eponymous restaurant.\u201d (The opposite problem often occurs with \u201cnamesake.\u201d That word properly describes the receiver of the name \u2014 a grandchild may be the namesake of her grandmother, but not the other way around.) So the only ones of your examples that have the correct use of \u201ceponymous\u201d are those that describe the giver (the bridge) and not the receiver. And conversely, only in #6 is \u201cnamesake\u201d used correctly. The second entry is more pertinent to the use of \u201ceponymous:\u201d Sometimes I quibble over words we overuse. Sometimes I complain about words that are misused. And sometimes I take issue with words that seem pretentious or contrived. Then there\u2019s \u201ceponymous,\u201d which could fit any of those categories. In precise use, an eponym is someone who gives a name to something else, and \u201ceponymous\u201d describes the source of the name, not the receiver. More often than not, we and others muddle this distinction. And often, there\u2019s a way to say what we mean without using \u201ceponymous\u201d at all. So let\u2019s use it sparingly, and wisely. Hear, hear. Edit: For reference, the entry for eponym from Wordsmith.org, one of my favorite resources: eponym (EP-uh-nim) noun A person, real or imaginary, from whom something, as a tribe, nation, or place, takes or is said to take its name. A word based on or derived from a person's name. Any ancient official whose name was used to designate his year of office.","output":"I found a couple of entries in the New York Times \"After Deadline\" column useful. The first: In precise, traditional usage, an \u201ceponym\u201d is someone or something that gives its name to something else. So \u201ceponymous\u201d describes the giver of the name, NOT the receiver. A restaurateur named Joe Smith could be described as the eponymous owner of Joe Smith\u2019s Restaurant, but the establishment is not \u201cMr. Smith\u2019s eponymous restaurant.\u201d (The opposite problem often occurs with \u201cnamesake.\u201d That word properly describes the receiver of the name \u2014 a grandchild may be the namesake of her grandmother, but not the other way around.) So the only ones of your examples that have the correct use of \u201ceponymous\u201d are those that describe the giver (the bridge) and not the receiver. And conversely, only in #6 is \u201cnamesake\u201d used correctly. The second entry is more pertinent to the use of \u201ceponymous:\u201d Sometimes I quibble over words we overuse. Sometimes I complain about words that are misused. And sometimes I take issue with words that seem pretentious or contrived. Then there\u2019s \u201ceponymous,\u201d which could fit any of those categories. In precise use, an eponym is someone who gives a name to something else, and \u201ceponymous\u201d describes the source of the name, not the receiver. More often than not, we and others muddle this distinction. And often, there\u2019s a way to say what we mean without using \u201ceponymous\u201d at all. So let\u2019s use it sparingly, and wisely. Hear, hear. Edit: For reference, the entry for eponym from Wordsmith.org, one of my favorite resources: eponym (EP-uh-nim) noun A person, real or imaginary, from whom something, as a tribe, nation, or place, takes or is said to take its name. A word based on or derived from a person's name. Any ancient official whose name was used to designate his year of office."}
{"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":"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\nBut Ahab, my Captain, still moves before me in all his Nantucket grimness and shagginess; and in this episode touching Emperors and Kings, I must not conceal that I have only to do with a poor old whale-hunter like him; and, therefore, [A] all outward majestical trappings and housings are denied me. Oh, Ahab! what shall be grand in thee, it must needs be plucked at from the skies, and dived for in the deep, and featured in the unbodied air! (Moby Dick, By Herman Melville, p.153. Penguin Popular Classics) I surmise that the sentence of [A] should be \u2018all outward majestical trappings and housings are denied by me\u2019, or \u2018all outward majestical trappings and housings denied me.\u2019 Is there some typo in the example, or do I have to know more about the word, deny, or other constuction?","question":"But Ahab, my Captain, still moves before me in all his Nantucket grimness and shagginess; and in this episode touching Emperors and Kings, I must not conceal that I have only to do with a poor old whale-hunter like him; and, therefore, [A] all outward majestical trappings and housings are denied me. Oh, Ahab! what shall be grand in thee, it must needs be plucked at from the skies, and dived for in the deep, and featured in the unbodied air! (Moby Dick, By Herman Melville, p.153. Penguin Popular Classics) I surmise that the sentence of [A] should be \u2018all outward majestical trappings and housings are denied by me\u2019, or \u2018all outward majestical trappings and housings denied me.\u2019 Is there some typo in the example, or do I have to know more about the word, deny, or other constuction?","answer":"all outward majestical trappings and housings are denied me Means that he is is denied all majestical trappings and housings. In other words, he cannot have them. Another example: As I am lactose intolerant, all dairy products are denied me. In this use of denied, the denying agent is the situation or circumstance, not an agent per se.","output":"all outward majestical trappings and housings are denied me Means that he is is denied all majestical trappings and housings. In other words, he cannot have them. Another example: As I am lactose intolerant, all dairy products are denied me. In this use of denied, the denying agent is the situation or circumstance, not an agent per se."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe odd sentence India's army, in numbers, is second only to China's and America's. appeared in the article Contest of the Century in the current issue of The Economist (August 21-27, 2010). Should the author have written third instead of second, or is it fine as it stands?","question":"The odd sentence India's army, in numbers, is second only to China's and America's. appeared in the article Contest of the Century in the current issue of The Economist (August 21-27, 2010). Should the author have written third instead of second, or is it fine as it stands?","answer":"Second means also subordinate or inferior in position, rank, or importance; the New Oxford American Dictionary uses the following sentence as example: It was second only to Copenhagen among Baltic ports. The sentence doesn't mean that Copenhagen has the first position in the list of Baltic ports. Similarly, I could write the following sentence: His desire of being the next Bill Gates is only second to his desire of being the next Brad Pit, and his desire of being the new Paul Newman. Looking at the Corpus of Contemporary American English, I found sentences like the following ones, where the comparison is made between one and more items: In those early works the desire to belong was second only to drives like safety, hunger and reproduction. Nixon himself harbored a deep distrust of the CIA, which he saw as a conspiracy of Ivy League liberals second only to those in the State Department. She has personally raised more than $100 million, second only to Bill and Hillary Clinton, which she dispenses generously to her colleagues. Second only to corn and soybeans in terms of U.S. cash value, these businesses\u2014many small and family-owned\u2014are busy greening up American streets and backyards. In the sentence you wrote second is not referring to the position in a list; the sentence can be also written as the following one: India's army, in numbers, is inferior only to China's and America's.","output":"Second means also subordinate or inferior in position, rank, or importance; the New Oxford American Dictionary uses the following sentence as example: It was second only to Copenhagen among Baltic ports. The sentence doesn't mean that Copenhagen has the first position in the list of Baltic ports. Similarly, I could write the following sentence: His desire of being the next Bill Gates is only second to his desire of being the next Brad Pit, and his desire of being the new Paul Newman. Looking at the Corpus of Contemporary American English, I found sentences like the following ones, where the comparison is made between one and more items: In those early works the desire to belong was second only to drives like safety, hunger and reproduction. Nixon himself harbored a deep distrust of the CIA, which he saw as a conspiracy of Ivy League liberals second only to those in the State Department. She has personally raised more than $100 million, second only to Bill and Hillary Clinton, which she dispenses generously to her colleagues. Second only to corn and soybeans in terms of U.S. cash value, these businesses\u2014many small and family-owned\u2014are busy greening up American streets and backyards. In the sentence you wrote second is not referring to the position in a list; the sentence can be also written as the following one: India's army, in numbers, is inferior only to China's and America's."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have this list for comparing verbs for their being ergative or not. As you see, bother is not on that list. But I have sentences in which that verb seems to be ergative. For example: She may bother to sweep the room just now. Joseph bothered by the cancellation. Sally bothered. My questions are: 1- Is bother an ergative verb? 2- If not, what are the meanings of those immediately above sentences please? All answers\/comments are appreciated but I also want to hear from @StoneyB about this case.","question":"I have this list for comparing verbs for their being ergative or not. As you see, bother is not on that list. But I have sentences in which that verb seems to be ergative. For example: She may bother to sweep the room just now. Joseph bothered by the cancellation. Sally bothered. My questions are: 1- Is bother an ergative verb? 2- If not, what are the meanings of those immediately above sentences please? All answers\/comments are appreciated but I also want to hear from @StoneyB about this case.","answer":"Bother indeed has both transitive and intransitive senses, and they all have the general sense \"trouble\"; but they are used in slightly different ways. Transitive bother means to \"cause trouble\" for a person, who is cast as the direct object. When the subject is an animate agent, it typically means to annoy the DO by intruding on the DO's activity; when the subject is inanimate, it typically means to worry the DO. My little brother won't stop bothering me when I'm trying to work. This proposal bothers me. Intransitive bother means to \"take the trouble\" to do something. It is typically used only in negative contexts. Don't bother to clear the table; I'll put my stuff away in a minute. If she won't bother to tell us what the problem is I don't see how we can help. None of your three sentences is quite idiomatic. The first has no negative to trigger use of bother; the second lacks a passive auxiliary (was or is bothered), and the third lacks a negative and the obligatory infinitival complement. Ergative is occasionally used to categorize verbs like bother, and I used it back in ELL's early days; but it has a distinct technical meaning in other contexts, and snailplane suggested a better term: labile.","output":"Bother indeed has both transitive and intransitive senses, and they all have the general sense \"trouble\"; but they are used in slightly different ways. Transitive bother means to \"cause trouble\" for a person, who is cast as the direct object. When the subject is an animate agent, it typically means to annoy the DO by intruding on the DO's activity; when the subject is inanimate, it typically means to worry the DO. My little brother won't stop bothering me when I'm trying to work. This proposal bothers me. Intransitive bother means to \"take the trouble\" to do something. It is typically used only in negative contexts. Don't bother to clear the table; I'll put my stuff away in a minute. If she won't bother to tell us what the problem is I don't see how we can help. None of your three sentences is quite idiomatic. The first has no negative to trigger use of bother; the second lacks a passive auxiliary (was or is bothered), and the third lacks a negative and the obligatory infinitival complement. Ergative is occasionally used to categorize verbs like bother, and I used it back in ELL's early days; but it has a distinct technical meaning in other contexts, and snailplane suggested a better term: labile."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow should one refer to somebody who wants to gain knowledge all the time and keeps learning in life even when very old? What's the phrase for the same? My dictionary says \"learn and live.\"","question":"How should one refer to somebody who wants to gain knowledge all the time and keeps learning in life even when very old? What's the phrase for the same? My dictionary says \"learn and live.\"","answer":"Sometimes there is no direct translation for a specific phrase. I have heard people use phrases like, \"He is a life-long learner.\"","output":"Sometimes there is no direct translation for a specific phrase. I have heard people use phrases like, \"He is a life-long learner.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYesterday I came across a road-sign (just coming onto the M40 at the Oxford services, if you're interested!) that seemed to read rather strangely. It read: Picking up your litter puts road-workers at risk. I think I can work out what it is meant to mean (\"Don't drop litter on the motorway so other people have to pick it up- it's dangerous!\"), but probably only because I had a fair idea in advance what it was likely to mean. It's hard to put my finger on exactly what is wrong with it. Do others agree that it is phrased oddly? Is it grammatically correct? What would be a clearer and equally succinct way to say this. Update: Just noticed this article about this sign (and others). Seems like I'm not the only one who finds the sign confusing. Driver Rob Davis says... \"In future, I won't pick up my litter. I certainly wouldn't want to put any workers' lives in danger by doing so.\"","question":"Yesterday I came across a road-sign (just coming onto the M40 at the Oxford services, if you're interested!) that seemed to read rather strangely. It read: Picking up your litter puts road-workers at risk. I think I can work out what it is meant to mean (\"Don't drop litter on the motorway so other people have to pick it up- it's dangerous!\"), but probably only because I had a fair idea in advance what it was likely to mean. It's hard to put my finger on exactly what is wrong with it. Do others agree that it is phrased oddly? Is it grammatically correct? What would be a clearer and equally succinct way to say this. Update: Just noticed this article about this sign (and others). Seems like I'm not the only one who finds the sign confusing. Driver Rob Davis says... \"In future, I won't pick up my litter. I certainly wouldn't want to put any workers' lives in danger by doing so.\"","answer":"Yes, but it's not really good English. A participial phrasal noun (\"picking up your litter\") has been used as the subject of the main verb (\"puts\"). That's fine, grammatically. The problem is that the phrasal noun is ambiguous, because it does not specify who would be doing the picking up. This is particularly bad for cases like this, where people are driving past the sign, and should not be taking the time to work out the exact meaning. To remove the ambiguity, you can: Name the actor: You picking up your litter \/ Road workers picking up your litter \/ The queen of Sheba picking up your litter. These forms are awkward. Remove the genitive: Picking up litter puts... . This form removes the It's your fault! implication. Scrapping the whole sentence and starting again, but this time, saying precisely what you mean, using clear, unambiguous phrasing; e.g.: If you drop litter, people risk their lives picking it up.","output":"Yes, but it's not really good English. A participial phrasal noun (\"picking up your litter\") has been used as the subject of the main verb (\"puts\"). That's fine, grammatically. The problem is that the phrasal noun is ambiguous, because it does not specify who would be doing the picking up. This is particularly bad for cases like this, where people are driving past the sign, and should not be taking the time to work out the exact meaning. To remove the ambiguity, you can: Name the actor: You picking up your litter \/ Road workers picking up your litter \/ The queen of Sheba picking up your litter. These forms are awkward. Remove the genitive: Picking up litter puts... . This form removes the It's your fault! implication. Scrapping the whole sentence and starting again, but this time, saying precisely what you mean, using clear, unambiguous phrasing; e.g.: If you drop litter, people risk their lives picking it up."}
{"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\nThis may be a trivial question but not for non-native. It is a bit confusing whether I should use the before internet or not. heavy reliance on internet services in people's daily life OR heavy reliance on the internet services in people's daily life","question":"This may be a trivial question but not for non-native. It is a bit confusing whether I should use the before internet or not. heavy reliance on internet services in people's daily life OR heavy reliance on the internet services in people's daily life","answer":"In 'internet services' the word 'internet' is a noun adjunct and the phrase as a whole should not have an article because the main noun is 'services' and plural nouns when used in general do not take an article. When you're speaking of the internet as a whole or in the abstract, it does take the definite article (as in this sentence).","output":"In 'internet services' the word 'internet' is a noun adjunct and the phrase as a whole should not have an article because the main noun is 'services' and plural nouns when used in general do not take an article. When you're speaking of the internet as a whole or in the abstract, it does take the definite article (as in this sentence)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is 'bleach'? What does 'bleach' mean? I want to ask about the definition of a word. Are both sentences OK? I don't know why I sometimes think that it is not suitable to use the word 'mean' or 'meaning' for some words like some materials, or places etc.","question":"What is 'bleach'? What does 'bleach' mean? I want to ask about the definition of a word. Are both sentences OK? I don't know why I sometimes think that it is not suitable to use the word 'mean' or 'meaning' for some words like some materials, or places etc.","answer":"Both questions are OK but they could be slightly clearer. If you want to know the meaning of the word, it's better to ask: What does the word bleach mean? This makes it clear that you are looking for the significance of the word - what it denotes. To ask: what is ....? might bring up a more scientific answer or philosophical answer. For example, there's a difference between asking what is life and what does the word life mean?","output":"Both questions are OK but they could be slightly clearer. If you want to know the meaning of the word, it's better to ask: What does the word bleach mean? This makes it clear that you are looking for the significance of the word - what it denotes. To ask: what is ....? might bring up a more scientific answer or philosophical answer. For example, there's a difference between asking what is life and what does the word life mean?"}
{"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\nDo you live anywhere near him? Do you live somewhere near him? Is there any difference between these two sentences?","question":"Do you live anywhere near him? Do you live somewhere near him? Is there any difference between these two sentences?","answer":"Somewhere refers to a specific place while anywhere refers to, well, any place. However, it is one of the endearing (or frustrating) traits of English that those two can mean the same thing at the same time. Sometimes. In The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy sings of \"Somewhere over the rainbow,\" which refers to a specific place of happiness she might someday visit. She is imagining a single location. In the song \"Anywhere I Go\" the neo-ska \/ permanently stoned band Slightly Stoopid talks about \"Anywhere I go I choose to be with you,\" meaning wherever \"I\" go, be it Kalamazoo or Djibouti, \"I\" will choose to be with \"you\". This could be any location.","output":"Somewhere refers to a specific place while anywhere refers to, well, any place. However, it is one of the endearing (or frustrating) traits of English that those two can mean the same thing at the same time. Sometimes. In The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy sings of \"Somewhere over the rainbow,\" which refers to a specific place of happiness she might someday visit. She is imagining a single location. In the song \"Anywhere I Go\" the neo-ska \/ permanently stoned band Slightly Stoopid talks about \"Anywhere I go I choose to be with you,\" meaning wherever \"I\" go, be it Kalamazoo or Djibouti, \"I\" will choose to be with \"you\". This could be any location."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"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\nExample: Scott scribbled a few words. Scott scribbled down a few words. What's the difference? I checked on Google Books and it seems like \"scribbled a few words\" is often immediately followed by something: \"Sometimes he scribbled a few words on a note pad.\" [link] While \"scribbled down a few words\" isn't: \"After wiping his forehead he scribbled down a few words.\" [link] Is that the main distinction? Are there others?","question":"Example: Scott scribbled a few words. Scott scribbled down a few words. What's the difference? I checked on Google Books and it seems like \"scribbled a few words\" is often immediately followed by something: \"Sometimes he scribbled a few words on a note pad.\" [link] While \"scribbled down a few words\" isn't: \"After wiping his forehead he scribbled down a few words.\" [link] Is that the main distinction? Are there others?","answer":"The difference is one of intention. To scribble is to write quickly, often not very neatly. To scribble down is to write quickly, often not very neatly, with the intention of being able to refer to the information later. He scribbled on an envelope while on hold with customer service. He scribbled down the flight number and gate. The same difference occurs with \"write\" and \"write down\": She wrote the teen idol's name on the inside cover of her algebra textbook. He wrote down her phone number.","output":"The difference is one of intention. To scribble is to write quickly, often not very neatly. To scribble down is to write quickly, often not very neatly, with the intention of being able to refer to the information later. He scribbled on an envelope while on hold with customer service. He scribbled down the flight number and gate. The same difference occurs with \"write\" and \"write down\": She wrote the teen idol's name on the inside cover of her algebra textbook. He wrote down her phone number."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhich one is correct? What would I do without you. What will I do without you. You would always be my favorite travel buddy. You will always be my favorite travel buddy.","question":"Which one is correct? What would I do without you. What will I do without you. You would always be my favorite travel buddy. You will always be my favorite travel buddy.","answer":"Would is conditional\/hypothetical. Will is a modal verb used to form the indicative future tense. In both cases, a) and b) are both correct, and carry a different meaning. When would is used, it expresses a hypothetical situation, so: What would I do without you? ... asks a question about a hypothetical possibility - that I would be without you. However: What will I do without you? ... implies that I will in fact be without you at some time in the future, and asks a question about that factual (rather than imagined) eventuality.","output":"Would is conditional\/hypothetical. Will is a modal verb used to form the indicative future tense. In both cases, a) and b) are both correct, and carry a different meaning. When would is used, it expresses a hypothetical situation, so: What would I do without you? ... asks a question about a hypothetical possibility - that I would be without you. However: What will I do without you? ... implies that I will in fact be without you at some time in the future, and asks a question about that factual (rather than imagined) eventuality."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nDictionaries and online sources say the abbreviation for 'widow' could be... wid w ww wd, and so on... But One of the references as stated by some Native speaker (and, also a few likes) say that 'Mrs.' could be used as an abbreviation for widow! This is very strange to me. I'd seek native speakers' opinion on this as I know in InE, there's no such practice. Plus, I'd like to know how politely and culturally we can address her. What do you guys write for a widow or widower? Mr. Jack Orson Mrs. Jennifer Kidman Mrs. Kate Bush If we believe that source, how do we make out -whether Kate is widow or Jennifer? The context: I just want to mention those three people. They are the hosts.","question":"Dictionaries and online sources say the abbreviation for 'widow' could be... wid w ww wd, and so on... But One of the references as stated by some Native speaker (and, also a few likes) say that 'Mrs.' could be used as an abbreviation for widow! This is very strange to me. I'd seek native speakers' opinion on this as I know in InE, there's no such practice. Plus, I'd like to know how politely and culturally we can address her. What do you guys write for a widow or widower? Mr. Jack Orson Mrs. Jennifer Kidman Mrs. Kate Bush If we believe that source, how do we make out -whether Kate is widow or Jennifer? The context: I just want to mention those three people. They are the hosts.","answer":"In the past (perhaps a century ago), we would refer to \"the widow Bush,\" to indicate that Kate's husband had died. But these days, there is no such convention, so instead we write, \"Dear Mrs. Bush, Please accept our deepest condolences for the passing of your husband. We are very sorry for your loss,\" and then we continue writing whatever it is that we need to convey.","output":"In the past (perhaps a century ago), we would refer to \"the widow Bush,\" to indicate that Kate's husband had died. But these days, there is no such convention, so instead we write, \"Dear Mrs. Bush, Please accept our deepest condolences for the passing of your husband. We are very sorry for your loss,\" and then we continue writing whatever it is that we need to convey."}
{"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\nAs I have been taught, apart from being a part of a name, the definite article in English is usually used for: 1) things that have already been mentioned earlier in conversation (like in \"So you did take care of that mother, but what about the child?\"); 2) things that can be seen in the moment of speaking (\"Look at the driver!\"); 3) things that are easily understood from the context (\"We went fishing yesterday. The weather was terrible!\"); 4) things that are unique in this world (\"The Sun is shining. The air is fresh.\") However, I've noticed that some nouns that don't fall into any of the four categories above are still used with the definite article: \"We went to the forest yesterday and...\" - the first phrase written by a forum member in a forum thread. There was absolutely no conversation prior to this phrase and, therefore, there is no context provided yet. So, it automatically excludes case 1 and 3. The readers can't, of course, see any forest, which effectively excludes case 2, too. And there are many forests in this world. So, it's not case 4 either. If so, then what cases is it? Here are some other examples: \"For whomever it may concern: please, note that, unlike in Europe and the USA, school students in Asia always have their school lunch in the classroom.\" (Why not \"in a classroom\"?) \"Five irritating things that can easily happen to you at the airport:\" (Why not \"at an airport\"?) \"This species can be found in any river or a pond. In fact, it can also be found in the sea.\" (Why not \"in a sea\"?)","question":"As I have been taught, apart from being a part of a name, the definite article in English is usually used for: 1) things that have already been mentioned earlier in conversation (like in \"So you did take care of that mother, but what about the child?\"); 2) things that can be seen in the moment of speaking (\"Look at the driver!\"); 3) things that are easily understood from the context (\"We went fishing yesterday. The weather was terrible!\"); 4) things that are unique in this world (\"The Sun is shining. The air is fresh.\") However, I've noticed that some nouns that don't fall into any of the four categories above are still used with the definite article: \"We went to the forest yesterday and...\" - the first phrase written by a forum member in a forum thread. There was absolutely no conversation prior to this phrase and, therefore, there is no context provided yet. So, it automatically excludes case 1 and 3. The readers can't, of course, see any forest, which effectively excludes case 2, too. And there are many forests in this world. So, it's not case 4 either. If so, then what cases is it? Here are some other examples: \"For whomever it may concern: please, note that, unlike in Europe and the USA, school students in Asia always have their school lunch in the classroom.\" (Why not \"in a classroom\"?) \"Five irritating things that can easily happen to you at the airport:\" (Why not \"at an airport\"?) \"This species can be found in any river or a pond. In fact, it can also be found in the sea.\" (Why not \"in a sea\"?)","answer":"According to the Cambridge Dictionary, you have missed another case: the used before some nouns that refer to place when you want to mention that type of place, without showing exactly which example of the place you mean We spent all day at the beach. Let's go to the movies this evening. I have to go to the bank and get some Euros I think that the forest, the classroom, the airport and the sea in your phrases perfectly match this case. Also, you may be right pointing out that the use of 'a' is fair in some of those phrases. a used to mean any or every thing or person of the type you are referring to An airport and a sea fulfill this meaning but in my opinion you can't use a in your other phrases. They went to a specific forest. Asian students do not lunch in some classroom, they lunch in the same classroom where they are taught. In Spain at least, in schools students do not change classroom, different teachers come to the classroom.","output":"According to the Cambridge Dictionary, you have missed another case: the used before some nouns that refer to place when you want to mention that type of place, without showing exactly which example of the place you mean We spent all day at the beach. Let's go to the movies this evening. I have to go to the bank and get some Euros I think that the forest, the classroom, the airport and the sea in your phrases perfectly match this case. Also, you may be right pointing out that the use of 'a' is fair in some of those phrases. a used to mean any or every thing or person of the type you are referring to An airport and a sea fulfill this meaning but in my opinion you can't use a in your other phrases. They went to a specific forest. Asian students do not lunch in some classroom, they lunch in the same classroom where they are taught. In Spain at least, in schools students do not change classroom, different teachers come to the classroom."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nA posting in my Facebook timeline today began \"I've been sorting boxes of Pure D-Crap.\" The poster was writing from Alameda, California (near San Francisco). It struck me that I hadn't heard \"pure D\" used as an intensifier in at least 25 years\u2014and perhaps not since I left Texas in 1980. A Google Books search finds a couple of instances of the term from the early 1990s. From Lee K. Abbott, \"Where Is Garland Steeples Now?\" in Jeanne Schinto, The Literary Dog: Great Contemporary Dog Stories (1990): After he was gone for about four months, you heard this story often and with considerable conviction, it now having entered the popular imagination. It was told by a KINT DJ and appeared in the CB cross-talk on I-10 or up around Odessa. Darrell Royal, then coaching the Longhorns and in Houston for a cookout, told a high-school running back named Scooter that it, the story, was pure-D invention\u2014wish and whine from those of mashed spirit. You heard it in Goree, at the VFW hall in Heron, at Mildred's Diner. Alll of the place names and other references in this excerpt are in Texas (KINT, for example, is a radio station in El Paso). The setting appears to be Texas in the late 1960s or early 1970s (Darrell Royal left his job as football coach at the University of Texas in 1976), though the story was probably written sometime in the 1980s. And from Wanda Schell & Kenny Bento, Martin Said So: A Drama (1991): SAMUEL DAVID. And I told you not to bring any of that kind of talk in here. You better take your crazy behind back to school and never mind that crap you learned out there in the streets. You want to learn something, learn it in school. RICHARD: That's your answer to everything, ain't it, Pop? School ain't gonna give me the things I need. The only way I'm going to get anything is to go out and take it. SAMUEL DAVID. You act like a Pure-D-Fool! Ruth, you hear this boy? This play was published by a tiny publishing house in Schulenburg, Texas, a small town in the south-central part of the state. The speakers in the dialogue are African American. My own memory of the phrase involves someone declaring in a thick Texas drawl that some assertion or action by another person was \"pure D bull,\" but I can't call up any further context for the remark. None of the editions of Dictionary of American Slang include an entry for \"pure D.\" My questions are: Where and when did \"pure D\" as an intensifier originate? What does the D stand for? Where (geographically) was and is the expression used?","question":"A posting in my Facebook timeline today began \"I've been sorting boxes of Pure D-Crap.\" The poster was writing from Alameda, California (near San Francisco). It struck me that I hadn't heard \"pure D\" used as an intensifier in at least 25 years\u2014and perhaps not since I left Texas in 1980. A Google Books search finds a couple of instances of the term from the early 1990s. From Lee K. Abbott, \"Where Is Garland Steeples Now?\" in Jeanne Schinto, The Literary Dog: Great Contemporary Dog Stories (1990): After he was gone for about four months, you heard this story often and with considerable conviction, it now having entered the popular imagination. It was told by a KINT DJ and appeared in the CB cross-talk on I-10 or up around Odessa. Darrell Royal, then coaching the Longhorns and in Houston for a cookout, told a high-school running back named Scooter that it, the story, was pure-D invention\u2014wish and whine from those of mashed spirit. You heard it in Goree, at the VFW hall in Heron, at Mildred's Diner. Alll of the place names and other references in this excerpt are in Texas (KINT, for example, is a radio station in El Paso). The setting appears to be Texas in the late 1960s or early 1970s (Darrell Royal left his job as football coach at the University of Texas in 1976), though the story was probably written sometime in the 1980s. And from Wanda Schell & Kenny Bento, Martin Said So: A Drama (1991): SAMUEL DAVID. And I told you not to bring any of that kind of talk in here. You better take your crazy behind back to school and never mind that crap you learned out there in the streets. You want to learn something, learn it in school. RICHARD: That's your answer to everything, ain't it, Pop? School ain't gonna give me the things I need. The only way I'm going to get anything is to go out and take it. SAMUEL DAVID. You act like a Pure-D-Fool! Ruth, you hear this boy? This play was published by a tiny publishing house in Schulenburg, Texas, a small town in the south-central part of the state. The speakers in the dialogue are African American. My own memory of the phrase involves someone declaring in a thick Texas drawl that some assertion or action by another person was \"pure D bull,\" but I can't call up any further context for the remark. None of the editions of Dictionary of American Slang include an entry for \"pure D.\" My questions are: Where and when did \"pure D\" as an intensifier originate? What does the D stand for? Where (geographically) was and is the expression used?","answer":"The trail of dees goes back to the mid-1800s, as follows. First, OED Online defines \"puredee, adj. (and adv.)\" (with forms pure-D, pure-d, pure dee, puredee, pure-dee, puredy, pure-T, all from the 1900s) as U.S. regional (chiefly south and south Midland). Thoroughgoing, out-and-out, complete, real. Also as adv.: very, totally, completely. [\"puredee, adj. (and adv.)\". OED Online. September 2016. Oxford University Press (accessed November 03, 2016).] The earliest attestation in the OED is from 1938, in the form 'pure D': Mississippi: Guide to Magnolia State (Federal Writers' Project) 15 It's the pure D truth. The definition given by the OED agrees with what I uncovered of the senses in use; 'pure D' is an intensifier, and is usually synonymous with 'thoroughgoing'. The earliest use I uncovered was in the Waco Morning News (Waco, Texas) of 13 Jun 1912. There, the form is 'pure-dee': \"Captain Bill,\" as he is called by his old friends, is a pure-dee Waco booster. Going forward in time, to bridge the gap between 1912 and 1938 (the date of the first OED attestation), the form 'pure D' was employed in a classified ad in The Houston Post (Houston, Texas) of 8 Nov 1912 (and other days): 640 ACRES pure D black land prairie, 8 miles from Liberty on shell road... The next instance I uncovered, in the form 'pure-dee', appeared in the The Houston Post of 2 Feb 1915: Next, a 2 Jan 1916 instance from an article in the Waco Morning News about a stage appearance that followed the showing of two motion pictures: In The Times of Shreveport, Louisiana, 2 Mar 1916, the first appearance I uncovered outside of Texas is still associated with Texas: In The Houston Post of 17 Apr 1916, an ad encouraging investors moralizes about thoroughgoing laziness: A column-length ad for another \"black land\" farm uses 'pure dee' in the 17 Jan 1923 Courier-Gazette out of McKinney, Texas. The seven-year gap between this instance and the previous is likely an artifact of the limited resources I am able to deploy: Having more or less covered the ground between 1912 and the 1938-2005 attestations provided by the OED, I looked for evidence that would explain what the devil the 'D' stood for. The ever-helpful OED suggested the etymology of 'puredee' was from compounding: PURE adj. + D n. (see sense 3 at that entry). Compare DEE v. (op. cit.) Sense 3 of 'D' was given as Used euphemistically for damn (often printed d\u2014\u2014), etc. Cf. DEE v. [\"D, n.\". OED Online. September 2016. Oxford University Press (accessed November 03, 2016).] Attestations for that sense from 1866 and 1877 are given. The verb 'dee', cross-referenced at both 'puredee' and 'D', is defined as a. Pronunciation of d\u2014\u2014, euphemistic for damn (see D n. 3); usually in pa. pple. deed (also deedeed) = d\u2014\u2014d, damned. .... b. as adj. = DAMNED adj. 4a. [\"dee, v.\". OED Online. September 2016. Oxford University Press (accessed November 03, 2016).] Attestations from around 1845 to 1889 are given. I reasoned from the suggestions that, if the 'dee' of 'puredee' was indeed a shortening of a euphemism for 'damned', the forms 'pure damned', 'pure damn', 'pure d\u2014\u2014' or 'pure d\u2014\u2014d' ought to be in evidence. For the latter two, I was able to find some such evidence, first in a 4 Jan 1906 edition of The Weekly Gazette out of Colorado Springs, Colorado, and second in a 29 Feb 1912 edition of The Twin-City Daily Sentinel out of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, While these instances do suggest that the basic hypothesis holds water, their appearance in geographically distant areas (Colorado and North Carolina) from the areas where 'puredee' was in evidence (Texas and Louisiana) made for some hesitation about accepting the hypothesis as entirely borne out. Therefore, I searched for other evidence that the 'D' in 'puredee' was a euphemistic shortening of 'damn' or 'damned'. It seemed such evidence might be supplied by instances of 'dee' or 'deedeed' (or 'deed', but the needle-in-a-haystack nature of such a search discouraged it before I began) where the intent was clearly to represent 'damned'. Such instances, as it turned out, were not in short supply (relatively speaking); they were also chronologically precedent to 'puredee'. Here are some illustrative instances, ordered from earliest to latest. From The Indianapolis News, Indiana, 16 Nov 1871: From the Burlington Weekly Free Press, Vermont, 15 Aug 1873: From The Times, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 11 Jul 1878: From The Wheeling Intelligencer, West Virginia, 22 Jul 1878: From The Salt Lake Herald, Utah, 25 Nov 1894: From The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, New York, 4 Sep 1905: While none of the instances are from Texas, they do serve to illustrate that 'deedeed' (at least, if not 'dee' or 'deed'), in the sense of 'damned' was in common and widespread use for many years prior to the appearance of 'puredee'. Further, I reasoned that if the 'dee' in 'puredee' was a euphemistic representation of 'damned', another common collocation of the period, 'double-damned' should be instanced. This hypothesis also bore fruit. From The Tennessean, 20 Mar 1867: From the Chicago Tribune, Illinois, 30 Mar 1878: From The Indiana Democrat, Pennsylvania, 24 Nov 1887: From The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, Louisiana, 25 Dec 1887: From The State Chronicle, Raleigh, North Carolina, 21 Mar 1893: From the San Francisco Chronicle, California, 5 Feb 1913: Of the evidence presented, I suppose that the instances of 'pure d\u2014\u2014' (1906) and 'pure d\u2014\u2014d' (1912) are the smoking gun connecting the 'dee' of 'puredee' with 'damned', while the instances of 'deedeed', 'double-deed', 'double-dee-dash', and 'double dee-dashed' are supplemental. For your first two questions, then, I have these answers, supported by the evidence given in the foregoing: 'Pure D' in the forms given by the OED entry for 'puredee' originated in Texas...or thereabouts...sometime before 1912. The 'D' stands for 'damn' or 'damned'. For your question 3, my research is ongoing, but so far the research indicates the term is in widespread if not exactly common use. Re-runs of a television show called \"The A-Team: Pure-Dee Poison\" contribute significantly to contemporary use, but other instances continue. In the 2000s for example, and discounting the television show re-run mentions, instances appear in Kentucky, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Indiana, and Nevada. A preponderance of such instances appear in Louisiana.","output":"The trail of dees goes back to the mid-1800s, as follows. First, OED Online defines \"puredee, adj. (and adv.)\" (with forms pure-D, pure-d, pure dee, puredee, pure-dee, puredy, pure-T, all from the 1900s) as U.S. regional (chiefly south and south Midland). Thoroughgoing, out-and-out, complete, real. Also as adv.: very, totally, completely. [\"puredee, adj. (and adv.)\". OED Online. September 2016. Oxford University Press (accessed November 03, 2016).] The earliest attestation in the OED is from 1938, in the form 'pure D': Mississippi: Guide to Magnolia State (Federal Writers' Project) 15 It's the pure D truth. The definition given by the OED agrees with what I uncovered of the senses in use; 'pure D' is an intensifier, and is usually synonymous with 'thoroughgoing'. The earliest use I uncovered was in the Waco Morning News (Waco, Texas) of 13 Jun 1912. There, the form is 'pure-dee': \"Captain Bill,\" as he is called by his old friends, is a pure-dee Waco booster. Going forward in time, to bridge the gap between 1912 and 1938 (the date of the first OED attestation), the form 'pure D' was employed in a classified ad in The Houston Post (Houston, Texas) of 8 Nov 1912 (and other days): 640 ACRES pure D black land prairie, 8 miles from Liberty on shell road... The next instance I uncovered, in the form 'pure-dee', appeared in the The Houston Post of 2 Feb 1915: Next, a 2 Jan 1916 instance from an article in the Waco Morning News about a stage appearance that followed the showing of two motion pictures: In The Times of Shreveport, Louisiana, 2 Mar 1916, the first appearance I uncovered outside of Texas is still associated with Texas: In The Houston Post of 17 Apr 1916, an ad encouraging investors moralizes about thoroughgoing laziness: A column-length ad for another \"black land\" farm uses 'pure dee' in the 17 Jan 1923 Courier-Gazette out of McKinney, Texas. The seven-year gap between this instance and the previous is likely an artifact of the limited resources I am able to deploy: Having more or less covered the ground between 1912 and the 1938-2005 attestations provided by the OED, I looked for evidence that would explain what the devil the 'D' stood for. The ever-helpful OED suggested the etymology of 'puredee' was from compounding: PURE adj. + D n. (see sense 3 at that entry). Compare DEE v. (op. cit.) Sense 3 of 'D' was given as Used euphemistically for damn (often printed d\u2014\u2014), etc. Cf. DEE v. [\"D, n.\". OED Online. September 2016. Oxford University Press (accessed November 03, 2016).] Attestations for that sense from 1866 and 1877 are given. The verb 'dee', cross-referenced at both 'puredee' and 'D', is defined as a. Pronunciation of d\u2014\u2014, euphemistic for damn (see D n. 3); usually in pa. pple. deed (also deedeed) = d\u2014\u2014d, damned. .... b. as adj. = DAMNED adj. 4a. [\"dee, v.\". OED Online. September 2016. Oxford University Press (accessed November 03, 2016).] Attestations from around 1845 to 1889 are given. I reasoned from the suggestions that, if the 'dee' of 'puredee' was indeed a shortening of a euphemism for 'damned', the forms 'pure damned', 'pure damn', 'pure d\u2014\u2014' or 'pure d\u2014\u2014d' ought to be in evidence. For the latter two, I was able to find some such evidence, first in a 4 Jan 1906 edition of The Weekly Gazette out of Colorado Springs, Colorado, and second in a 29 Feb 1912 edition of The Twin-City Daily Sentinel out of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, While these instances do suggest that the basic hypothesis holds water, their appearance in geographically distant areas (Colorado and North Carolina) from the areas where 'puredee' was in evidence (Texas and Louisiana) made for some hesitation about accepting the hypothesis as entirely borne out. Therefore, I searched for other evidence that the 'D' in 'puredee' was a euphemistic shortening of 'damn' or 'damned'. It seemed such evidence might be supplied by instances of 'dee' or 'deedeed' (or 'deed', but the needle-in-a-haystack nature of such a search discouraged it before I began) where the intent was clearly to represent 'damned'. Such instances, as it turned out, were not in short supply (relatively speaking); they were also chronologically precedent to 'puredee'. Here are some illustrative instances, ordered from earliest to latest. From The Indianapolis News, Indiana, 16 Nov 1871: From the Burlington Weekly Free Press, Vermont, 15 Aug 1873: From The Times, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 11 Jul 1878: From The Wheeling Intelligencer, West Virginia, 22 Jul 1878: From The Salt Lake Herald, Utah, 25 Nov 1894: From The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, New York, 4 Sep 1905: While none of the instances are from Texas, they do serve to illustrate that 'deedeed' (at least, if not 'dee' or 'deed'), in the sense of 'damned' was in common and widespread use for many years prior to the appearance of 'puredee'. Further, I reasoned that if the 'dee' in 'puredee' was a euphemistic representation of 'damned', another common collocation of the period, 'double-damned' should be instanced. This hypothesis also bore fruit. From The Tennessean, 20 Mar 1867: From the Chicago Tribune, Illinois, 30 Mar 1878: From The Indiana Democrat, Pennsylvania, 24 Nov 1887: From The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, Louisiana, 25 Dec 1887: From The State Chronicle, Raleigh, North Carolina, 21 Mar 1893: From the San Francisco Chronicle, California, 5 Feb 1913: Of the evidence presented, I suppose that the instances of 'pure d\u2014\u2014' (1906) and 'pure d\u2014\u2014d' (1912) are the smoking gun connecting the 'dee' of 'puredee' with 'damned', while the instances of 'deedeed', 'double-deed', 'double-dee-dash', and 'double dee-dashed' are supplemental. For your first two questions, then, I have these answers, supported by the evidence given in the foregoing: 'Pure D' in the forms given by the OED entry for 'puredee' originated in Texas...or thereabouts...sometime before 1912. The 'D' stands for 'damn' or 'damned'. For your question 3, my research is ongoing, but so far the research indicates the term is in widespread if not exactly common use. Re-runs of a television show called \"The A-Team: Pure-Dee Poison\" contribute significantly to contemporary use, but other instances continue. In the 2000s for example, and discounting the television show re-run mentions, instances appear in Kentucky, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Indiana, and Nevada. A preponderance of such instances appear in Louisiana."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nElasticity is a measure of how much buyers and sellers respond to changes in market conditions. The sentence above is from page 95, Principles of Microeconomics Fifth Canadian Edition.","question":"Elasticity is a measure of how much buyers and sellers respond to changes in market conditions. The sentence above is from page 95, Principles of Microeconomics Fifth Canadian Edition.","answer":"Because it doesn't mean \"the number of buyers and sellers\" (countable), it means \"the degree to which they respond\" (uncountable). \"How many\" would be grammatical, but with a different meaning.","output":"Because it doesn't mean \"the number of buyers and sellers\" (countable), it means \"the degree to which they respond\" (uncountable). \"How many\" would be grammatical, but with a different meaning."}
{"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\nI'm back again with a new Hitchens question. First of all, I couldn't decide whether I should post the question here or to the Christianity site. But it seemed like a grammatical question to me. So here it is. Every week, at special ceremonies in Mormon temples, the congregations meet and are given a certain quota of names of the departed to \u201cpray in\u201d to their church. This retrospective baptism of the dead seems harmless enough to me, but the American Jewish Committee became incensed when it was discovered that the Mormons had acquired the records of the Nazi \u201cfinal solution,\u201d and were industriously baptizing what for once could truly be called a \u201clost tribe\u201d: the murdered Jews of Europe. Hitchens talks about what Mormons do for the ones who lived before them to help them find salvation. They basically baptize them retrospectively. First of all, I'm confused by the preposition to in this part of speech. If it wasn't there, it would make perfect sense to me (Mormons are given a list of name to pray for in their churches.) Moreover, pray in is given in quotation marks which suggests to me that there is something special about it. I've looked up \"to pray in\" and found to pray in aid which means (according to Wiktionary), (intransitive, now rare) To resort to the help (of); to call on the support (of), especially to help prove an argument. (transitive, chiefly law) To ask for the help of (someone or something) in pleading a case; to make use of, adduce (something) in defence of a case, argument etc. I'm not sure if this phrase has anything to do with my question but it's the closest thing I could find. Now I'm more confused.","question":"I'm back again with a new Hitchens question. First of all, I couldn't decide whether I should post the question here or to the Christianity site. But it seemed like a grammatical question to me. So here it is. Every week, at special ceremonies in Mormon temples, the congregations meet and are given a certain quota of names of the departed to \u201cpray in\u201d to their church. This retrospective baptism of the dead seems harmless enough to me, but the American Jewish Committee became incensed when it was discovered that the Mormons had acquired the records of the Nazi \u201cfinal solution,\u201d and were industriously baptizing what for once could truly be called a \u201clost tribe\u201d: the murdered Jews of Europe. Hitchens talks about what Mormons do for the ones who lived before them to help them find salvation. They basically baptize them retrospectively. First of all, I'm confused by the preposition to in this part of speech. If it wasn't there, it would make perfect sense to me (Mormons are given a list of name to pray for in their churches.) Moreover, pray in is given in quotation marks which suggests to me that there is something special about it. I've looked up \"to pray in\" and found to pray in aid which means (according to Wiktionary), (intransitive, now rare) To resort to the help (of); to call on the support (of), especially to help prove an argument. (transitive, chiefly law) To ask for the help of (someone or something) in pleading a case; to make use of, adduce (something) in defence of a case, argument etc. I'm not sure if this phrase has anything to do with my question but it's the closest thing I could find. Now I'm more confused.","answer":"I think that what Hitchens could be saying is that the dead are \"prayed in\" to the church in the same manner in which a living person would be let in to a church. That is to say, the phrase implies admission through the prayers of others. I doubt that it is related to the concept of praying in aid. I believe this is the right site for questions about learning English. Now, if you want to talk about the ethics of that practice, Christianity might be the place.","output":"I think that what Hitchens could be saying is that the dead are \"prayed in\" to the church in the same manner in which a living person would be let in to a church. That is to say, the phrase implies admission through the prayers of others. I doubt that it is related to the concept of praying in aid. I believe this is the right site for questions about learning English. Now, if you want to talk about the ethics of that practice, Christianity might be the place."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow can I convert each of these sentences into a question with the phrasal verb 'put forward' in it? I have put forward my watch by 10 minutes. The meeting has been put forward to Monday. (Where the answer would be like, '10 minutes' or 'Monday' in the above examples) Any variations of examples appreciated.","question":"How can I convert each of these sentences into a question with the phrasal verb 'put forward' in it? I have put forward my watch by 10 minutes. The meeting has been put forward to Monday. (Where the answer would be like, '10 minutes' or 'Monday' in the above examples) Any variations of examples appreciated.","answer":"I have put forward my watch by 10 minutes. The meeting has been put forward to Monday. To convert sentences like these into questions \"where the answer would be '10 minutes' or 'Monday'\", we need to do the following: First find the word which represents the unknown element ( - you can think of this as the 'interrogativized' element although this isn't a real grammatical term): I have put my watch forward by (?) minutes. The meeting has been put forward to (?). Second, find the appropriate wh- word for the missing element. For numbers, we need the interrogative phrase how many. For times, days and so forth we need when: I have put my watch forward by how many minutes? The meeting has been put forward to when? This gives us an in situ question. This is a perfectly acceptable question form. However, we may want to use a canonical question, where the interrogative wh- word is moved to the front of the sentence. To do this we need a third step. Move the wh word to the front of the sentence. If it is a determiner, for example, a number, we need to move the determiner and the following noun phrase to the front: [How many minutes I have put my watch forward by _____ ] [When the meeting has been put forward to ____ ] At the moment these are not proper questions yet. If we leave the sentences like this, they are not questions. They may look like exclamations: Wow. How many minutes I have put my watch forward by! (Isn't it surprising!) Because the interrogative words have moved to the front, we need to show that these are questions.The fourth step, then, is to invert the subject and the auxiliary verbs. They need to change places: How many minutes have I put my watch forward by? When has the meeting been put forward to? These are now proper grammatically marked questions. Here they are without the bold: How many minutes have I put my watch forward by? When has the meeting been put forward to?","output":"I have put forward my watch by 10 minutes. The meeting has been put forward to Monday. To convert sentences like these into questions \"where the answer would be '10 minutes' or 'Monday'\", we need to do the following: First find the word which represents the unknown element ( - you can think of this as the 'interrogativized' element although this isn't a real grammatical term): I have put my watch forward by (?) minutes. The meeting has been put forward to (?). Second, find the appropriate wh- word for the missing element. For numbers, we need the interrogative phrase how many. For times, days and so forth we need when: I have put my watch forward by how many minutes? The meeting has been put forward to when? This gives us an in situ question. This is a perfectly acceptable question form. However, we may want to use a canonical question, where the interrogative wh- word is moved to the front of the sentence. To do this we need a third step. Move the wh word to the front of the sentence. If it is a determiner, for example, a number, we need to move the determiner and the following noun phrase to the front: [How many minutes I have put my watch forward by _____ ] [When the meeting has been put forward to ____ ] At the moment these are not proper questions yet. If we leave the sentences like this, they are not questions. They may look like exclamations: Wow. How many minutes I have put my watch forward by! (Isn't it surprising!) Because the interrogative words have moved to the front, we need to show that these are questions.The fourth step, then, is to invert the subject and the auxiliary verbs. They need to change places: How many minutes have I put my watch forward by? When has the meeting been put forward to? These are now proper grammatically marked questions. Here they are without the bold: How many minutes have I put my watch forward by? When has the meeting been put forward to?"}
{"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\nIs there a word that represents the positive connotation equivalent of the term tattle or tattletale ? What I would be looking for is something like the following: Dan tattled on Ken to Ken's boss. Dan positive tattled on Ken to Ken's boss. EDIT: To further clarify what I'm looking for... It's not so much that Dan tattling on Ken is a good thing, but more that what Dan is tattling about is positive. Dan tattled on Ken that Ken was being a jerk Dan ____ on Ken that Ken was being helpful In this context, whistleblower, duly reported..... none of these really fit the bill. I have my own suggestion that I will answer with to give a better idea... anonymously praised","question":"Is there a word that represents the positive connotation equivalent of the term tattle or tattletale ? What I would be looking for is something like the following: Dan tattled on Ken to Ken's boss. Dan positive tattled on Ken to Ken's boss. EDIT: To further clarify what I'm looking for... It's not so much that Dan tattling on Ken is a good thing, but more that what Dan is tattling about is positive. Dan tattled on Ken that Ken was being a jerk Dan ____ on Ken that Ken was being helpful In this context, whistleblower, duly reported..... none of these really fit the bill. I have my own suggestion that I will answer with to give a better idea... anonymously praised","answer":"Get your positive connotation via adverb. To tattle is to report that which is better unreported. When the matter is better reported than not, and in fact is reported, we can say that it is duly or rightly reported. Dan duly reported Ken\u2019s actions to their boss.","output":"Get your positive connotation via adverb. To tattle is to report that which is better unreported. When the matter is better reported than not, and in fact is reported, we can say that it is duly or rightly reported. Dan duly reported Ken\u2019s actions to their boss."}
{"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 have the following sentences. This is our first arrival in the UK. These are our first arrival in the UK. I am not sure, which sentence is correct?","question":"I have the following sentences. This is our first arrival in the UK. These are our first arrival in the UK. I am not sure, which sentence is correct?","answer":"\"This is our first arrival in the UK\" is correct. There is only one arrival under discussion -- your first one -- so the subject is singular. You used the singular word \"arrival\". Thus a singular verb and pronoun are called for. If you were talking about multiple arrivals, you would say \"these are\". Like, \"These are arrivals that occurred during 2014.\"","output":"\"This is our first arrival in the UK\" is correct. There is only one arrival under discussion -- your first one -- so the subject is singular. You used the singular word \"arrival\". Thus a singular verb and pronoun are called for. If you were talking about multiple arrivals, you would say \"these are\". Like, \"These are arrivals that occurred during 2014.\""}
{"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\nBoth \"Cats drink milk\" and \"Cat drinks milk\" indicate generality, but is there any difference between them? Or when there is preference to one than the other?","question":"Both \"Cats drink milk\" and \"Cat drinks milk\" indicate generality, but is there any difference between them? Or when there is preference to one than the other?","answer":"Cats drink milk. Means more than one cat is able to drink milk. Cat drinks milk. as written is not grammatical in normal usage, because a singular noun needs an article. So it should be: The\/A cat drinks milk. The only difference is the number of cats involved.","output":"Cats drink milk. Means more than one cat is able to drink milk. Cat drinks milk. as written is not grammatical in normal usage, because a singular noun needs an article. So it should be: The\/A cat drinks milk. The only difference is the number of cats involved."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"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":"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\n1.There is no goods at supermarket that is not cheap. 2.There is no goods at supermarket that are not cheap. 3.There are no goods at supermarket that are not cheap. Which sentence is grammatical? My choice is #No.2 as I think the word \"goods\" need plural verb.","question":"1.There is no goods at supermarket that is not cheap. 2.There is no goods at supermarket that are not cheap. 3.There are no goods at supermarket that are not cheap. Which sentence is grammatical? My choice is #No.2 as I think the word \"goods\" need plural verb.","answer":"Number three is what you want: There are no goods at the supermarket that are not cheap \"Are\" is for plural, as in There are people here \"Is\" is for singular, as in There is a person here. You should also add \"the\" before supermarket.","output":"Number three is what you want: There are no goods at the supermarket that are not cheap \"Are\" is for plural, as in There are people here \"Is\" is for singular, as in There is a person here. You should also add \"the\" before supermarket."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn the aftermath of the space shuttle Challenger explosion, where seven crew members were killed, the NASA program underwent a massive examination of priorities. My SAT grammar book claims that where is incorrect and should be replaced with in which. I tried googling the difference, and the answers have been saying those two are practically the same. I was wondering if it was not the case with this sentence?","question":"In the aftermath of the space shuttle Challenger explosion, where seven crew members were killed, the NASA program underwent a massive examination of priorities. My SAT grammar book claims that where is incorrect and should be replaced with in which. I tried googling the difference, and the answers have been saying those two are practically the same. I was wondering if it was not the case with this sentence?","answer":"There is no reason in The Language Herself why you should not use where in this sentence. There are to be sure people who will tell you that where can only refer to an actual spatial place, and cannot be extended to \u201cfigurative locations\u201d, such as states and situations and events, for which you must use in which. But the in of in which referring to a state or situation is already a \u201cfigurative\u201d use of a locative preposition. And states and situations and events are themselves \u201cfigurative locations\u201d: your \u201csituation\u201d is the \u201csite\u201d where you find yourself, your \u201cstate\u201d is the \u201cplace\u201d where something has \u201cstood\u201d you, and an \u201cevent\u201d is something which has \u201carrived from\u201d somewhere to the place where you stand in time. Why on earth should you avoid using a figurative locative to refer to a figurative location? The only grounds for avoiding this use is to satisfy an audience comprised mostly of people who hold the absurd opinion that the use is \u201cwrong\u201d. Alas, the composers of Standardized Tests are mostly people of that sort, who were taught this \u201crule\u201d as small children and never acquired sufficient grasp of The Language to realize its absurdity. Consequently you should avoid the use when you are taking the test; but feel free to ignore it otherwise.","output":"There is no reason in The Language Herself why you should not use where in this sentence. There are to be sure people who will tell you that where can only refer to an actual spatial place, and cannot be extended to \u201cfigurative locations\u201d, such as states and situations and events, for which you must use in which. But the in of in which referring to a state or situation is already a \u201cfigurative\u201d use of a locative preposition. And states and situations and events are themselves \u201cfigurative locations\u201d: your \u201csituation\u201d is the \u201csite\u201d where you find yourself, your \u201cstate\u201d is the \u201cplace\u201d where something has \u201cstood\u201d you, and an \u201cevent\u201d is something which has \u201carrived from\u201d somewhere to the place where you stand in time. Why on earth should you avoid using a figurative locative to refer to a figurative location? The only grounds for avoiding this use is to satisfy an audience comprised mostly of people who hold the absurd opinion that the use is \u201cwrong\u201d. Alas, the composers of Standardized Tests are mostly people of that sort, who were taught this \u201crule\u201d as small children and never acquired sufficient grasp of The Language to realize its absurdity. Consequently you should avoid the use when you are taking the test; but feel free to ignore it otherwise."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nPlease help me to understand how english works, please!","question":"Please help me to understand how english works, please!","answer":"\"Substance\" has a primary stressed initial syllable with a caret vowel. \"Substantial\" has an unstressed initial syllable with a reduced vowel, a schwa. Caret vowel is back; schwa is non-back. The vowel of \"sub\" in \"substantial\" can reduce despite being in a closed syllable, because \"sub\" is a Latinate prefix, so it is like the vowel of \"con\" in \"constrained\" in that respect.","output":"\"Substance\" has a primary stressed initial syllable with a caret vowel. \"Substantial\" has an unstressed initial syllable with a reduced vowel, a schwa. Caret vowel is back; schwa is non-back. The vowel of \"sub\" in \"substantial\" can reduce despite being in a closed syllable, because \"sub\" is a Latinate prefix, so it is like the vowel of \"con\" in \"constrained\" in that respect."}
{"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\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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 will start with my example to clarify the odd phrasing of my question. The die is cast. Since both 'die' and 'cast' have two meanings, the phrase can be read in two ways: The die [as in a game of dice] is cast [as in thrown]. The die [as in a metal tool\u2021] is cast [as in forged]. Both of these have the same meaning: something has been done that cannot be undone. (This coincidence has lead some to be confused about the original meaning, which is closer to the first I describe). Are there other examples of phrases that so neatly have two paths to the same meaning by replacing multiple words? If so, do they have a name (so that I may look up more )? \u2021 casting is not the best way to make a die, but the meaning holds.","question":"I will start with my example to clarify the odd phrasing of my question. The die is cast. Since both 'die' and 'cast' have two meanings, the phrase can be read in two ways: The die [as in a game of dice] is cast [as in thrown]. The die [as in a metal tool\u2021] is cast [as in forged]. Both of these have the same meaning: something has been done that cannot be undone. (This coincidence has lead some to be confused about the original meaning, which is closer to the first I describe). Are there other examples of phrases that so neatly have two paths to the same meaning by replacing multiple words? If so, do they have a name (so that I may look up more )? \u2021 casting is not the best way to make a die, but the meaning holds.","answer":"You're describing a special case of a special case. Let's start with the less special case. Words like 'die' and 'cast' that have multiple meanings are called ambiguous, which means: (Of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning. Given that its constituent words are ambiguous, your example of \"the die is cast\" can thus be said to be an ambiguous proverb. This phrase even has some currency, evidenced here and here. Now, ambiguity can be caused by the word having multiple meanings, in which case it is called lexical ambiguity, or it can be caused by there being multiple ways to group the words in the sentence, in which case it is called syntactic ambiguity. Your example of \"the die is cast\" is an example of lexical ambiguity. A few other examples of lexically ambiguous proverbs are mentioned here: A good husband makes a good wife. Good masters make good servants. These are ambiguous because \"make\" can be interpreted as both \"bring about\" and \"amount to\". Notice that, unlike in your example, resolving the ambiguity does result in different proverbial meanings. Now, your example of \"the die is cast\" is a special case where the ambiguity in the constituent words does not scotch its figurative meaning. In that sense, you might not want to call it an ambiguous proverb, since regardless of the disambiguation, you arrive at the same figurative meaning. Instead, to coin a phrase, you might call it a bistable proverb, where bistable means: having two stable states. In a way, a hearer who encounters this proverb can vacillate between the two literal disambiguations without it affecting the figurative meaning. The figurative meaning is thus bistable. Finally, your example of the (bistable) proverb \"the die is cast\" is very similar to examples of so-called eggcorns, defined by Wikipedia as: In linguistics, an eggcorn is an idiosyncratic substitution of a word or phrase for a word or words that sound similar or identical in the speaker's dialect.... The new phrase introduces a meaning that is different from the original but plausible in the same context, such as \"old-timers' disease\" for \"Alzheimer's disease\".... Eggcorns often involve replacing an unfamiliar, archaic, or obscure word with a more common or modern word (\"baited breath\" for \"bated breath\"). In an eggcorn, words are substituted in a phrase for similar sounding words. The result is an expression that, although different in literal meaning from the intended expression, has roughly the same \"figurative\" meaning. For example, \"old-timer's disease\" for \"Alzheimer's disease\". Your example of \"the die is cast\"\/\"the die is cast\" might be considered a limiting case of eggcorn, one in which phonologically identical and orthographically identical words are substituted. The result is that the literal meanings are different, but the figurative meaning is the same.","output":"You're describing a special case of a special case. Let's start with the less special case. Words like 'die' and 'cast' that have multiple meanings are called ambiguous, which means: (Of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning. Given that its constituent words are ambiguous, your example of \"the die is cast\" can thus be said to be an ambiguous proverb. This phrase even has some currency, evidenced here and here. Now, ambiguity can be caused by the word having multiple meanings, in which case it is called lexical ambiguity, or it can be caused by there being multiple ways to group the words in the sentence, in which case it is called syntactic ambiguity. Your example of \"the die is cast\" is an example of lexical ambiguity. A few other examples of lexically ambiguous proverbs are mentioned here: A good husband makes a good wife. Good masters make good servants. These are ambiguous because \"make\" can be interpreted as both \"bring about\" and \"amount to\". Notice that, unlike in your example, resolving the ambiguity does result in different proverbial meanings. Now, your example of \"the die is cast\" is a special case where the ambiguity in the constituent words does not scotch its figurative meaning. In that sense, you might not want to call it an ambiguous proverb, since regardless of the disambiguation, you arrive at the same figurative meaning. Instead, to coin a phrase, you might call it a bistable proverb, where bistable means: having two stable states. In a way, a hearer who encounters this proverb can vacillate between the two literal disambiguations without it affecting the figurative meaning. The figurative meaning is thus bistable. Finally, your example of the (bistable) proverb \"the die is cast\" is very similar to examples of so-called eggcorns, defined by Wikipedia as: In linguistics, an eggcorn is an idiosyncratic substitution of a word or phrase for a word or words that sound similar or identical in the speaker's dialect.... The new phrase introduces a meaning that is different from the original but plausible in the same context, such as \"old-timers' disease\" for \"Alzheimer's disease\".... Eggcorns often involve replacing an unfamiliar, archaic, or obscure word with a more common or modern word (\"baited breath\" for \"bated breath\"). In an eggcorn, words are substituted in a phrase for similar sounding words. The result is an expression that, although different in literal meaning from the intended expression, has roughly the same \"figurative\" meaning. For example, \"old-timer's disease\" for \"Alzheimer's disease\". Your example of \"the die is cast\"\/\"the die is cast\" might be considered a limiting case of eggcorn, one in which phonologically identical and orthographically identical words are substituted. The result is that the literal meanings are different, but the figurative meaning is the same."}
{"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":"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nA relatively straightforward use of \"cannot but help\" is along the lines of When you use ... you cannot but help notice... No issues there. However, I would like to say If you have used ... (right form of) you cannot but help notice I could simply duck the issue and write If you have used ... you will have noticed but not being able to work in cannot but help is bothering me. I'd be most grateful to anyone who might be able to tell me how it could be used with \"If you have...\"","question":"A relatively straightforward use of \"cannot but help\" is along the lines of When you use ... you cannot but help notice... No issues there. However, I would like to say If you have used ... (right form of) you cannot but help notice I could simply duck the issue and write If you have used ... you will have noticed but not being able to work in cannot but help is bothering me. I'd be most grateful to anyone who might be able to tell me how it could be used with \"If you have...\"","answer":"I think you are mistaken. The correct form of the expression is \"cannot help but\". A correct sentence would be: \"If you have used the soap, you cannot have helped but notice the odor it has.\"","output":"I think you are mistaken. The correct form of the expression is \"cannot help but\". A correct sentence would be: \"If you have used the soap, you cannot have helped but notice the odor it has.\""}
{"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\nhttps:\/\/www.lingq.com\/cs\/lesson\/lesson-25-early-writing-431420\/ On the twelfth of September 1940, four teenage boys were exploring caves near ... I guess in the above text, there is a mistake. I mean, I guess instead of \"teenage boys\" there should be \"teenaged boys\". Am I right or not?","question":"https:\/\/www.lingq.com\/cs\/lesson\/lesson-25-early-writing-431420\/ On the twelfth of September 1940, four teenage boys were exploring caves near ... I guess in the above text, there is a mistake. I mean, I guess instead of \"teenage boys\" there should be \"teenaged boys\". Am I right or not?","answer":"No, a dictionary will show that \"teenage\" and \"teenaged\" are both used in this sense. You can say both \"teenage boys\" and \"teenaged boys\" with the same meaning The difference is that you can say \"a teenage magazine\" to mean \"a magazine for teenagers\", you can't say \"a teenaged magazine\".","output":"No, a dictionary will show that \"teenage\" and \"teenaged\" are both used in this sense. You can say both \"teenage boys\" and \"teenaged boys\" with the same meaning The difference is that you can say \"a teenage magazine\" to mean \"a magazine for teenagers\", you can't say \"a teenaged magazine\"."}
{"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 saw a usage of \"in US English\" in a dictionary, which I think it should be \"in the US English\" instead. The reason is that the full version should be \"the United States\" and not \"United States\". I'm not sure if I am correct? \"Definition of hundred in US English:\"","question":"I saw a usage of \"in US English\" in a dictionary, which I think it should be \"in the US English\" instead. The reason is that the full version should be \"the United States\" and not \"United States\". I'm not sure if I am correct? \"Definition of hundred in US English:\"","answer":"No. When \"US\", \"UK\", \"UN\", \"UAE\" etc are used as nouns, they have the definite article \"the\" preceding them. We are going to the US next week. The UK held a referendum on EU membership. The issue will be raised at the UN. However, when they are used attributively, as though they were adjectives, there is no article. UK law prohibits copyright infringement. US senators serve six-year terms. UN member states will discuss the issue. Sometimes there's an article, but that's because the article is required by the following noun: The US Constitution protects freedom of expression. A US physicist has just won a Nobel prize. Hence, we would refer to \"UK English\" and \"US English\" - although it is probably more common to call them \"British English\" and \"American English\".","output":"No. When \"US\", \"UK\", \"UN\", \"UAE\" etc are used as nouns, they have the definite article \"the\" preceding them. We are going to the US next week. The UK held a referendum on EU membership. The issue will be raised at the UN. However, when they are used attributively, as though they were adjectives, there is no article. UK law prohibits copyright infringement. US senators serve six-year terms. UN member states will discuss the issue. Sometimes there's an article, but that's because the article is required by the following noun: The US Constitution protects freedom of expression. A US physicist has just won a Nobel prize. Hence, we would refer to \"UK English\" and \"US English\" - although it is probably more common to call them \"British English\" and \"American English\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"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\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"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\nWhile browsing the tvtropes.org entry for Archetypal Characters, this sentence jumped out at me: A related concept is the 'ectype', a distorted or flawed version of the archetype. Ectype does not appear in my local dictionary and online searches seem to provide a completely different definition: ectypal \u2014 Copied, as contrasted with an archetypal original. Has a specialized sense when used by the philosopher George Berkeley. (wiktionary) This does not seem to be a common word and I get the feeling that it is still jargon from one field or another. The tvtropes article considers an ectype a specifically flawed copy; the dictionary definitions don't mentioned the quality of the copy. I have no idea what Berkeley's philosophies are \u2014 is this something he coined?","question":"While browsing the tvtropes.org entry for Archetypal Characters, this sentence jumped out at me: A related concept is the 'ectype', a distorted or flawed version of the archetype. Ectype does not appear in my local dictionary and online searches seem to provide a completely different definition: ectypal \u2014 Copied, as contrasted with an archetypal original. Has a specialized sense when used by the philosopher George Berkeley. (wiktionary) This does not seem to be a common word and I get the feeling that it is still jargon from one field or another. The tvtropes article considers an ectype a specifically flawed copy; the dictionary definitions don't mentioned the quality of the copy. I have no idea what Berkeley's philosophies are \u2014 is this something he coined?","answer":"In his dissertation \"Archetypal and ectypal ideals in Kant's practical philosophy,\" Ryan Showler asserts: There is no doubt that the distinction between archetype and ectype is at least inspired by Plato's theory of Forms wherein eternal universal concepts are deficiently copied in the visible world. Showler goes on to state that the British empiricists Locke, Berkeley, and Hume found the distinction between archetype and ectype useful, and appears to credit ectype to Locke. (Follow the link for the full flavor.)","output":"In his dissertation \"Archetypal and ectypal ideals in Kant's practical philosophy,\" Ryan Showler asserts: There is no doubt that the distinction between archetype and ectype is at least inspired by Plato's theory of Forms wherein eternal universal concepts are deficiently copied in the visible world. Showler goes on to state that the British empiricists Locke, Berkeley, and Hume found the distinction between archetype and ectype useful, and appears to credit ectype to Locke. (Follow the link for the full flavor.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am looking for a stronger word than \"discrimination\", which somehow remains ambiguous because of its multiple meanings. I am especially interested in referring to discrimination in the sense of partiality and prejudice towards certain demographic categories. The word \"discrimination\" could be used in combination with an adjective such as \"racial\", but again that would be to specific, because it would omit discrimination based on other categories such as religion, gender or culture. What I would require is a word describing the thought process by which one purposely, unfairly and hatefully excludes an entire population from courtesy and tolerance one would apply to oneself.","question":"I am looking for a stronger word than \"discrimination\", which somehow remains ambiguous because of its multiple meanings. I am especially interested in referring to discrimination in the sense of partiality and prejudice towards certain demographic categories. The word \"discrimination\" could be used in combination with an adjective such as \"racial\", but again that would be to specific, because it would omit discrimination based on other categories such as religion, gender or culture. What I would require is a word describing the thought process by which one purposely, unfairly and hatefully excludes an entire population from courtesy and tolerance one would apply to oneself.","answer":"Bigotry (\u201cIntolerance or prejudice, especially religious or racial; discrimination (against); the characteristic qualities of a bigot\u201d), is a term commonly used for such a \u201cthought process\u201d. Also note the definitions of intolerance: \u201cNot tolerant; close-minded about new or different ideas. indisposed to tolerate contrary opinions or beliefs; impatient of dissent or opposition; denying or refusing the right of private opinion or choice in others; inclined to persecute or suppress dissent\u201d and prejudice: \u201cAn adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts\u201d and \u201cAny preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative\u201d and \u201cAn irrational hostile attitude, fear or hatred towards a particular group, race or religion\u201d. You may also find words suggested in the following questions useful. \u2022 What are antonyms of tolerant or synonyms of cautious, \u2022 Reaching a conclusion before formulating an argument, \u2022 Single word for people who are like a frog in the well, \u2022 Is there a word for preparation with a negative connotation, \u2022 What would you call a person who doesnt like questions being asked of them, \u2022 Is there a name for someone who calls someone else what he himself is, \u2022 What is a good term for someone who refuses to debate an issue ab initio.","output":"Bigotry (\u201cIntolerance or prejudice, especially religious or racial; discrimination (against); the characteristic qualities of a bigot\u201d), is a term commonly used for such a \u201cthought process\u201d. Also note the definitions of intolerance: \u201cNot tolerant; close-minded about new or different ideas. indisposed to tolerate contrary opinions or beliefs; impatient of dissent or opposition; denying or refusing the right of private opinion or choice in others; inclined to persecute or suppress dissent\u201d and prejudice: \u201cAn adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts\u201d and \u201cAny preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative\u201d and \u201cAn irrational hostile attitude, fear or hatred towards a particular group, race or religion\u201d. You may also find words suggested in the following questions useful. \u2022 What are antonyms of tolerant or synonyms of cautious, \u2022 Reaching a conclusion before formulating an argument, \u2022 Single word for people who are like a frog in the well, \u2022 Is there a word for preparation with a negative connotation, \u2022 What would you call a person who doesnt like questions being asked of them, \u2022 Is there a name for someone who calls someone else what he himself is, \u2022 What is a good term for someone who refuses to debate an issue ab initio."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI will. will, modal verb, I, subject. May modal verbs get discerned intransitive? May they get discerned intransitive, this may seem a complete sentence and not request an object?","question":"I will. will, modal verb, I, subject. May modal verbs get discerned intransitive? May they get discerned intransitive, this may seem a complete sentence and not request an object?","answer":"The full modal verbs (can\/could, may\/might, must, shall\/should, will\/would) never occur except with the bare infinitive of a lexical verb as complement. The only circumstance in which I will could be a grammatically complete sentence is if the complement of will is implied by the preceding discourse: \"Will you see Jack tonight?\" \"I will [see Jack tonight].\" There is also a different verb, lexical will; the two are historically related, but unlike modal will, lexical will is conjugated regularly (He wills, He willed) in its finite forms and has regular non-finite forms (He has willed, He is willing, He wants to will). Lexical will is transitive, requiring an object.","output":"The full modal verbs (can\/could, may\/might, must, shall\/should, will\/would) never occur except with the bare infinitive of a lexical verb as complement. The only circumstance in which I will could be a grammatically complete sentence is if the complement of will is implied by the preceding discourse: \"Will you see Jack tonight?\" \"I will [see Jack tonight].\" There is also a different verb, lexical will; the two are historically related, but unlike modal will, lexical will is conjugated regularly (He wills, He willed) in its finite forms and has regular non-finite forms (He has willed, He is willing, He wants to will). Lexical will is transitive, requiring an object."}
{"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 run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"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 would like to say that someone is standing at the end of a bridge, waiting to meet someone else. Is there a word for the end of the bridge, besides just 'end'? I'm thinking something like a river's mouth.","question":"I would like to say that someone is standing at the end of a bridge, waiting to meet someone else. Is there a word for the end of the bridge, besides just 'end'? I'm thinking something like a river's mouth.","answer":"It is called a head. Either end of a bridge. [OED] It is usually used as head of the bridge. Another similar term is a bridgehead, which is mainly used as a military term, defined in OED as a fortification covering or protecting the end of a bridge nearest the enemy. [Translation of French t\u00eate de pont : t\u00eate, head + de, of + pont, bridge.] AHD also gives another definition of bridgehead: The area immediately adjacent to the end of a bridge.","output":"It is called a head. Either end of a bridge. [OED] It is usually used as head of the bridge. Another similar term is a bridgehead, which is mainly used as a military term, defined in OED as a fortification covering or protecting the end of a bridge nearest the enemy. [Translation of French t\u00eate de pont : t\u00eate, head + de, of + pont, bridge.] AHD also gives another definition of bridgehead: The area immediately adjacent to the end of a bridge."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"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\nIf I am right, in 'an English phrase' 'English' is an adjectival form while in 'a phrase in English', 'English' is a nominal form. Should I say 'An English overview of this topic' or 'An overview in English of this topic' ?","question":"If I am right, in 'an English phrase' 'English' is an adjectival form while in 'a phrase in English', 'English' is a nominal form. Should I say 'An English overview of this topic' or 'An overview in English of this topic' ?","answer":"Eng\u00b7lish (adj.) 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of England or its people or culture. 2. Of or relating to the English language. The word English has more than one definition, so I might assume those two sentences don't necessarily have the same meaning. An overview in English of this topic That plainly means the overview is presented in English. An English overview of this topic That could mean the overview is presented from a British perspective, related to England's people and culture. I might expect to see a dash of localised humour, for example.","output":"Eng\u00b7lish (adj.) 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of England or its people or culture. 2. Of or relating to the English language. The word English has more than one definition, so I might assume those two sentences don't necessarily have the same meaning. An overview in English of this topic That plainly means the overview is presented in English. An English overview of this topic That could mean the overview is presented from a British perspective, related to England's people and culture. I might expect to see a dash of localised humour, for example."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat does the expression 'Shades off' mean? The context is: 'I am nervous. Shades off!' I have searched the definition in different dictionaries, but I could not find anything appropriate. This phrase is taken from the movie \"Battleship\" (see subtitles - around 300), it is used two times.","question":"What does the expression 'Shades off' mean? The context is: 'I am nervous. Shades off!' I have searched the definition in different dictionaries, but I could not find anything appropriate. This phrase is taken from the movie \"Battleship\" (see subtitles - around 300), it is used two times.","answer":"I haven't seen the movie, but found a very-partial-script online (no character names). \"Shades\" is a term for \"sunglasses\" in this context. The notion is that wearing sunglasses while being introduced among international military leaders doesn't show the right level of respect for that setting. Announcer: \"And now as we prepare to embark in this outstanding...\" Someone(Hopper?): \"I'm nervous.\" Someone Else: \"Shades off.\" Announcer: \"...I would like the commanding officers to come to the stage.\" People are being called to the stage, and presumably the \"Hopper\" character has not taken off the sunglasses yet. So he has to be told again more forcefully: Announcer: \"A special acknowledgment to Commander Stone Hopper, US Navy...who along with his outstanding crew and ship had the highest overall rating last year.\" Someone Else: \"Shades off, Hopper!\" This is a very clich\u00e9 way for a movie of that type to 'show' instead of 'tell' us how rebellious and raw this person's talent is.","output":"I haven't seen the movie, but found a very-partial-script online (no character names). \"Shades\" is a term for \"sunglasses\" in this context. The notion is that wearing sunglasses while being introduced among international military leaders doesn't show the right level of respect for that setting. Announcer: \"And now as we prepare to embark in this outstanding...\" Someone(Hopper?): \"I'm nervous.\" Someone Else: \"Shades off.\" Announcer: \"...I would like the commanding officers to come to the stage.\" People are being called to the stage, and presumably the \"Hopper\" character has not taken off the sunglasses yet. So he has to be told again more forcefully: Announcer: \"A special acknowledgment to Commander Stone Hopper, US Navy...who along with his outstanding crew and ship had the highest overall rating last year.\" Someone Else: \"Shades off, Hopper!\" This is a very clich\u00e9 way for a movie of that type to 'show' instead of 'tell' us how rebellious and raw this person's talent is."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat does this pattern mean? Don't Do A In which is the name of a person being talked about?","question":"What does this pattern mean? Don't Do A In which is the name of a person being talked about?","answer":"Using names as a verb is a fairly recent development in English. While context is everything, it usually means something along the lines of: Don't do what [name] tends to do. or Don't act like [name]. Here, the speaker is almost inventing a word based on the name.","output":"Using names as a verb is a fairly recent development in English. While context is everything, it usually means something along the lines of: Don't do what [name] tends to do. or Don't act like [name]. Here, the speaker is almost inventing a word based on the name."}
{"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\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"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 is plenty to see in Phnom Penh, the capital of Combodia, starting with a tour of the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas where hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention. For a learner like me, this sentence is difficult to understand. How can I divide this sentence into simple sentences?","question":"There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh, the capital of Combodia, starting with a tour of the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas where hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention. For a learner like me, this sentence is difficult to understand. How can I divide this sentence into simple sentences?","answer":"You can start with the punctuation. For this sentence, the commas divide the sentence usefully. Consider what each phrase means, and what it relates to. There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh, the capital of [Cambodia], starting with a tour of the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas where hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention. Phrase 1 is straightforward. Look at phrase 2. It's a noun phrase. What does it relate to? In this case, it provides more information about Phnom Penh. It's also a parenthetical expression, so you should be able to remove it without changing the meaning of the sentence. Take it out, and see what's left. There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh, starting with a tour of the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas where hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention. At this point, note that you have a list: a tour of the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas This is followed by the word \"where\". In this case, it relates to the nearest noun (market areas), saying that some things happen in that place. The rest of the sentence tells you what those things are: hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention Putting all this together, the sentence says that: there is a lot to see in Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh is the capital of Cambodia, the 'seeing' started with the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas, and in the market areas, hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention.","output":"You can start with the punctuation. For this sentence, the commas divide the sentence usefully. Consider what each phrase means, and what it relates to. There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh, the capital of [Cambodia], starting with a tour of the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas where hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention. Phrase 1 is straightforward. Look at phrase 2. It's a noun phrase. What does it relate to? In this case, it provides more information about Phnom Penh. It's also a parenthetical expression, so you should be able to remove it without changing the meaning of the sentence. Take it out, and see what's left. There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh, starting with a tour of the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas where hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention. At this point, note that you have a list: a tour of the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas This is followed by the word \"where\". In this case, it relates to the nearest noun (market areas), saying that some things happen in that place. The rest of the sentence tells you what those things are: hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention Putting all this together, the sentence says that: there is a lot to see in Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh is the capital of Cambodia, the 'seeing' started with the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas, and in the market areas, hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSome movies overplay\/over-do certain elements to make viewers feel emotional - cheesy lines, music and others. I've read a review which used a word to convey this pithily but I can't seem to remember for the life of me! An example would be: I'm not sure I want to see the new movie. It is XXX. Edit: added sample sentence.","question":"Some movies overplay\/over-do certain elements to make viewers feel emotional - cheesy lines, music and others. I've read a review which used a word to convey this pithily but I can't seem to remember for the life of me! An example would be: I'm not sure I want to see the new movie. It is XXX. Edit: added sample sentence.","answer":"I like the word mawkish sentimental in an exaggerated or false way. An Example Usage The Best Of Me, film review: Terminally mawkish tearjerker is hard to stomach Much of the dialogue for this terminally mawkish tearjerker sounds as if it has been taken directly from a Dolly Parton or Whitney Houston song ... The etymology of this word is mawkish (adj.) 1660s, \"sickly, nauseated,\" from Middle English mawke \"maggot\". Sense of \"sickly sentimental\" is first recorded 1702.","output":"I like the word mawkish sentimental in an exaggerated or false way. An Example Usage The Best Of Me, film review: Terminally mawkish tearjerker is hard to stomach Much of the dialogue for this terminally mawkish tearjerker sounds as if it has been taken directly from a Dolly Parton or Whitney Houston song ... The etymology of this word is mawkish (adj.) 1660s, \"sickly, nauseated,\" from Middle English mawke \"maggot\". Sense of \"sickly sentimental\" is first recorded 1702."}
{"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 lampau:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShould it be \"taxes are\" not \"is\"? The subject is \"taxes\" and it's plural but I am confused by \"a system\". \"Taxes are a system of checks and balances.\"","question":"Should it be \"taxes are\" not \"is\"? The subject is \"taxes\" and it's plural but I am confused by \"a system\". \"Taxes are a system of checks and balances.\"","answer":"\"Taxes are a system\" might seem strange but it sounds perfectly normal to me. No one would call you out if they heard you say this sentence aloud. It may be more correct to say \"Taxation is a system;\" this avoids the count mismatch and makes more sense from a syntax and logic standpoint. You can make the argument both ways for \"taxes\" being a system in their own right or just the manifestation of that system, but \"taxation\" is undoubtedly a system.","output":"\"Taxes are a system\" might seem strange but it sounds perfectly normal to me. No one would call you out if they heard you say this sentence aloud. It may be more correct to say \"Taxation is a system;\" this avoids the count mismatch and makes more sense from a syntax and logic standpoint. You can make the argument both ways for \"taxes\" being a system in their own right or just the manifestation of that system, but \"taxation\" is undoubtedly a system."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAs I understand it, the sentences have the same meaning, haven't they? \"To fit the shoes\" is more common than \"to try on the shoes\", but \"to try on these shoes\" is more common than \"to fit these shoes\", as you can see here. Does it have any logic? I want to fit these shoes. I want to try on these shoes.","question":"As I understand it, the sentences have the same meaning, haven't they? \"To fit the shoes\" is more common than \"to try on the shoes\", but \"to try on these shoes\" is more common than \"to fit these shoes\", as you can see here. Does it have any logic? I want to fit these shoes. I want to try on these shoes.","answer":"I think your question is based on some misconceptions. Firstly, fit has several definitions. One of them, probably the most common, is to conform correctly to the size or shape of Using this sense, we say the shoes fit me. Other definitions include to insert or adjust until correctly in place or to make or adjust to the right shape and size We use this sense like The farrier fitted the shoes to the horse's hoofs. So saying \"I want to fit these shoes\" sounds like \"I wish my feet were appropriately sized for these shoes\", not \"I am going to put on these shoes\", but another interpretation is \"I am going to install these shoes.\" (Shoe also has multiple meanings.) Also, \"to try on\" means to test something to see if it fits, but \"to fit\" (in the sense of \"to install\") is more permanent, and does not mean \"to test\". I wouldn't worry too much about the Ngrams results. You have to interpret the results in context. When I look at some of the results, what I find is a lot of things like Now, what would you think if people said to you, \u201cYou really need to adjust your feet to fit the shoes.\u201d Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just adjust \u2014 or change - the shoes? The whole point of that is that saying \"your feet fit the shoes\" is absurd, and the shoes should fit your feet! Also, because both fit and shoes have multiple meanings, there are a lot of sentences where to fit the shoes can mean something like \"to measure someone for shoes\" or \"to install a metal plate for a brake drum\".","output":"I think your question is based on some misconceptions. Firstly, fit has several definitions. One of them, probably the most common, is to conform correctly to the size or shape of Using this sense, we say the shoes fit me. Other definitions include to insert or adjust until correctly in place or to make or adjust to the right shape and size We use this sense like The farrier fitted the shoes to the horse's hoofs. So saying \"I want to fit these shoes\" sounds like \"I wish my feet were appropriately sized for these shoes\", not \"I am going to put on these shoes\", but another interpretation is \"I am going to install these shoes.\" (Shoe also has multiple meanings.) Also, \"to try on\" means to test something to see if it fits, but \"to fit\" (in the sense of \"to install\") is more permanent, and does not mean \"to test\". I wouldn't worry too much about the Ngrams results. You have to interpret the results in context. When I look at some of the results, what I find is a lot of things like Now, what would you think if people said to you, \u201cYou really need to adjust your feet to fit the shoes.\u201d Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just adjust \u2014 or change - the shoes? The whole point of that is that saying \"your feet fit the shoes\" is absurd, and the shoes should fit your feet! Also, because both fit and shoes have multiple meanings, there are a lot of sentences where to fit the shoes can mean something like \"to measure someone for shoes\" or \"to install a metal plate for a brake drum\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have encountered these expressions today, when I was describing a photo. People are lining up in the picture. I wanted to explain someone who is standing next to the person on the far left. And I started to wonder if there is any difference between 'the person second on the left' and 'the person second to the left'.","question":"I have encountered these expressions today, when I was describing a photo. People are lining up in the picture. I wanted to explain someone who is standing next to the person on the far left. And I started to wonder if there is any difference between 'the person second on the left' and 'the person second to the left'.","answer":"Let's keep this simple. When looking at a picture, the idiomatic expression is: second from the left. = Starting from the left count to the right. By itself, second to the left does not establish a definitive location. A particular point of reference must be specifically identified or clearly understood. Example: Second to my left identifies me as the point of reference. Count to the left of me. A similar problem arises with second on the left. The expression on the left generally implies a particular frame has been divided into two parts: left and right. By itself second on the left creates a mental conflict, since second does not complement on the left. Again: Second on my left identifies me as the dividing line between right and left, allowing the listener to infer accurately the person second to my left.","output":"Let's keep this simple. When looking at a picture, the idiomatic expression is: second from the left. = Starting from the left count to the right. By itself, second to the left does not establish a definitive location. A particular point of reference must be specifically identified or clearly understood. Example: Second to my left identifies me as the point of reference. Count to the left of me. A similar problem arises with second on the left. The expression on the left generally implies a particular frame has been divided into two parts: left and right. By itself second on the left creates a mental conflict, since second does not complement on the left. Again: Second on my left identifies me as the dividing line between right and left, allowing the listener to infer accurately the person second to my left."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"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\nSo, the \"-ist\" suffix is used to denote a person who is related to the word or word root that the \"-ist\" suffix is attached to (e.g. practicing that profession, adhering to that philosophy, etc.) However, when you want to convert it into a noun that describes the pursuit that the \"-ist\" suffix person is engaged in, sometimes you use the \"-ism\" suffix, and sometimes you use the \"-istry\" suffix - a dentist is a person who engages in dentistry, a sophist is someone who engages in sophistry, a terrorist is someone who engages in terrorism, and an antagonist is someone who engages in antagonism. Why do some of these words use the \"-ism\" suffix, and some use the \"-istry\" suffix? Is it something to do with the etymology of the word roots, is it some subtle grammatical or meaning difference, or is it just one of those inconsistent things that the English language does sometimes? I just tried looking on Google, and I can't find anything useful.","question":"So, the \"-ist\" suffix is used to denote a person who is related to the word or word root that the \"-ist\" suffix is attached to (e.g. practicing that profession, adhering to that philosophy, etc.) However, when you want to convert it into a noun that describes the pursuit that the \"-ist\" suffix person is engaged in, sometimes you use the \"-ism\" suffix, and sometimes you use the \"-istry\" suffix - a dentist is a person who engages in dentistry, a sophist is someone who engages in sophistry, a terrorist is someone who engages in terrorism, and an antagonist is someone who engages in antagonism. Why do some of these words use the \"-ism\" suffix, and some use the \"-istry\" suffix? Is it something to do with the etymology of the word roots, is it some subtle grammatical or meaning difference, or is it just one of those inconsistent things that the English language does sometimes? I just tried looking on Google, and I can't find anything useful.","answer":"-istry should not be interpreted as a suffix itself, as it's both -ist and -ery. -ism 1 : a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory 2 : an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief -ist a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc -ery a suffix of nouns denoting occupation, business, calling or condition, place or establishment, goods or products, things collectively, qualities, actions, etc. To answer your question, the distinction would be that -ism would denote a system, or in the given \"Terrorism\" denotes some ideology. And -istry correspondingly an occupation.","output":"-istry should not be interpreted as a suffix itself, as it's both -ist and -ery. -ism 1 : a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory 2 : an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief -ist a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc -ery a suffix of nouns denoting occupation, business, calling or condition, place or establishment, goods or products, things collectively, qualities, actions, etc. To answer your question, the distinction would be that -ism would denote a system, or in the given \"Terrorism\" denotes some ideology. And -istry correspondingly an occupation."}
{"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 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\nThe top gets higher, the more that I climb. It's from a song. Shouldn't it be \"the higher the top gets, the more I climb\"?","question":"The top gets higher, the more that I climb. It's from a song. Shouldn't it be \"the higher the top gets, the more I climb\"?","answer":"No \"The top gets higher, the more that I climb.\" is correct. It means as I make progress, the goal changes and is now farther away.","output":"No \"The top gets higher, the more that I climb.\" is correct. It means as I make progress, the goal changes and is now farther away."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it possible to shorten verbs which consist of more than one part when they are used together? For example, from the first sentence to the second below. I had gone and had seen the city. I had gone and seen the city. Which of the two is corrrect?","question":"Is it possible to shorten verbs which consist of more than one part when they are used together? For example, from the first sentence to the second below. I had gone and had seen the city. I had gone and seen the city. Which of the two is corrrect?","answer":"Both forms are perfectly valid, and the choice is largely a matter of style. The first version places slightly more emphasis on the \"seeing\", so it might be taken to imply the speaker gave more time and attention to sightseeing. The second version slightly conflates the \"going\" and \"seeing\" into a single semantic unit. This might be taken to imply the purpose of going was for sightseeing, an implication which is far weaker in the first version.","output":"Both forms are perfectly valid, and the choice is largely a matter of style. The first version places slightly more emphasis on the \"seeing\", so it might be taken to imply the speaker gave more time and attention to sightseeing. The second version slightly conflates the \"going\" and \"seeing\" into a single semantic unit. This might be taken to imply the purpose of going was for sightseeing, an implication which is far weaker in the first version."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhich of the following is correct? Your grammar is so good. Why do you need a grammar book for? or Your grammar is so good. What do you need a grammar book for?","question":"Which of the following is correct? Your grammar is so good. Why do you need a grammar book for? or Your grammar is so good. What do you need a grammar book for?","answer":"What for is a set phrase meaning: for what purpose or reason (Merriam Webster). Basically it means the same thing as why. You can either say: What do you need a grammar book for? or Why do you need a grammar book? Aside from JR's example in the comments, you can find more example sentences at: LDOCE, Cambridge dictionary or Macmillan. To make the usage of what ... for? clearer, you might ask yourself how would you answer such a question. For instance: Why did you stop at Tom's office? (What did you stop at Tom's office for?) You can reply: I stopped at his office to have a chat about our marketing strategy, but you can also say: I stopped at his office for a chat about our marketing strategy. (BBC Learning English)","output":"What for is a set phrase meaning: for what purpose or reason (Merriam Webster). Basically it means the same thing as why. You can either say: What do you need a grammar book for? or Why do you need a grammar book? Aside from JR's example in the comments, you can find more example sentences at: LDOCE, Cambridge dictionary or Macmillan. To make the usage of what ... for? clearer, you might ask yourself how would you answer such a question. For instance: Why did you stop at Tom's office? (What did you stop at Tom's office for?) You can reply: I stopped at his office to have a chat about our marketing strategy, but you can also say: I stopped at his office for a chat about our marketing strategy. (BBC Learning English)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShould I say Food delivered to your doorsteps or Food delivered at your doorsteps?","question":"Should I say Food delivered to your doorsteps or Food delivered at your doorsteps?","answer":"Delivered to is the more correct usage. If you are saying \"to\" suggesting where the food traveled, e.g. \"It traveled from A to B\", then the food is delivered to B. If you are saying \"to\" suggesting the recipient, e.g. \"It was given to A. Citizen\", then the food is delivered to A. Citizen. Delivered at may be technically correct but sounds wrong in the context you provided. You would say \"delivered at\" when speaking in the broader sense of when\/where the delivery took place rather than the specifics of the delivery itself, e.g. \"The food will be delivered at midday\", \"The food was delivered at the festival\".","output":"Delivered to is the more correct usage. If you are saying \"to\" suggesting where the food traveled, e.g. \"It traveled from A to B\", then the food is delivered to B. If you are saying \"to\" suggesting the recipient, e.g. \"It was given to A. Citizen\", then the food is delivered to A. Citizen. Delivered at may be technically correct but sounds wrong in the context you provided. You would say \"delivered at\" when speaking in the broader sense of when\/where the delivery took place rather than the specifics of the delivery itself, e.g. \"The food will be delivered at midday\", \"The food was delivered at the festival\"."}
{"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\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMy mother used to correct me all the time when I was younger when I would talk about bringing a toy to a friend\u2019s house instead of taking it there. Which is correct, and why?","question":"My mother used to correct me all the time when I was younger when I would talk about bringing a toy to a friend\u2019s house instead of taking it there. Which is correct, and why?","answer":"Your mother is right. It boils down to knowing the definitions of the words. The definition of bring from dictionary.com is: to carry, convey, conduct, or cause (someone or something) to come with, to, or toward the speaker: Bring the suitcase to my house. He brought his brother to my office. Bringing with involves coming to. Taking with involves going away from. When you were talking to your mother, your were going away from her. That is why it was correct to say that you were taking something with you. If your were talking with your friend over the phone, it would be correct to use bringing, because you were going toward him. Bringing or taking is relative to the (future, present, or past) presence or absence of a person at the destination to which something shall be, is, or has been brought or taken. This person is not the bringer\/taker. It could be a person to whom the bringer\/taker tells what bringing or taking he\/she shall do, is doing, or did. It could also be a person who tells to a third person what bringing or taking the bringer\/taker shall do, is doing, or has done. If the person shall be, is, or was present at the destination while the bringer\/taker shall be, is, or was on his\/her way, bring is the appropriate word. If the person shall be, is, or was absent from the destination while the bringer\/taker shall be, is, or was on his\/her way, take is the appropriate word","output":"Your mother is right. It boils down to knowing the definitions of the words. The definition of bring from dictionary.com is: to carry, convey, conduct, or cause (someone or something) to come with, to, or toward the speaker: Bring the suitcase to my house. He brought his brother to my office. Bringing with involves coming to. Taking with involves going away from. When you were talking to your mother, your were going away from her. That is why it was correct to say that you were taking something with you. If your were talking with your friend over the phone, it would be correct to use bringing, because you were going toward him. Bringing or taking is relative to the (future, present, or past) presence or absence of a person at the destination to which something shall be, is, or has been brought or taken. This person is not the bringer\/taker. It could be a person to whom the bringer\/taker tells what bringing or taking he\/she shall do, is doing, or did. It could also be a person who tells to a third person what bringing or taking the bringer\/taker shall do, is doing, or has done. If the person shall be, is, or was present at the destination while the bringer\/taker shall be, is, or was on his\/her way, bring is the appropriate word. If the person shall be, is, or was absent from the destination while the bringer\/taker shall be, is, or was on his\/her way, take is the appropriate word"}
{"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 have difficulty understanding the word 'bastardization' in this sentence I took from a vocabulary-builder app: The movie World War Z is a complete bastardization of the book with little more in common than zombies and a title. Not only do I not understand the meaning of it, but also the usage of the word. By the way, the app gives the synonym 'corruption' and according to Wiktionary (the fifth definition), it means: The creation of an inferior copy or version; corruption, degradation, or debasement. It hasn't enlightened me about its meaning. If I make a correct guess, is it the same way to say, as if someone adapts the story of a film from a novel, but he changes the story drastically? If so, can I use it like this: The Harry Potter franchise is an absolute bastardization of the original books!","question":"I have difficulty understanding the word 'bastardization' in this sentence I took from a vocabulary-builder app: The movie World War Z is a complete bastardization of the book with little more in common than zombies and a title. Not only do I not understand the meaning of it, but also the usage of the word. By the way, the app gives the synonym 'corruption' and according to Wiktionary (the fifth definition), it means: The creation of an inferior copy or version; corruption, degradation, or debasement. It hasn't enlightened me about its meaning. If I make a correct guess, is it the same way to say, as if someone adapts the story of a film from a novel, but he changes the story drastically? If so, can I use it like this: The Harry Potter franchise is an absolute bastardization of the original books!","answer":"Yes, that would be the same. Bastard originally meant a child from outside of marriage. They wouldn't receive the inheritance of their parents. Bastardized, means something that isn't a good representation of the original. It fails to inherit from the original and perhaps came from a tainted source.","output":"Yes, that would be the same. Bastard originally meant a child from outside of marriage. They wouldn't receive the inheritance of their parents. Bastardized, means something that isn't a good representation of the original. It fails to inherit from the original and perhaps came from a tainted source."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n...corporations whose principals told exciting stories to Wall Street, they all got their money. There's some defenitions for the phrase get your money's worth in online dictionaries but I couldn't find any defenition or meaning for \"they got their money\". So could you please explain it to me? Does it mean the shares of corporations whose principals told exciting stories were traded better on Wall Street? The full text is here: When people ask me to help them turn their presentations into stories, I begin by asking questions. I kind of psychoanalyze their companies, and amazing dramas pour out. But most companies and executives sweep the dirty laundry, the diffi culties, the antagonists, and the struggle under the carpet. They prefer to present a rosy\u2014and boring\u2014 picture to the world. But as a storyteller, you want to position the problems in the foreground and then show how you\u2019ve overcome them. When you tell the story of your struggles against real antagonists, your audience sees you as an exciting, dynamic person. And I know that the storytelling method works, because after I consulted with a dozen corporations whose principals told exciting stories to Wall Street, they all got their money. https:\/\/hbr.org\/2003\/06\/storytelling-that-moves-people","question":"...corporations whose principals told exciting stories to Wall Street, they all got their money. There's some defenitions for the phrase get your money's worth in online dictionaries but I couldn't find any defenition or meaning for \"they got their money\". So could you please explain it to me? Does it mean the shares of corporations whose principals told exciting stories were traded better on Wall Street? The full text is here: When people ask me to help them turn their presentations into stories, I begin by asking questions. I kind of psychoanalyze their companies, and amazing dramas pour out. But most companies and executives sweep the dirty laundry, the diffi culties, the antagonists, and the struggle under the carpet. They prefer to present a rosy\u2014and boring\u2014 picture to the world. But as a storyteller, you want to position the problems in the foreground and then show how you\u2019ve overcome them. When you tell the story of your struggles against real antagonists, your audience sees you as an exciting, dynamic person. And I know that the storytelling method works, because after I consulted with a dozen corporations whose principals told exciting stories to Wall Street, they all got their money. https:\/\/hbr.org\/2003\/06\/storytelling-that-moves-people","answer":"They got their money and there was nothing I could do about it. The brothers didn't want anyone finding how they got their money because they didn't want anyone looking into their past. As long as they got their money they wouldn't care whether I was crazy or not. I would venture to say that they got their money simply means they made\/earned some money. Also, I am inclined to think that the expression has a negative connotation: the way they got their money is either dishonest or illegal.","output":"They got their money and there was nothing I could do about it. The brothers didn't want anyone finding how they got their money because they didn't want anyone looking into their past. As long as they got their money they wouldn't care whether I was crazy or not. I would venture to say that they got their money simply means they made\/earned some money. Also, I am inclined to think that the expression has a negative connotation: the way they got their money is either dishonest or illegal."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn one post, a commenter maintained that the phrases \"I did my best\" and \"I did the best I could\" don't mean quite the same thing. If it is true, what is the fine difference between the two?","question":"In one post, a commenter maintained that the phrases \"I did my best\" and \"I did the best I could\" don't mean quite the same thing. If it is true, what is the fine difference between the two?","answer":"I'm the one who made that comment. I am a native English speaker. I will explain what I was thinking, though in preparing this answer I may have talked myself into accepting that there is no difference in meaning. Provided that \"do one's best\" is an idiom, is \"I did the best I could\" a proper phrase to be used at all? I don't see why one phrase being an idiom has anything to do with whether another phrase is \"proper\", but in any case \"I did the best I could\" is a common expression. is there really a fine difference between the two? The two phrases can be used interchangeably. The meaning is very similar, or, arguably, the same: the shared idiomatic meaning is that I tried as hard as I could. The reason I said that they don't mean quite the same thing is that in my experience when someone says \"I did the best I could\", what they mean but aren't saying explicitly is \"I did the best I could in the circumstances\". For example, in preparing dinner I did the best I could with the ingredients available in the refrigerator, but if I'd had time to go to the supermarket I could have bought more ingredients to cook something much nicer. Or in running a race I did the best I could given that I had the flu, but usually I'm a better runner than that. \"I did my best\" can be and often is used in exactly the same way: that in the circumstances I could not have done any better. But sometimes the literal meaning is intended, that the result is the best I am capable of in any circumstances - I have come across this intended meaning occasionally. I have never heard \"I did the best I could\" used to mean the best I'm capable of in any circumstances. So that is the subtle difference that I had in mind. I accept that not everyone will see any difference between the two. As I said at the beginning of my answer, I'm not sure that I see a difference anymore either. The two phrases do feel slightly different to me, but I can't explain that any better than what I've already said. Sorry, I did the best I could...","output":"I'm the one who made that comment. I am a native English speaker. I will explain what I was thinking, though in preparing this answer I may have talked myself into accepting that there is no difference in meaning. Provided that \"do one's best\" is an idiom, is \"I did the best I could\" a proper phrase to be used at all? I don't see why one phrase being an idiom has anything to do with whether another phrase is \"proper\", but in any case \"I did the best I could\" is a common expression. is there really a fine difference between the two? The two phrases can be used interchangeably. The meaning is very similar, or, arguably, the same: the shared idiomatic meaning is that I tried as hard as I could. The reason I said that they don't mean quite the same thing is that in my experience when someone says \"I did the best I could\", what they mean but aren't saying explicitly is \"I did the best I could in the circumstances\". For example, in preparing dinner I did the best I could with the ingredients available in the refrigerator, but if I'd had time to go to the supermarket I could have bought more ingredients to cook something much nicer. Or in running a race I did the best I could given that I had the flu, but usually I'm a better runner than that. \"I did my best\" can be and often is used in exactly the same way: that in the circumstances I could not have done any better. But sometimes the literal meaning is intended, that the result is the best I am capable of in any circumstances - I have come across this intended meaning occasionally. I have never heard \"I did the best I could\" used to mean the best I'm capable of in any circumstances. So that is the subtle difference that I had in mind. I accept that not everyone will see any difference between the two. As I said at the beginning of my answer, I'm not sure that I see a difference anymore either. The two phrases do feel slightly different to me, but I can't explain that any better than what I've already said. Sorry, I did the best I could..."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHere are a few definitions for the word: To steer away from the main topic. To take a walk on a path of topic way off from the intended one.","question":"Here are a few definitions for the word: To steer away from the main topic. To take a walk on a path of topic way off from the intended one.","answer":"I remembered the word while typing the question. digress http:\/\/www.vocabulary.com\/dictionary\/digress","output":"I remembered the word while typing the question. digress http:\/\/www.vocabulary.com\/dictionary\/digress"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\"Utterly disappointed\" comes to mind, but I am also looking for something to include worse than feared, despite hoping for the best. For example, a situation where the expectations are reasonable, but the situation fails to even be understood properly from the beginning yielding to a wholly incorrect result.","question":"\"Utterly disappointed\" comes to mind, but I am also looking for something to include worse than feared, despite hoping for the best. For example, a situation where the expectations are reasonable, but the situation fails to even be understood properly from the beginning yielding to a wholly incorrect result.","answer":"Crestfallen sort of works. Literally: : having a drooping crest or hanging head : feeling shame or humiliation : dejected Commonly used to imply a visage of extreme disappointment.","output":"Crestfallen sort of works. Literally: : having a drooping crest or hanging head : feeling shame or humiliation : dejected Commonly used to imply a visage of extreme disappointment."}
{"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\nDoes the adjective \"different\" have a comparative form? If so what is it?","question":"Does the adjective \"different\" have a comparative form? If so what is it?","answer":"There's no single word, no. Different has three syllables, and English adjectives of three or more syllables (as pronounced, not spelled) must use the periphrastic more or most to form a comparative or superlative phrase. The comparative suffix -er and superlative suffix -est can only inflect adjectives of one syllable, with a few -- mostly ones ending in \/i\/ or \/o\/ -- of two syllables swinging both ways. big: bigger, biggest, *more big, *most big easy: easier, easiest, ?more easy, ??most easy narrow: narrower, narrowest, more narrow, ?most narrow helpful: *helpfuller, *helpfullest, more helpful, most helpful interesting: *interestinger, *interestingest, more interesting, most interesting Just one more example of dying inflections in English. There are only 9 inflectional suffixes in English, and this is two of them, both hanging on only in common monosyllables.","output":"There's no single word, no. Different has three syllables, and English adjectives of three or more syllables (as pronounced, not spelled) must use the periphrastic more or most to form a comparative or superlative phrase. The comparative suffix -er and superlative suffix -est can only inflect adjectives of one syllable, with a few -- mostly ones ending in \/i\/ or \/o\/ -- of two syllables swinging both ways. big: bigger, biggest, *more big, *most big easy: easier, easiest, ?more easy, ??most easy narrow: narrower, narrowest, more narrow, ?most narrow helpful: *helpfuller, *helpfullest, more helpful, most helpful interesting: *interestinger, *interestingest, more interesting, most interesting Just one more example of dying inflections in English. There are only 9 inflectional suffixes in English, and this is two of them, both hanging on only in common monosyllables."}
{"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 feel like \/t\u0259r\/ (\/\u02c8d\u0251\u02d0kt\u0259r\/ doctor or \/\u02c8s\u026ast\u0259r\/ sister) in American Accent sound like \/tr\u0259\/. I couldn't find this info on the internet. It seems that when we curl up the blade of the tongue too soon & that is why they sound like \/\u02c8d\u0251\u02d0ktr\u0259\/ doctor or \/\u02c8s\u026astr\u0259\/ sister. Why does \/t\u0259r\/ (\/\u02c8d\u0251\u02d0kt\u0259r\/ doctor or \/\u02c8s\u026ast\u0259r\/ sister) in American Accent sound like \/tr\u0259\/?","question":"I feel like \/t\u0259r\/ (\/\u02c8d\u0251\u02d0kt\u0259r\/ doctor or \/\u02c8s\u026ast\u0259r\/ sister) in American Accent sound like \/tr\u0259\/. I couldn't find this info on the internet. It seems that when we curl up the blade of the tongue too soon & that is why they sound like \/\u02c8d\u0251\u02d0ktr\u0259\/ doctor or \/\u02c8s\u026astr\u0259\/ sister. Why does \/t\u0259r\/ (\/\u02c8d\u0251\u02d0kt\u0259r\/ doctor or \/\u02c8s\u026ast\u0259r\/ sister) in American Accent sound like \/tr\u0259\/?","answer":"It doesn't. If it did, spectre (pronounced \/\u02c8sp\u025bk.t\u0259\u0279\/ and spectra (pronounced \/\u02c8sp\u025bk.t\u0279\u0259\/) would be exact homophones, and they aren't, although they do sound similar. Similarly, we don't think Dexter and extra are perfect rhymes, although you could get around this in a humorous poem by pronouncing extra as exter. Maybe some aspect of your native language makes them sound the same to you. We usually don't actually say \/\u02c8sp\u025bkt\u0259r\/. We usually use either a syllabic \/r\/ (\/\u0279\u0329\/ in IPA) or a r-colored schwa (\/\u025a\/ in IPA) for \/\u0259r\/, so either way it's only one phone and not two. But spectra is indeed \/\u0279\u0259\/, and I don't usually have any trouble telling these two sounds apart.","output":"It doesn't. If it did, spectre (pronounced \/\u02c8sp\u025bk.t\u0259\u0279\/ and spectra (pronounced \/\u02c8sp\u025bk.t\u0279\u0259\/) would be exact homophones, and they aren't, although they do sound similar. Similarly, we don't think Dexter and extra are perfect rhymes, although you could get around this in a humorous poem by pronouncing extra as exter. Maybe some aspect of your native language makes them sound the same to you. We usually don't actually say \/\u02c8sp\u025bkt\u0259r\/. We usually use either a syllabic \/r\/ (\/\u0279\u0329\/ in IPA) or a r-colored schwa (\/\u025a\/ in IPA) for \/\u0259r\/, so either way it's only one phone and not two. But spectra is indeed \/\u0279\u0259\/, and I don't usually have any trouble telling these two sounds apart."}
{"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\nLet's suppose you've just been hired by Google, so you wanna say that you're very happy to be a part of the team, would you say: \"I'm really happy to be a part of Google's team\"? Is the apostrophe necessary here? Or is there a better way to say the thing?","question":"Let's suppose you've just been hired by Google, so you wanna say that you're very happy to be a part of the team, would you say: \"I'm really happy to be a part of Google's team\"? Is the apostrophe necessary here? Or is there a better way to say the thing?","answer":"Yes, that is fine; I don't think there's a better way to say it. Yes, the apostrophe is necessary. That's the way you show the possessive case. The team belongs to Google, so it's Google's team. You can leave out the article if you wish: I'm really happy to be part of Google's team. Either one is fine.","output":"Yes, that is fine; I don't think there's a better way to say it. Yes, the apostrophe is necessary. That's the way you show the possessive case. The team belongs to Google, so it's Google's team. You can leave out the article if you wish: I'm really happy to be part of Google's team. Either one is fine."}
{"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI heard this on a song. \"a prayer has gone blind\" What does it mean when something abstract \"has gone blind\"? They don't like thanking in the comments. So it goes without saying for all my questions from now on...","question":"I heard this on a song. \"a prayer has gone blind\" What does it mean when something abstract \"has gone blind\"? They don't like thanking in the comments. So it goes without saying for all my questions from now on...","answer":"Here's a link to a few more lines from OP's song... I'm spending my time Watching the sun go down I fall asleep to the sound Of \"tears of a clown\" A prayer gone blind. Here are a couple of hundred written instances of blind prayer, showing it's far from unknown. Relevant definitions to bear in mind are these from OED... In Poker, to go blind : to put up a blind (see blind n. 8); hence to go (a specified stake) blind. Hence applied to forms of Poker in which this is done; so blind hand. blind 8: In Poker, a stake put up by a player before seeing his cards. My guess is that (insofar as these lyrics actually have any precise meaning) the implication is the singer's prayer\/hope\/desire is unlikely to be fulfilled. Obviously a gambler who repeatedly bets blind will win less hands than another player who checks his cards first (and folds if he doesn't have a good hand). In gambling, a player \"betting blind\" may actually end up winning more money even if he wins less games, because the odds are usually more favourable for blind bets if they win. But I doubt that \"optimistic outcome\" sense is implied at all in OP's context. It's really more of a negative allusion to random\/hopeless\/blind chance.","output":"Here's a link to a few more lines from OP's song... I'm spending my time Watching the sun go down I fall asleep to the sound Of \"tears of a clown\" A prayer gone blind. Here are a couple of hundred written instances of blind prayer, showing it's far from unknown. Relevant definitions to bear in mind are these from OED... In Poker, to go blind : to put up a blind (see blind n. 8); hence to go (a specified stake) blind. Hence applied to forms of Poker in which this is done; so blind hand. blind 8: In Poker, a stake put up by a player before seeing his cards. My guess is that (insofar as these lyrics actually have any precise meaning) the implication is the singer's prayer\/hope\/desire is unlikely to be fulfilled. Obviously a gambler who repeatedly bets blind will win less hands than another player who checks his cards first (and folds if he doesn't have a good hand). In gambling, a player \"betting blind\" may actually end up winning more money even if he wins less games, because the odds are usually more favourable for blind bets if they win. But I doubt that \"optimistic outcome\" sense is implied at all in OP's context. It's really more of a negative allusion to random\/hopeless\/blind chance."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am always confused between \"a number of programs\" and \"several programs\" for saying \"many programs\". Google Ngrams show that both are widely used terms. Could someone tell me which one should be used when?","question":"I am always confused between \"a number of programs\" and \"several programs\" for saying \"many programs\". Google Ngrams show that both are widely used terms. Could someone tell me which one should be used when?","answer":"They both mean that more than one thing is involved, but... several indicates a small number: \"more than a few; an indefinite small number\". It falls somewhere between \"a few\" or \"some\", and \"quite a few\". a number of tends to imply more uncertainty, or at least flexibility, about the exact number involved. In other words, you see it in places where the count really does not matter: Problems may be subdivided in any of a number of ways... ...suggested a number of ingenious ways that... But if you put quite in front of it... \"quite a number of\" means that the count really does matter, and you are asserting that there are a lot.","output":"They both mean that more than one thing is involved, but... several indicates a small number: \"more than a few; an indefinite small number\". It falls somewhere between \"a few\" or \"some\", and \"quite a few\". a number of tends to imply more uncertainty, or at least flexibility, about the exact number involved. In other words, you see it in places where the count really does not matter: Problems may be subdivided in any of a number of ways... ...suggested a number of ingenious ways that... But if you put quite in front of it... \"quite a number of\" means that the count really does matter, and you are asserting that there are a lot."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThere are 837 hits in Google Books that use \"there grew a feeling\". Learning those, I made up this: Last year I seldom go home because of work, there grew a feeling that I didn't care about my family. Is it the correct use? How do I convey my wife had that feeling?","question":"There are 837 hits in Google Books that use \"there grew a feeling\". Learning those, I made up this: Last year I seldom go home because of work, there grew a feeling that I didn't care about my family. Is it the correct use? How do I convey my wife had that feeling?","answer":"You may notice that the uses of \"there grew a feeling\" at your link are referring to widespread changes in sentiment, shared by many people. The \"growing\" isn't an increase in the feeling in an individual, but rather that it is spreading to more and more people. I don't think the phrase fits as well when describing a change of sentiment in an individual. Your example sentence would be more natural as \"Last year, because of work, I seldom went home, and my wife started to feel that I didn't care about my family.\"","output":"You may notice that the uses of \"there grew a feeling\" at your link are referring to widespread changes in sentiment, shared by many people. The \"growing\" isn't an increase in the feeling in an individual, but rather that it is spreading to more and more people. I don't think the phrase fits as well when describing a change of sentiment in an individual. Your example sentence would be more natural as \"Last year, because of work, I seldom went home, and my wife started to feel that I didn't care about my family.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm looking for a single word to refer to an abundance of ads\/advertising in a negative way. For example: \"That website is so annoying due to its ___\" or \"If we put any more ads on this page, I'm afraid we'll have ___\" The only possibilities I've come up with so far are phrases, like \"ad overload\" or \"ad blitz\" (the second of which doesn't have a negative connotation anyway). A made-up word with a clear intuitive meaning would also work.","question":"I'm looking for a single word to refer to an abundance of ads\/advertising in a negative way. For example: \"That website is so annoying due to its ___\" or \"If we put any more ads on this page, I'm afraid we'll have ___\" The only possibilities I've come up with so far are phrases, like \"ad overload\" or \"ad blitz\" (the second of which doesn't have a negative connotation anyway). A made-up word with a clear intuitive meaning would also work.","answer":"I think a key question for you is why you're complaining about the ads: Is it because of their visual appearance? Then, as @Cascabel noted, you can use cluttered: Clutter: A condition of disorder, or a lot of objects that are in a state of disorder This certainly has a negative connotation. If you're objecting to the ads solely because of their commercial content, you might want to refer to the impending commercialization or overcommercialization of the site. However, clutter might still work here too (things being in disorder because of unrelated content). Another option is monetization. From Wikipedia (emphasis mine): The term \"monetization\" may also be used informally to refer to exchanging possessions for cash or cash equivalents, including selling a security interest, charging fees for something that used to be free, or attempting to make money on goods or services that were previously unprofitable or had been considered to have the potential to earn profits. And data monetization refers to a spectrum of ways information assets can be converted into economic value. Still another meaning of \"monetization\" denotes the process by which the U.S. Treasury accounts for the face value of outstanding coinage. This procedure can extend even to one-of-a-kind situations such as when the Treasury Department sold an extremely rare 1933 Double Eagle. The coin's nominal value of $20 was added to the final sale price, reflecting the fact that the coin was considered to have been issued into circulation as a result of the transaction. In some industry sectors such as high technology and marketing, monetization is a buzzword for adapting non-revenue-generating assets to generate revenue. Although I'm not sure this term gets across a pejorative sense. In a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, you could also use the old term ad nauseum, as a double entendre: \"That website is so annoying due to its ad nauseum.\" or \"If we put any more ads on this page, I'm afraid we'll have ad nauseum.\" (make sure to accompany these statements with a nod and a wink)","output":"I think a key question for you is why you're complaining about the ads: Is it because of their visual appearance? Then, as @Cascabel noted, you can use cluttered: Clutter: A condition of disorder, or a lot of objects that are in a state of disorder This certainly has a negative connotation. If you're objecting to the ads solely because of their commercial content, you might want to refer to the impending commercialization or overcommercialization of the site. However, clutter might still work here too (things being in disorder because of unrelated content). Another option is monetization. From Wikipedia (emphasis mine): The term \"monetization\" may also be used informally to refer to exchanging possessions for cash or cash equivalents, including selling a security interest, charging fees for something that used to be free, or attempting to make money on goods or services that were previously unprofitable or had been considered to have the potential to earn profits. And data monetization refers to a spectrum of ways information assets can be converted into economic value. Still another meaning of \"monetization\" denotes the process by which the U.S. Treasury accounts for the face value of outstanding coinage. This procedure can extend even to one-of-a-kind situations such as when the Treasury Department sold an extremely rare 1933 Double Eagle. The coin's nominal value of $20 was added to the final sale price, reflecting the fact that the coin was considered to have been issued into circulation as a result of the transaction. In some industry sectors such as high technology and marketing, monetization is a buzzword for adapting non-revenue-generating assets to generate revenue. Although I'm not sure this term gets across a pejorative sense. In a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, you could also use the old term ad nauseum, as a double entendre: \"That website is so annoying due to its ad nauseum.\" or \"If we put any more ads on this page, I'm afraid we'll have ad nauseum.\" (make sure to accompany these statements with a nod and a wink)"}
{"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 found this definition for rise in LDOCE: 3 stand: formal to stand up: Then she picked up her bag and rose to leave. rise from the table\/your chair etc The chairman rose from his chair and came forward to greet her. He put down his glass and rose to his feet. This suggests that \"from\" is the preposition of \"rise.\" Then why \"in\" has been used? Hagrid helped Harry on to the train that would take him back to the Dursleys, then handed him an envelope. \"Yer ticket fer Hogwarts, \" he said. \"First o' September -- King's Cross -- it's all on yer ticket. Any problems with the Dursleys, send me a letter with yer owl, she'll know where to find me.... See yeh soon, Harry.\" The train pulled out of the station. Harry wanted to watch Hagrid until he was out of sight; he rose in his seat and pressed his nose against the window, but he blinked and Hagrid had gone. and one more question: Would it be wrong to use \"onto\" instead of \"on to\" in the bold sentence? What would the difference be in meaning and grammar?","question":"I found this definition for rise in LDOCE: 3 stand: formal to stand up: Then she picked up her bag and rose to leave. rise from the table\/your chair etc The chairman rose from his chair and came forward to greet her. He put down his glass and rose to his feet. This suggests that \"from\" is the preposition of \"rise.\" Then why \"in\" has been used? Hagrid helped Harry on to the train that would take him back to the Dursleys, then handed him an envelope. \"Yer ticket fer Hogwarts, \" he said. \"First o' September -- King's Cross -- it's all on yer ticket. Any problems with the Dursleys, send me a letter with yer owl, she'll know where to find me.... See yeh soon, Harry.\" The train pulled out of the station. Harry wanted to watch Hagrid until he was out of sight; he rose in his seat and pressed his nose against the window, but he blinked and Hagrid had gone. and one more question: Would it be wrong to use \"onto\" instead of \"on to\" in the bold sentence? What would the difference be in meaning and grammar?","answer":"Because he didn't stand up: he didn't rise from (out of) his seat, he raised his body a little bit while still in his seat. He \"moved from a lower position to a higher one\" while still in his seat. rise 1 Move from a lower position to a higher one (Oxford) To be 'in' his seat means to be 'enclosed' within his seat; so one can rise in one's seat by raising or boosting oneself up by several means. One's bottomside does not have to be in contact with the seat bottom to be considered in one's seat. Etiquette might say that, but grammar doesn't I believe the difference between onto\/on to and\/or into\/in to has been covered previously; search for it and if you can't find an answer, ask a new question.","output":"Because he didn't stand up: he didn't rise from (out of) his seat, he raised his body a little bit while still in his seat. He \"moved from a lower position to a higher one\" while still in his seat. rise 1 Move from a lower position to a higher one (Oxford) To be 'in' his seat means to be 'enclosed' within his seat; so one can rise in one's seat by raising or boosting oneself up by several means. One's bottomside does not have to be in contact with the seat bottom to be considered in one's seat. Etiquette might say that, but grammar doesn't I believe the difference between onto\/on to and\/or into\/in to has been covered previously; search for it and if you can't find an answer, ask a new question."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was reading the wiki page about paraprosdokians when I come across this sentence. One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas, how he got in my pajamas, I don't know. What is funny about it?","question":"I was reading the wiki page about paraprosdokians when I come across this sentence. One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas, how he got in my pajamas, I don't know. What is funny about it?","answer":"The default interpretation of the first part of the sentence, \"I shot an elephant in my pajamas\", is that \"while I was wearing my pajamas, I shot an elephant.\" At least 99% of all listeners who hear the sentence will parse it that way. The humorous part comes from the disconnect generated by the second phrase, wherein the initial default interpretation is turned on its head; rather than \"I shot an elephant [while I was] in my pajamas, the speaker forces you to reinterpret it as \"I shot an elephant (who was) in my pajamas.\"","output":"The default interpretation of the first part of the sentence, \"I shot an elephant in my pajamas\", is that \"while I was wearing my pajamas, I shot an elephant.\" At least 99% of all listeners who hear the sentence will parse it that way. The humorous part comes from the disconnect generated by the second phrase, wherein the initial default interpretation is turned on its head; rather than \"I shot an elephant [while I was] in my pajamas, the speaker forces you to reinterpret it as \"I shot an elephant (who was) in my pajamas.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat does the phrase I'm really into it. mean? I think it means the same thing as \"I really like it.\" Is that correct? Why not just say that? Is there a difference in meaning?","question":"What does the phrase I'm really into it. mean? I think it means the same thing as \"I really like it.\" Is that correct? Why not just say that? Is there a difference in meaning?","answer":"The phrase \"I'm really into it\" means that the speaker is very interested in the subject or activity he or she is talking about. Here's an example. I have been playing football for ten years. I am really into it. I am watching a film about World War II. I am really into it. Also, you haven't provided any context in your question so there is a possibility the phrase could mean something else in your case.","output":"The phrase \"I'm really into it\" means that the speaker is very interested in the subject or activity he or she is talking about. Here's an example. I have been playing football for ten years. I am really into it. I am watching a film about World War II. I am really into it. Also, you haven't provided any context in your question so there is a possibility the phrase could mean something else in your case."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nTime magazine (Aug.2) reported that Toledo Mayor instructed city residents not to drink tap water polluted with toxin caused by algae bloom under the headline: Toledo, Ohio without drinking water for second day. \u201cIn a Saturday press conference, Toledo Mayor D. Michael Collins called upon residents to stay calm. 'I don\u2019t believe we\u2019ll ever be back to normal,' he said, the Toledo Blade reports. \u201cBut this is not going to be our new normal. We\u2019re going to fix this. Our city is not going to be abandoned.\u201d http:\/\/time.com\/3074318\/toledo-water\/?xid=newsletter-brief I\u2019m drawn to the line - \u201cI don\u2019t believe we\u2019ll ever be back to normal,\u201d which sounds like to me as if the Mayor doesn\u2019t believe the water will get back to normal. What is the difference between \u201cI don\u2019t believe we\u2019ll ever be back to normal,\u201d which is simple negation and \u201cI don\u2019t believe we\u2019ll never be back to normal,\u201d which is double negation leading to affirmation? Actually, this morning AP news reported that Ohio Governor, John Kasich declaired yesterday that toxin level in the water supply has gone down significantly .","question":"Time magazine (Aug.2) reported that Toledo Mayor instructed city residents not to drink tap water polluted with toxin caused by algae bloom under the headline: Toledo, Ohio without drinking water for second day. \u201cIn a Saturday press conference, Toledo Mayor D. Michael Collins called upon residents to stay calm. 'I don\u2019t believe we\u2019ll ever be back to normal,' he said, the Toledo Blade reports. \u201cBut this is not going to be our new normal. We\u2019re going to fix this. Our city is not going to be abandoned.\u201d http:\/\/time.com\/3074318\/toledo-water\/?xid=newsletter-brief I\u2019m drawn to the line - \u201cI don\u2019t believe we\u2019ll ever be back to normal,\u201d which sounds like to me as if the Mayor doesn\u2019t believe the water will get back to normal. What is the difference between \u201cI don\u2019t believe we\u2019ll ever be back to normal,\u201d which is simple negation and \u201cI don\u2019t believe we\u2019ll never be back to normal,\u201d which is double negation leading to affirmation? Actually, this morning AP news reported that Ohio Governor, John Kasich declaired yesterday that toxin level in the water supply has gone down significantly .","answer":"Double negation is not an issue. What the mayor said was I don\u2019t believe we\u2019ll ever be back to normal There's only one negative in that sentence. And there's only one negative in this sentence, which he didn't say, but which means the same I believe we won\u2019t ever be back to normal I've boldfaced the negatives (don't, won't), as well as the Negative Polarity Item ever. Since ever is an NPI, it's only grammatical inside the scope of a negative. That's why another sentence the mayor didn't say, with no negative at all, is ungrammatical. *I believe we'll ever be back to normal Normally negating a main verb upstairs doesn't count as negating a complement clause downstairs: She didn't say that he was coming \u2260 She said that he wasn't coming. He didn't realize that she was in the room \u2260 He realized that she wasn't in the room This is called \"compositional\" negation, because the negative composes only with the clause it's in. It's the norm with most predicates, as shown above. But there are a number of predicates where compositional negation is not the norm. They're all verbs of mental perception. She didn't believe that he was coming \u2261 She believed that he wasn't coming. He didn't think that she was in the room \u2261 He thought that she wasn't in the room. There doesn't appear to be a problem \u2261 There appears not to be a problem. This phenomenon is called Negative-Raising, and it is governed by these predicates only. Unsurprisingly, these are called \"Neg-Raising Predicates\".","output":"Double negation is not an issue. What the mayor said was I don\u2019t believe we\u2019ll ever be back to normal There's only one negative in that sentence. And there's only one negative in this sentence, which he didn't say, but which means the same I believe we won\u2019t ever be back to normal I've boldfaced the negatives (don't, won't), as well as the Negative Polarity Item ever. Since ever is an NPI, it's only grammatical inside the scope of a negative. That's why another sentence the mayor didn't say, with no negative at all, is ungrammatical. *I believe we'll ever be back to normal Normally negating a main verb upstairs doesn't count as negating a complement clause downstairs: She didn't say that he was coming \u2260 She said that he wasn't coming. He didn't realize that she was in the room \u2260 He realized that she wasn't in the room This is called \"compositional\" negation, because the negative composes only with the clause it's in. It's the norm with most predicates, as shown above. But there are a number of predicates where compositional negation is not the norm. They're all verbs of mental perception. She didn't believe that he was coming \u2261 She believed that he wasn't coming. He didn't think that she was in the room \u2261 He thought that she wasn't in the room. There doesn't appear to be a problem \u2261 There appears not to be a problem. This phenomenon is called Negative-Raising, and it is governed by these predicates only. Unsurprisingly, these are called \"Neg-Raising Predicates\"."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm originally from Wales, now living in the USA, and as the cold weather is approaching I'm determined, this year, to start using the word sweater to describe the item of clothing I'm wearing, as opposed to that which comes much more naturally to me: jumper. It'll save a lot of laughter at my expense if I can manage that. In the USA, a jumper is a shoulder-to-thigh girl's dress, whereas in the UK a jumper is a knitted garment worn over a shirt or tee by either sex. This question has more detailed descriptions. My question is, how did these meanings for 'jumper' evolve so differently? Was there a point when they both referred to the same garment, or do they have two completely separate histories?","question":"I'm originally from Wales, now living in the USA, and as the cold weather is approaching I'm determined, this year, to start using the word sweater to describe the item of clothing I'm wearing, as opposed to that which comes much more naturally to me: jumper. It'll save a lot of laughter at my expense if I can manage that. In the USA, a jumper is a shoulder-to-thigh girl's dress, whereas in the UK a jumper is a knitted garment worn over a shirt or tee by either sex. This question has more detailed descriptions. My question is, how did these meanings for 'jumper' evolve so differently? Was there a point when they both referred to the same garment, or do they have two completely separate histories?","answer":"While the because-they-can-be-jumped-into theory put forward by the WP entry for \"jumper dress\" is very believable, there are a couple of other sources on the net which do not subscribe to it. Firstly, etymonline's entry for jumper reads thusly: The word meaning \"sleeveless dress\" (1853) apparently is from mid-17c. jump \"short coat,\" also \"woman's under bodice,\" of uncertain origin, perhaps from Fr. jupe \"skirt\" (see jupe). Meaning \"sleeveless dress worn over a blouse\" first recorded American English 1939. The linked entry for jupe reads as below: late 13c., \"men's loose jacket,\" from O.Fr. jupe, from Arabic jubbah \"loose outer garment. As a woman's bodice, from 1810. World Wide Words sheds a little light to this odd evolution: Jumper seems to have appeared about the middle of the nineteenth century, originally for what the Oxford English Dictionary describes as \u201cA kind of loose outer jacket or shirt reaching to the hips\u201d, in other words what I would call a fisherman\u2019s smock. The origin has nothing to do with the verb to jump, but comes from the dialect jump or jup, meaning a man\u2019s short coat or a woman\u2019s under-bodice or tunic. This may derive in turn from the French juppe, a petticoat (now in modern French, jupe, \u201cskirt\u201d), which ultimately derived from the Arabic jubba, a loose outer garment. The word has evolved differently in Britain and the US; British usage has moved towards a garment that is specifically woollen, the US towards any upper-body garment for women. This topic has also been covered on word-detective.com albeit with less clarity.","output":"While the because-they-can-be-jumped-into theory put forward by the WP entry for \"jumper dress\" is very believable, there are a couple of other sources on the net which do not subscribe to it. Firstly, etymonline's entry for jumper reads thusly: The word meaning \"sleeveless dress\" (1853) apparently is from mid-17c. jump \"short coat,\" also \"woman's under bodice,\" of uncertain origin, perhaps from Fr. jupe \"skirt\" (see jupe). Meaning \"sleeveless dress worn over a blouse\" first recorded American English 1939. The linked entry for jupe reads as below: late 13c., \"men's loose jacket,\" from O.Fr. jupe, from Arabic jubbah \"loose outer garment. As a woman's bodice, from 1810. World Wide Words sheds a little light to this odd evolution: Jumper seems to have appeared about the middle of the nineteenth century, originally for what the Oxford English Dictionary describes as \u201cA kind of loose outer jacket or shirt reaching to the hips\u201d, in other words what I would call a fisherman\u2019s smock. The origin has nothing to do with the verb to jump, but comes from the dialect jump or jup, meaning a man\u2019s short coat or a woman\u2019s under-bodice or tunic. This may derive in turn from the French juppe, a petticoat (now in modern French, jupe, \u201cskirt\u201d), which ultimately derived from the Arabic jubba, a loose outer garment. The word has evolved differently in Britain and the US; British usage has moved towards a garment that is specifically woollen, the US towards any upper-body garment for women. This topic has also been covered on word-detective.com albeit with less clarity."}
{"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":"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\nFirst, I'm aware of this question: \"Let's\" vs. \"lets\": which is correct? What I want to know is if there are other similar constructions formed by contracting a verb with \"us\".","question":"First, I'm aware of this question: \"Let's\" vs. \"lets\": which is correct? What I want to know is if there are other similar constructions formed by contracting a verb with \"us\".","answer":"No there are no other contractions of words with us in the above specified form as in other contexts contractions ending with 's refer to contraction for is, has or does which is very informal and hence rarely seen. Let us is a special case that is used in forming the imperative mood in first person singular for Let us. Here is the link to the reference in case you wish to find further clarifications. Hope this helps. :)","output":"No there are no other contractions of words with us in the above specified form as in other contexts contractions ending with 's refer to contraction for is, has or does which is very informal and hence rarely seen. Let us is a special case that is used in forming the imperative mood in first person singular for Let us. Here is the link to the reference in case you wish to find further clarifications. Hope this helps. :)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe closest I've found is objectual, but depending on the source, that may not be an actual word. For example, if I were to refer to an author's use of symbolism via objects I would say something like: The author is fond of ____ symbolism.","question":"The closest I've found is objectual, but depending on the source, that may not be an actual word. For example, if I were to refer to an author's use of symbolism via objects I would say something like: The author is fond of ____ symbolism.","answer":"Given that nouns can modify other nouns in so-called noun premodifier constructions, you might just go with object, as in The author is fond of object symbolism. Here are some examples where the phrase \"object symbolism\" is used: This volume offers a number of new insights into the use of object symbolism Romanticism and the Object, by L. Peer and A philosopher who has considered object symbolism in a particularly profound way is Gaston Bachelard Symbolic Action Theory and Cultural Psychology, by Ernest E. Boesch Further, here are some relatively common phrases in which the noun object modifies another noun: object recognition object knowledge object permanence object manipulation object work","output":"Given that nouns can modify other nouns in so-called noun premodifier constructions, you might just go with object, as in The author is fond of object symbolism. Here are some examples where the phrase \"object symbolism\" is used: This volume offers a number of new insights into the use of object symbolism Romanticism and the Object, by L. Peer and A philosopher who has considered object symbolism in a particularly profound way is Gaston Bachelard Symbolic Action Theory and Cultural Psychology, by Ernest E. Boesch Further, here are some relatively common phrases in which the noun object modifies another noun: object recognition object knowledge object permanence object manipulation object work"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIf a comma belongs next to a coordinating conjunction, it should precede (see Should I use a comma before \"and\" or \"or\"?, https:\/\/owl.purdue.edu\/owl\/general_writing\/punctuation\/commas\/extended_rules_for_commas.html). However, many of published research articles I've viewed as a psychology student, and I believe the majority of my textbooks, frequently place the comma after a coordinating conjunction. It's extremely frustrating; it's difficult to read, because I pause in the wrong place. This affects my efficiency, and my comprehension. Why is this so common? Many are recognized authors and doctorate level researchers, and this error along with their credentials leaves me baffled. I've found this error to be committed mostly by researchers, not by authors of other materials (history, philosophy, theology, etc.) To quote my first link, which contains these: I hit my brother with a stick, and he cried. The rain stopped, and the sun came out again. The books and articles I read would have written them as: I hit my brother with a stick and, he cried. The rain stopped and, the sun came out again. I was asked to provide example sources where this has been an issue. Specific examples from the Criminal Behavior textbook (mentioned below): One of the most notorious examples of a crime that wasn't is the case of O.J. Simpson and the 1994 murder of his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. O.J. Simpson was charged and tried for the crime and, after a year-long highly publicized (and televised) trial, received a verdict of \"not guilty.\" (p. 14) Individuals who do not feel discomfort do not respond appropriately to punishment or threats of punishment and, as a result, are not effectively deterred from engaging in antisocial behavior. (p. 76) Psychotic offenders are out of touch with reality and, although most are not violent, may commit crime when they fail to take their medication. (p. 104) Psychopaths are unable to shift attention from carrying out a behavior to evaluating behavior and, once fixated on a goal, are unable to stop or change their behavior in response to nonsalient stimuli (e.g., recognition of long-term consequences). (p. 131) Even in prison, sex offenders are the lowest on the offender hierarchy and, as a result, are victimized and aggressively targeted by other offenders (Sabo, Kupers, & London, 200 1; see Box 6.1). Sex offending occurs when vulnerable individuals experience stress, proximate risk factors (such as mental illness, substance use, exposure to pornography) and, from a routine activities perspective, are in close proximity to an available victim in the absence of guardians and social controls. (p. 234-235) In Babiak and Hare's (2006) Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (as cited in Criminal Behavior: Theories, Typologies and Criminal Justice 1st Edition) They abuse coworkers and, by lowering morale and stirring up conflict, the company itself. Some may even steal and defraud. (Babiak & Hare, 2006, p. xiv) Here are three books, which I no longer own, but I'm pretty sure they were great examples of this problem: Criminal Behavior: Theories, Typologies and Criminal Justice 1st Edition Cognitive Psychology 1st Edition -- by J. April Park, W. Trey Hill Development Across the Life Span (8th Edition) An example article: doi:10.1037\/ppm0000128","question":"If a comma belongs next to a coordinating conjunction, it should precede (see Should I use a comma before \"and\" or \"or\"?, https:\/\/owl.purdue.edu\/owl\/general_writing\/punctuation\/commas\/extended_rules_for_commas.html). However, many of published research articles I've viewed as a psychology student, and I believe the majority of my textbooks, frequently place the comma after a coordinating conjunction. It's extremely frustrating; it's difficult to read, because I pause in the wrong place. This affects my efficiency, and my comprehension. Why is this so common? Many are recognized authors and doctorate level researchers, and this error along with their credentials leaves me baffled. I've found this error to be committed mostly by researchers, not by authors of other materials (history, philosophy, theology, etc.) To quote my first link, which contains these: I hit my brother with a stick, and he cried. The rain stopped, and the sun came out again. The books and articles I read would have written them as: I hit my brother with a stick and, he cried. The rain stopped and, the sun came out again. I was asked to provide example sources where this has been an issue. Specific examples from the Criminal Behavior textbook (mentioned below): One of the most notorious examples of a crime that wasn't is the case of O.J. Simpson and the 1994 murder of his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. O.J. Simpson was charged and tried for the crime and, after a year-long highly publicized (and televised) trial, received a verdict of \"not guilty.\" (p. 14) Individuals who do not feel discomfort do not respond appropriately to punishment or threats of punishment and, as a result, are not effectively deterred from engaging in antisocial behavior. (p. 76) Psychotic offenders are out of touch with reality and, although most are not violent, may commit crime when they fail to take their medication. (p. 104) Psychopaths are unable to shift attention from carrying out a behavior to evaluating behavior and, once fixated on a goal, are unable to stop or change their behavior in response to nonsalient stimuli (e.g., recognition of long-term consequences). (p. 131) Even in prison, sex offenders are the lowest on the offender hierarchy and, as a result, are victimized and aggressively targeted by other offenders (Sabo, Kupers, & London, 200 1; see Box 6.1). Sex offending occurs when vulnerable individuals experience stress, proximate risk factors (such as mental illness, substance use, exposure to pornography) and, from a routine activities perspective, are in close proximity to an available victim in the absence of guardians and social controls. (p. 234-235) In Babiak and Hare's (2006) Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (as cited in Criminal Behavior: Theories, Typologies and Criminal Justice 1st Edition) They abuse coworkers and, by lowering morale and stirring up conflict, the company itself. Some may even steal and defraud. (Babiak & Hare, 2006, p. xiv) Here are three books, which I no longer own, but I'm pretty sure they were great examples of this problem: Criminal Behavior: Theories, Typologies and Criminal Justice 1st Edition Cognitive Psychology 1st Edition -- by J. April Park, W. Trey Hill Development Across the Life Span (8th Edition) An example article: doi:10.1037\/ppm0000128","answer":"None of the real-world examples you give are grammatically incorrect. For instance, the first example you give is: One of the most notorious examples of a crime that wasn't is the case of O.J. Simpson and the 1994 murder of his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. O.J. Simpson was charged and tried for the crime and, after a year-long highly publicized (and televised) trial, received a verdict of \"not guilty.\" Presumably, you are referring to the comma before \"after a year-long ...\". This is quite different from the example you give of \"I hit my brother with a stick, and he cried.\" In \"I hit my brother with a stick, and he cried.\", \"and\" is coordinating between \"I hit my brother with a stick\" and \"he cried\". In the example you give, however, \"and\" is coordinating between \"O.J. Simpson was charged and tried for the crime\" and \"[O.J. Simpson] received a verdict of 'not guilty'\". The phrase \"after a year-long highly publicized (and televised trial)\" is an adverbial phrase modifying the verb \"received\". So unlike your example of \"I hit my brother with a stick, and he cried\", what follows \"and\" is not the clause being coordinated, but an adverbial phrase that is modifying the verb in the coordinated clause. By setting this phrase off with comma, the writer is basically saying \"hey, I know I just wrote a coordinating conjunction, and so you'll be expecting the clause that's being coordinated, but I'm just letting you know that the next phrase you read isn't going to be that clause\". Furthermore, this is an introductory adverb, and those should be followed by a comma. For instance, if you say \"Last Tuesday, I ate a bagel\", there's a comma after \"Last Tuesday\" because it's an adverbial phrase placed before the verb it modifies. If it were instead \"I ate a bagel last Tuesday\", a comma would not be appropriate. This is discussed in the second rule in the owl.purdue.edu link you provided. The page also says in rule 3 \"Use a pair of commas in the middle of a sentence to set off clauses, phrases, and words that are not essential to the meaning of the sentence.\" The phrase \"after a year-long highly publicized (and televised) trial\" is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.","output":"None of the real-world examples you give are grammatically incorrect. For instance, the first example you give is: One of the most notorious examples of a crime that wasn't is the case of O.J. Simpson and the 1994 murder of his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. O.J. Simpson was charged and tried for the crime and, after a year-long highly publicized (and televised) trial, received a verdict of \"not guilty.\" Presumably, you are referring to the comma before \"after a year-long ...\". This is quite different from the example you give of \"I hit my brother with a stick, and he cried.\" In \"I hit my brother with a stick, and he cried.\", \"and\" is coordinating between \"I hit my brother with a stick\" and \"he cried\". In the example you give, however, \"and\" is coordinating between \"O.J. Simpson was charged and tried for the crime\" and \"[O.J. Simpson] received a verdict of 'not guilty'\". The phrase \"after a year-long highly publicized (and televised trial)\" is an adverbial phrase modifying the verb \"received\". So unlike your example of \"I hit my brother with a stick, and he cried\", what follows \"and\" is not the clause being coordinated, but an adverbial phrase that is modifying the verb in the coordinated clause. By setting this phrase off with comma, the writer is basically saying \"hey, I know I just wrote a coordinating conjunction, and so you'll be expecting the clause that's being coordinated, but I'm just letting you know that the next phrase you read isn't going to be that clause\". Furthermore, this is an introductory adverb, and those should be followed by a comma. For instance, if you say \"Last Tuesday, I ate a bagel\", there's a comma after \"Last Tuesday\" because it's an adverbial phrase placed before the verb it modifies. If it were instead \"I ate a bagel last Tuesday\", a comma would not be appropriate. This is discussed in the second rule in the owl.purdue.edu link you provided. The page also says in rule 3 \"Use a pair of commas in the middle of a sentence to set off clauses, phrases, and words that are not essential to the meaning of the sentence.\" The phrase \"after a year-long highly publicized (and televised) trial\" is not essential to the meaning of the sentence."}
{"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\nWe call a piece of music with voice a song. What do we call a piece of music without voice? We sing a song but play a XXX.","question":"We call a piece of music with voice a song. What do we call a piece of music without voice? We sing a song but play a XXX.","answer":"The term is \"instrumental\". (music) Pertaining to, made by, or prepared for, an instrument, especially a musical instrument; as, instrumental music, distinguished from vocal music. From wikipedia, An instrumental is a musical composition or recording without lyrics or singing, although it might include some non-articulate vocal input; the music is primarily or exclusively produced by musical instruments. However, it doesn't fit well grammatically in your example sentence, which is understandable. One \"sings a song\" but one would not say he or she \"plays an instrumental\", unless it was somehow important that you distinguish the fact that you're excluding voice. Musicians would more likely not make the distinction that the piece has vocals or not, and say: I am playing a song. (informal use of the word \"song\" includes any musical piece) I am playing a piece. (mostly used for classical) I am playing a tune. (mostly used for jazz and pop) I am playing a number. (mostly used for jazz)","output":"The term is \"instrumental\". (music) Pertaining to, made by, or prepared for, an instrument, especially a musical instrument; as, instrumental music, distinguished from vocal music. From wikipedia, An instrumental is a musical composition or recording without lyrics or singing, although it might include some non-articulate vocal input; the music is primarily or exclusively produced by musical instruments. However, it doesn't fit well grammatically in your example sentence, which is understandable. One \"sings a song\" but one would not say he or she \"plays an instrumental\", unless it was somehow important that you distinguish the fact that you're excluding voice. Musicians would more likely not make the distinction that the piece has vocals or not, and say: I am playing a song. (informal use of the word \"song\" includes any musical piece) I am playing a piece. (mostly used for classical) I am playing a tune. (mostly used for jazz and pop) I am playing a number. (mostly used for jazz)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm very confused about this sentence. Can anyone explain it to me in detail? I don't want to know how you did it.","question":"I'm very confused about this sentence. Can anyone explain it to me in detail? I don't want to know how you did it.","answer":"Grammar The Subject of the sentence is the pronoun \"I\". The Predicate is: don't want to know how you did it. The Head of the verb phrase is the word don't, which is contraction of the dummy auxiliary verb do and the negative particle not. This takes as its Complement the verb phrase: want to know how you do it. The Head of this verb phrase is the verb want. The word want takes as its Complement the infinitival clause: to know how you did it. The Head of his phrase, depending on your grammar, is probably the verb know (some writers would argue the Head is the word to). The word to in this case is a subordinator which marks know how you did it as subordinate. The verb know takes as its Complement the interrogative finite clause: how you did it. The Subject of this clause is the pronoun you. The Head of the clause is the verb did. The Direct Object is the pronoun it. The clause has an Adjunct, the interrogative adverb how, which has been fronted to the beginning of the clause. The verb want is a control verb. This means that if there is no expressed Subject of the following infinitive clause, we understand the Subject of want to be the Subject of the following infinitive. So the sentence can be interpreted like this: I don't want [ (me) to know how you did it ]. Meaning Suppose the listener has done something. Maybe they stole some jewels from a museum and nobody caught them. To do something like this, the listener would need to use some kind of plan or method. This is what is expressed by: how you did it. The word how refers to the method used. The speaker is telling the listener \"I do not want to know the method!\". Of course we don't know what the listener actually did. It might be something quite boring.","output":"Grammar The Subject of the sentence is the pronoun \"I\". The Predicate is: don't want to know how you did it. The Head of the verb phrase is the word don't, which is contraction of the dummy auxiliary verb do and the negative particle not. This takes as its Complement the verb phrase: want to know how you do it. The Head of this verb phrase is the verb want. The word want takes as its Complement the infinitival clause: to know how you did it. The Head of his phrase, depending on your grammar, is probably the verb know (some writers would argue the Head is the word to). The word to in this case is a subordinator which marks know how you did it as subordinate. The verb know takes as its Complement the interrogative finite clause: how you did it. The Subject of this clause is the pronoun you. The Head of the clause is the verb did. The Direct Object is the pronoun it. The clause has an Adjunct, the interrogative adverb how, which has been fronted to the beginning of the clause. The verb want is a control verb. This means that if there is no expressed Subject of the following infinitive clause, we understand the Subject of want to be the Subject of the following infinitive. So the sentence can be interpreted like this: I don't want [ (me) to know how you did it ]. Meaning Suppose the listener has done something. Maybe they stole some jewels from a museum and nobody caught them. To do something like this, the listener would need to use some kind of plan or method. This is what is expressed by: how you did it. The word how refers to the method used. The speaker is telling the listener \"I do not want to know the method!\". Of course we don't know what the listener actually did. It might be something quite boring."}
{"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":"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\nPreface: This question applies only to writing, which lacks the benefits of nonverbal communication which would resolve this problem. Example: Your lawyer remembers your remembrance that she cannot do something (eg: She can advise only on real estate law, and not trust law in which she is inexperienced.). However, her excessive caution causes her to keep reminding you redundantly. How do you most tactfully inform her that she need not remind you? My attempts below all sound impolite. Please do not repeat it. Problem: This sounds too authoritative, even with 'please'. Please, (there is) no need to repeat it. Problem: This sounds as though her reminders have dispirited and fatigued you. Please do not worry about repeating it. Problem: My own experiences attest and prove this ineffective; the other parties rebut me by insisting that they are not 'worried', and then repeat it anyways to my annoyance.","question":"Preface: This question applies only to writing, which lacks the benefits of nonverbal communication which would resolve this problem. Example: Your lawyer remembers your remembrance that she cannot do something (eg: She can advise only on real estate law, and not trust law in which she is inexperienced.). However, her excessive caution causes her to keep reminding you redundantly. How do you most tactfully inform her that she need not remind you? My attempts below all sound impolite. Please do not repeat it. Problem: This sounds too authoritative, even with 'please'. Please, (there is) no need to repeat it. Problem: This sounds as though her reminders have dispirited and fatigued you. Please do not worry about repeating it. Problem: My own experiences attest and prove this ineffective; the other parties rebut me by insisting that they are not 'worried', and then repeat it anyways to my annoyance.","answer":"How about this: \"Yes, I remember that from the last time you told me.\" You're not exactly telling the person to stop (which is where the rudeness comes in), but you're conveying the sentiment that the information doesn't need to be repeated anymore.","output":"How about this: \"Yes, I remember that from the last time you told me.\" You're not exactly telling the person to stop (which is where the rudeness comes in), but you're conveying the sentiment that the information doesn't need to be repeated anymore."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"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\nEverything has broken right for England at this World Cup. It sauntered through a top-heavy group with Belgium, conveniently dropping its final game against the Red Devils in a barely-contested 1-0 loss. Because that put the unappreciated but savvy England manager Gareth Southgate and his team in the soft half of the incredibly lopsided knockout stage bracket. I saw the paragraph here. There are a few things that I don't understand from the paragraph. \"sauntered through a top-heavy group with Belgium\": What does a top-heavy group mean? Is that top-heavy group referring to Belgium? \"conveniently dropping its final game against the Red Devils in a barely-contested 1-0 loss\": Who lost? England or Belgium? \"Because that put the unappreciated but savvy England manager Gareth Southgate and his team in the soft half of the incredibly lopsided knockout stage bracket.\": This doesn't look like a complete sentence. What does it mean \"in the soft half of the incredibly lopsided knockout stage bracket\"?","question":"Everything has broken right for England at this World Cup. It sauntered through a top-heavy group with Belgium, conveniently dropping its final game against the Red Devils in a barely-contested 1-0 loss. Because that put the unappreciated but savvy England manager Gareth Southgate and his team in the soft half of the incredibly lopsided knockout stage bracket. I saw the paragraph here. There are a few things that I don't understand from the paragraph. \"sauntered through a top-heavy group with Belgium\": What does a top-heavy group mean? Is that top-heavy group referring to Belgium? \"conveniently dropping its final game against the Red Devils in a barely-contested 1-0 loss\": Who lost? England or Belgium? \"Because that put the unappreciated but savvy England manager Gareth Southgate and his team in the soft half of the incredibly lopsided knockout stage bracket.\": This doesn't look like a complete sentence. What does it mean \"in the soft half of the incredibly lopsided knockout stage bracket\"?","answer":"1) In the English language, a top-heavy organization has a relatively high amount of powerful members. A top-heavy group in football has more than one strong team involved. In the World Cup, England is in a group with Belgium and Tunisia and Panama. Since England and Belgium are very strong teams, the whole group is thus referred to as top-heavy, meaning it has a large amount of strong teams. 2) \"conveniently dropping its last game\". This is an ADVERB phrase, which modifies the verb \"sauntered\" (means walking through). Who did the sauntering? The subject (It) sauntered, which refers to \"England\". So England dropped the last game against Belgium, which means England lost. 3) This is indeed an incomplete sentence, you are totally right, since there is the subordinating conjunction because, which requires two clauses (before and after the word). Only one is present. Second of all, the knockout bracket is, in football terms, the division of the qualified teams into two halves. The teams in each half play one another until one team is left from each half to face off in the finals. Lopsided means unbalanced, where one side of the bracket is full of strong teams(Brazil, Belgium, France, Uruguay, Argentina, Portugal). The other side of the bracket is relatively easier (England, Croatia, Spain, Sweden). England are in the easier side of the bracket, because of their loss to Belgium, hence they are in the SOFT half of an unbalanced separation. Hope this helps, glad to clarify anything that isn't clear in my answer!!","output":"1) In the English language, a top-heavy organization has a relatively high amount of powerful members. A top-heavy group in football has more than one strong team involved. In the World Cup, England is in a group with Belgium and Tunisia and Panama. Since England and Belgium are very strong teams, the whole group is thus referred to as top-heavy, meaning it has a large amount of strong teams. 2) \"conveniently dropping its last game\". This is an ADVERB phrase, which modifies the verb \"sauntered\" (means walking through). Who did the sauntering? The subject (It) sauntered, which refers to \"England\". So England dropped the last game against Belgium, which means England lost. 3) This is indeed an incomplete sentence, you are totally right, since there is the subordinating conjunction because, which requires two clauses (before and after the word). Only one is present. Second of all, the knockout bracket is, in football terms, the division of the qualified teams into two halves. The teams in each half play one another until one team is left from each half to face off in the finals. Lopsided means unbalanced, where one side of the bracket is full of strong teams(Brazil, Belgium, France, Uruguay, Argentina, Portugal). The other side of the bracket is relatively easier (England, Croatia, Spain, Sweden). England are in the easier side of the bracket, because of their loss to Belgium, hence they are in the SOFT half of an unbalanced separation. Hope this helps, glad to clarify anything that isn't clear in my answer!!"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"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 phrase: Don't read the books that you don't really like. Can I change it to the following one? Those books that you don't really like, don't read. My primary interest is technical writing. Still, even in technical writing, I would to avoid phrases that sound too weird.","question":"Here is a phrase: Don't read the books that you don't really like. Can I change it to the following one? Those books that you don't really like, don't read. My primary interest is technical writing. Still, even in technical writing, I would to avoid phrases that sound too weird.","answer":"Those books that you don't really like, don't read them. It's possible but casual, not suitable for technical language. It would be okay in speech. Structurally this is two sentences. The first is a reduced sentence composed of a single noun phrase. This is equivalent to a complete sentence like: I'm referring to those books that you don really like. The second sentence is a short imperative that uses the pronoun \"them\" to refer to the noun phrase mentioned in the reduced first part. I've then spliced the sentences together with a comma, because we're being casual here. Rhetorically this makes sense: you name the thing that the person needs to think about and then the instruction is short and punchy. The initial phrase could have question intonation asking \"Do you know those books?\"","output":"Those books that you don't really like, don't read them. It's possible but casual, not suitable for technical language. It would be okay in speech. Structurally this is two sentences. The first is a reduced sentence composed of a single noun phrase. This is equivalent to a complete sentence like: I'm referring to those books that you don really like. The second sentence is a short imperative that uses the pronoun \"them\" to refer to the noun phrase mentioned in the reduced first part. I've then spliced the sentences together with a comma, because we're being casual here. Rhetorically this makes sense: you name the thing that the person needs to think about and then the instruction is short and punchy. The initial phrase could have question intonation asking \"Do you know those books?\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have a question about the usage of plural in mathematics in the following context. Suppose we have functions f1, f2, \u22ef. Which of these sentences is correct (if any)? Among the functions fi's there is no repetition. Among the functions fi there is no repetition. Among the functions fi's there are no repetitions. Among the functions fi there are no repetitions. The focus is on whether I should use 's or not. Also, is or are.","question":"I have a question about the usage of plural in mathematics in the following context. Suppose we have functions f1, f2, \u22ef. Which of these sentences is correct (if any)? Among the functions fi's there is no repetition. Among the functions fi there is no repetition. Among the functions fi's there are no repetitions. Among the functions fi there are no repetitions. The focus is on whether I should use 's or not. Also, is or are.","answer":"You can think of \"fi\" as shorthand for the list of individual functions \"f1, f2, ..., fn, ...\" Understood as such, the correct sentence would be: Among the functions fi there are no repetitions. This would be a shorthand for: Among the functions f1, f2, ..., fn, ... there are no repetitions. Notice the plural \"functions\" and the use of the plural verb \"are\". Alternatively (and maybe less standardly), you could think of \"fi\" as a kind of count noun which applies to every function in the list. Understood as such, the correct sentence would be: Among the fi's there are no repetitions. Normally, you would not use an apostrophe in a pluralization. But you can get away with using the apostrophe here (even though it is not indicating possession), just like you can get away with using it to make a pluralization for something like a letter, as in: There are two a's in the word actual. The apostrophe is needed to forestall confusion. I don't think there is hard and fast rule about which is the right way to view the mathematical convention of using \"fi\". Your best bet is to pick one way of understanding it and stick to it. Or else forget about it entirely and just say: Among the functions there are no repetitions. After all, why muddy the page with needless formalism?","output":"You can think of \"fi\" as shorthand for the list of individual functions \"f1, f2, ..., fn, ...\" Understood as such, the correct sentence would be: Among the functions fi there are no repetitions. This would be a shorthand for: Among the functions f1, f2, ..., fn, ... there are no repetitions. Notice the plural \"functions\" and the use of the plural verb \"are\". Alternatively (and maybe less standardly), you could think of \"fi\" as a kind of count noun which applies to every function in the list. Understood as such, the correct sentence would be: Among the fi's there are no repetitions. Normally, you would not use an apostrophe in a pluralization. But you can get away with using the apostrophe here (even though it is not indicating possession), just like you can get away with using it to make a pluralization for something like a letter, as in: There are two a's in the word actual. The apostrophe is needed to forestall confusion. I don't think there is hard and fast rule about which is the right way to view the mathematical convention of using \"fi\". Your best bet is to pick one way of understanding it and stick to it. Or else forget about it entirely and just say: Among the functions there are no repetitions. After all, why muddy the page with needless formalism?"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat does \"busted\" mean in this context? He also possesses a glass eye, an ear for heavy metal, and a busted internal radar. In reference to character Michael Burry from the movie \"The Big Short\".","question":"What does \"busted\" mean in this context? He also possesses a glass eye, an ear for heavy metal, and a busted internal radar. In reference to character Michael Burry from the movie \"The Big Short\".","answer":"It's a slang term, but in this case it means broken or defective. Adjective busted \u200e(comparative more busted, superlative most busted) (slang) Broken. Source: Wiktionary.org It should also be noted that the term 'internal radar' here is used in the figurative sense: Noun radar \u200e(countable and uncountable, plural radars) (countable, figuratively) A superior ability to detect something. His sensitive radar for hidden alliances keeps him out of trouble. Source: Wiktionary.org So the whole phrase 'busted internal radar' refers to the characters inability to detect something that may be obvious to others.","output":"It's a slang term, but in this case it means broken or defective. Adjective busted \u200e(comparative more busted, superlative most busted) (slang) Broken. Source: Wiktionary.org It should also be noted that the term 'internal radar' here is used in the figurative sense: Noun radar \u200e(countable and uncountable, plural radars) (countable, figuratively) A superior ability to detect something. His sensitive radar for hidden alliances keeps him out of trouble. Source: Wiktionary.org So the whole phrase 'busted internal radar' refers to the characters inability to detect something that may be obvious to others."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"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\nI called Home Depot to reserve some wood. This is my exact requirement: 2\" x 9\/2\" x 8ft. I told them over the phone many times \"I am calling to make sure if you have four 2 inch times 9 inch divided by 2 inch times 8 feet board.\" and yet they don't seem to understand, and they want me to go there and talk to them. What am I doing wrong? How am I supposed to pronounce this so it is easy for the workers to understand?","question":"I called Home Depot to reserve some wood. This is my exact requirement: 2\" x 9\/2\" x 8ft. I told them over the phone many times \"I am calling to make sure if you have four 2 inch times 9 inch divided by 2 inch times 8 feet board.\" and yet they don't seem to understand, and they want me to go there and talk to them. What am I doing wrong? How am I supposed to pronounce this so it is easy for the workers to understand?","answer":"See also How do you pronounce 2\u00d74 (board) As in linked question you say \u00d7 as \"by\" The fraction 9\/2 in this context is never read as \"nine divided by two\" but as \"four point five\" or \"four and a half\" So the 2\" x 9\/2\" x 8ft is \"two-inch by four-and-a-half-inch by eight-foot\" This is not a board, its a post, or a length of timber. I want to buy some timber, Do you have two inch by four point five inch posts. 8 feet long. It doesn't need to be treated or planed. In fact it is best to take this step by step engaging in conversation I want to buy some timber. Ok, are you looking for treated wood for the garden No, it is to replace some interior studwork. Okay what size do you need? two inch by four point five inch. Yes we have that, how long? eight foot. By breaking it down you get time for the other person to process, to ask the questions that they think are important, to check at each stage.","output":"See also How do you pronounce 2\u00d74 (board) As in linked question you say \u00d7 as \"by\" The fraction 9\/2 in this context is never read as \"nine divided by two\" but as \"four point five\" or \"four and a half\" So the 2\" x 9\/2\" x 8ft is \"two-inch by four-and-a-half-inch by eight-foot\" This is not a board, its a post, or a length of timber. I want to buy some timber, Do you have two inch by four point five inch posts. 8 feet long. It doesn't need to be treated or planed. In fact it is best to take this step by step engaging in conversation I want to buy some timber. Ok, are you looking for treated wood for the garden No, it is to replace some interior studwork. Okay what size do you need? two inch by four point five inch. Yes we have that, how long? eight foot. By breaking it down you get time for the other person to process, to ask the questions that they think are important, to check at each stage."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've found this definition of triage: \"The process of sorting people based on their need for immediate medical treatment as compared to their chance of benefiting from such care.\" So I can understand that triaging an issue list means giving some priorities to the items and sorting the list. But what does triaging an issue mean? Giving it a low priority or the other way round? I suppose the former but haven't found any evidence for it. All the dictionaries I've found deal with triaging some set only.","question":"I've found this definition of triage: \"The process of sorting people based on their need for immediate medical treatment as compared to their chance of benefiting from such care.\" So I can understand that triaging an issue list means giving some priorities to the items and sorting the list. But what does triaging an issue mean? Giving it a low priority or the other way round? I suppose the former but haven't found any evidence for it. All the dictionaries I've found deal with triaging some set only.","answer":"\"Triage\" also has this meaning: the determination of priorities for action in an emergency. So, if I was to triage an issue, I would just determine how important this issue was, whether it is an urgent matter, then on the basis of my diagnosis, put this issue on a list, based on its importance.","output":"\"Triage\" also has this meaning: the determination of priorities for action in an emergency. So, if I was to triage an issue, I would just determine how important this issue was, whether it is an urgent matter, then on the basis of my diagnosis, put this issue on a list, based on its importance."}
{"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\nDo these phrases convey the same meaning? Is an informed guess by definition, also, an educated guess?","question":"Do these phrases convey the same meaning? Is an informed guess by definition, also, an educated guess?","answer":"I would treat these terms as synonymous. Both \"informed\" and \"educated\" work to establish the speaker as having some kind of privileged knowledge rendering the guess in question as being more reliable than not. We could, I suppose, try to parse the difference between the two qualifiers as having some slight nuance but that would be pushing the envelope.","output":"I would treat these terms as synonymous. Both \"informed\" and \"educated\" work to establish the speaker as having some kind of privileged knowledge rendering the guess in question as being more reliable than not. We could, I suppose, try to parse the difference between the two qualifiers as having some slight nuance but that would be pushing the envelope."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow is \"from the top\" synonymous to \"from square one\"? According to the dictionary, it means \"from the beginning\", but I don't see any valid entry for \"redesigned from the top\", which means \"redesigned from square one\". We say things like \"redesigned from the top down\" and other phrases that have completely different meaning? Is there a reason why \"from the top\" is never used in the way we use \"from square one\"?","question":"How is \"from the top\" synonymous to \"from square one\"? According to the dictionary, it means \"from the beginning\", but I don't see any valid entry for \"redesigned from the top\", which means \"redesigned from square one\". We say things like \"redesigned from the top down\" and other phrases that have completely different meaning? Is there a reason why \"from the top\" is never used in the way we use \"from square one\"?","answer":"According to the idiom dictionary: from the top From the very beginning. Used in reference to the performance of something, especially a song. No, no, no\u2014you're still coming in too early with that high note, James. Let's take it again from the top, everyone! I think this is a much fuller definition. \"From the top\" sounds like it comes from \"from the top of the page\". Since music or plays are written out on paper, to start from the beginning of a song\/play\/scene, one would start performing from the top of the page. This would be in contrast to starting in the middle or towards the end which would not be at the top of the the symbolic page. This phrase is especially used during rehearsal of such performances, where one may be practicing a specific (difficult) portion of a scene. Once that portion is sufficiently practiced, a director would ask to see the scene\/song\/etc. from the top to see if the performers are able to integrate what they practiced into the larger performance. \"From square one\" relates to to entry in dictionary for \"back to square one\" back to square one Back to the very first stage of something; returned to an initial starting point. If someone is back to square one or back at square one, they have failed completely in what they were trying to do, and now have to start again. Negotiations have broken down, and it's back to square one. This idiom is used to refer to the beginning of processes and not the beginning of performances. It is similar to \"back to the drawing board\", and indicates that the speaker has failed something and now must restart some process. It is reminiscent of a board game, where pieces progress through the game by proceeding through a sequence of squares, and may have to start their progress over by start back at the first square. One example of its usage could be someone trying to figure out what day of the week all 5 of their friends can get together. If they had confirmed with 4 of the friends on a day, time, and location, but then the fifth friend isn't free that day ... then they have to start their planning all over. They are back at square one or have to start from square one.","output":"According to the idiom dictionary: from the top From the very beginning. Used in reference to the performance of something, especially a song. No, no, no\u2014you're still coming in too early with that high note, James. Let's take it again from the top, everyone! I think this is a much fuller definition. \"From the top\" sounds like it comes from \"from the top of the page\". Since music or plays are written out on paper, to start from the beginning of a song\/play\/scene, one would start performing from the top of the page. This would be in contrast to starting in the middle or towards the end which would not be at the top of the the symbolic page. This phrase is especially used during rehearsal of such performances, where one may be practicing a specific (difficult) portion of a scene. Once that portion is sufficiently practiced, a director would ask to see the scene\/song\/etc. from the top to see if the performers are able to integrate what they practiced into the larger performance. \"From square one\" relates to to entry in dictionary for \"back to square one\" back to square one Back to the very first stage of something; returned to an initial starting point. If someone is back to square one or back at square one, they have failed completely in what they were trying to do, and now have to start again. Negotiations have broken down, and it's back to square one. This idiom is used to refer to the beginning of processes and not the beginning of performances. It is similar to \"back to the drawing board\", and indicates that the speaker has failed something and now must restart some process. It is reminiscent of a board game, where pieces progress through the game by proceeding through a sequence of squares, and may have to start their progress over by start back at the first square. One example of its usage could be someone trying to figure out what day of the week all 5 of their friends can get together. If they had confirmed with 4 of the friends on a day, time, and location, but then the fifth friend isn't free that day ... then they have to start their planning all over. They are back at square one or have to start from square one."}
{"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 know that if do come between the pronoun and the verb, it makes the verb stronger. Does it work the same if it came before the verb. This is the text: Only after the trucks have passed through my street and the people quiet down do I go home. When I get there, I am confused to find my whole family packing.","question":"I know that if do come between the pronoun and the verb, it makes the verb stronger. Does it work the same if it came before the verb. This is the text: Only after the trucks have passed through my street and the people quiet down do I go home. When I get there, I am confused to find my whole family packing.","answer":"Only often triggers \"inversion\", where the subject and verb switch places. A simpler example of that might be: Only later are we told why. (meaning \"We aren't told why until later\"), with \"are we\" instead of \"we are\". In your example, this involves inserting do, exactly the same as in questions: When do I go home? Incidentally, this inversion is not specific to only, but also happens with various other negative and negative-like adverbs: Never have so many birds been seen in one place. Rarely do they disagree about anything important. Nowhere else are pencils more expensive than bicycles.","output":"Only often triggers \"inversion\", where the subject and verb switch places. A simpler example of that might be: Only later are we told why. (meaning \"We aren't told why until later\"), with \"are we\" instead of \"we are\". In your example, this involves inserting do, exactly the same as in questions: When do I go home? Incidentally, this inversion is not specific to only, but also happens with various other negative and negative-like adverbs: Never have so many birds been seen in one place. Rarely do they disagree about anything important. Nowhere else are pencils more expensive than bicycles."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs there anything wrong with saying the following? My interest in Japan cultivated many years ago after taking part in ..... I initially used the verb stemmed as I want to indicate that it began after taking part in '...', but I was told it did not make sense.","question":"Is there anything wrong with saying the following? My interest in Japan cultivated many years ago after taking part in ..... I initially used the verb stemmed as I want to indicate that it began after taking part in '...', but I was told it did not make sense.","answer":"I think you have to say \"My interest in Japan was cultivated many [...]\". If you use only the word \"cultivate\", that would be the active version. For instance, you would say \"I have cultivated my friends interest in politics\" to express that YOU made him care about it. You however want to express that your interest was cultivated and thereby grew bigger, not that your interest cultivated something.","output":"I think you have to say \"My interest in Japan was cultivated many [...]\". If you use only the word \"cultivate\", that would be the active version. For instance, you would say \"I have cultivated my friends interest in politics\" to express that YOU made him care about it. You however want to express that your interest was cultivated and thereby grew bigger, not that your interest cultivated something."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCan anyone help me identify a proper word for a person or persons living in poverty? I'm looking for a noun that satisfies the description, which isn't just an adjective turned noun (ex. the poor).","question":"Can anyone help me identify a proper word for a person or persons living in poverty? I'm looking for a noun that satisfies the description, which isn't just an adjective turned noun (ex. the poor).","answer":"Indigent is a formal word to name poor people. Indigent(adj.) needy; poor; impoverished. The indigent(n.) [plural; used with a plural verb] people who are indigent. For example, a desire to do something for the indigent. You also have the badly off.","output":"Indigent is a formal word to name poor people. Indigent(adj.) needy; poor; impoverished. The indigent(n.) [plural; used with a plural verb] people who are indigent. For example, a desire to do something for the indigent. You also have the badly off."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the meaning of the following passage? I don\u2019t know what your odds are in the world as a whole, but as far as the population of this car goes? You\u2019re a veritable Mack Daddy.","question":"What is the meaning of the following passage? I don\u2019t know what your odds are in the world as a whole, but as far as the population of this car goes? You\u2019re a veritable Mack Daddy.","answer":"As Thursagen cited, a \"mack daddy\" is very good with the ladies, a womanizer, etc. Throughout the episode, Leonard has been hoping to start a relationship with Penny, and so far has failed. In the car with Howard the pervert, Raj the nervous mute, and Sheldon, he is the male with the best shot at a relationship with Penny. The quote boils down to: compared to all the other men in the world, Leonard has no chance with Penny, but compared only to the men in the car, his success is almost certain.","output":"As Thursagen cited, a \"mack daddy\" is very good with the ladies, a womanizer, etc. Throughout the episode, Leonard has been hoping to start a relationship with Penny, and so far has failed. In the car with Howard the pervert, Raj the nervous mute, and Sheldon, he is the male with the best shot at a relationship with Penny. The quote boils down to: compared to all the other men in the world, Leonard has no chance with Penny, but compared only to the men in the car, his success is almost certain."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen \"man\" is used as a general pronoun for humans, which gender (female, or male) does it have? For example, how should the following statement be corrected? Today\u2019s man, besides the physical world with which he has been accompanied since his creation and been accustomed to its circumstances, has stepped into a new world named cyber space, which has different characteristics. Is he -used in the quote- satisfy both men and women? Or should I use something like he\/she?","question":"When \"man\" is used as a general pronoun for humans, which gender (female, or male) does it have? For example, how should the following statement be corrected? Today\u2019s man, besides the physical world with which he has been accompanied since his creation and been accustomed to its circumstances, has stepped into a new world named cyber space, which has different characteristics. Is he -used in the quote- satisfy both men and women? Or should I use something like he\/she?","answer":"If you are using \"man\" to refer to humanity in general -- in other words, men, women, and children -- then you can use \"he\" as the corresponding pronoun. In this usage, \"he\" is not gender-specific. Unfortunately, this usage is ambiguous. Unless the context is very clear that \"man\" refers to humanity in general, most listeners will subconsciously imagine men (not women) as the subjects of the sentence. Constantly saying \"he or she\", \"(s)he\", \"he\/she\", or \"she\/he\/it\" is very awkward. \"He or she\" is sometimes used in legal documents. \"She\/he\/it\" has a nasty (mis-)pronunciation. In longer (non-legal) works, a viable approach is to have different people in different paragraphs or situations. Some of the people can be male, and some can be female. As A.Beth explains, sometimes \"you can have examples to clarify things, and you can switch up the genders there.\" For example: Alan sends an e-mail to Betty, copying Carl. Betty checks the e-mail, makes her annotations, and sends it to Carl, copying Alan.","output":"If you are using \"man\" to refer to humanity in general -- in other words, men, women, and children -- then you can use \"he\" as the corresponding pronoun. In this usage, \"he\" is not gender-specific. Unfortunately, this usage is ambiguous. Unless the context is very clear that \"man\" refers to humanity in general, most listeners will subconsciously imagine men (not women) as the subjects of the sentence. Constantly saying \"he or she\", \"(s)he\", \"he\/she\", or \"she\/he\/it\" is very awkward. \"He or she\" is sometimes used in legal documents. \"She\/he\/it\" has a nasty (mis-)pronunciation. In longer (non-legal) works, a viable approach is to have different people in different paragraphs or situations. Some of the people can be male, and some can be female. As A.Beth explains, sometimes \"you can have examples to clarify things, and you can switch up the genders there.\" For example: Alan sends an e-mail to Betty, copying Carl. Betty checks the e-mail, makes her annotations, and sends it to Carl, copying Alan."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\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\nI was trying to write a formal email to my manager stating that the change controls are put on hold. For 'put on hold', I meant that the change controls are on 'hold' status and are no more processed. So what is the correct usage - 'Put on hold' or 'kept on hold'.","question":"I was trying to write a formal email to my manager stating that the change controls are put on hold. For 'put on hold', I meant that the change controls are on 'hold' status and are no more processed. So what is the correct usage - 'Put on hold' or 'kept on hold'.","answer":"\"Put on hold\" means the action of putting on hold and it refers to an instance of time when \"that thing\" was put on hold. e.g. Moderator has put the question on hold for its fuzzy context. \"Kept on hold\" refers to the duration of time after it was \"put on hold\" to the time it will be taken \"out of hold\" e.g. Moderator is keeping the question on hold until the context is made more clear.","output":"\"Put on hold\" means the action of putting on hold and it refers to an instance of time when \"that thing\" was put on hold. e.g. Moderator has put the question on hold for its fuzzy context. \"Kept on hold\" refers to the duration of time after it was \"put on hold\" to the time it will be taken \"out of hold\" e.g. Moderator is keeping the question on hold until the context is made more clear."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am preparing for the IELTS writing test. Can I use idioms in this test? For example, \"it's not all its cracked up to be\" or something like \"I bend over backwards to help them, but they try to put me down more often then not\".","question":"I am preparing for the IELTS writing test. Can I use idioms in this test? For example, \"it's not all its cracked up to be\" or something like \"I bend over backwards to help them, but they try to put me down more often then not\".","answer":"Idioms are a major (and for non-natives, sometimes confounding) part of English language. A measured use of them would help to demonstrate your English writing skill. However, knowing exactly when and how to use an idiom naturally really can be tricky for a non-native speaker, so when you do decide to use an idiom in your writing, make sure that it fits well the context within which you're using it. If you have learned an idiom but aren't confident about its appropriate usage, leave it out of your writing (IELTS and similar tests are not a good time for experimentation).","output":"Idioms are a major (and for non-natives, sometimes confounding) part of English language. A measured use of them would help to demonstrate your English writing skill. However, knowing exactly when and how to use an idiom naturally really can be tricky for a non-native speaker, so when you do decide to use an idiom in your writing, make sure that it fits well the context within which you're using it. If you have learned an idiom but aren't confident about its appropriate usage, leave it out of your writing (IELTS and similar tests are not a good time for experimentation)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the difference between the words \"spruce\" and \"fir\" (or even \"fir tree\")? Could they be used interchangeably, for example, when referring to a kind of evergreen trees people decorate on Christmas and New Year holidays? EDIT (more details about the roots of question): I've had a conversation with my North American friend about species of trees that are symbols of the holidays in different cultures and was confused about discovering that in some dictionaries both \"spruce\" and \"fir\" could be translated similarly into Russian. Thanks to @TimRomano and @deadrat, I see now that those are clearly distinguished species from the botany point of view. Therefore, let me narrow the question down a little. When you want to say \"Christmas tree\", but more specifically in terms of a kind of the tree, could you say, for instance: Christmas fir (spruce) is the symbol of Christmas in this country. Or it sounds unnatural as the phrase and better to say something like: They use fir trees as Christmas trees in their country.","question":"What is the difference between the words \"spruce\" and \"fir\" (or even \"fir tree\")? Could they be used interchangeably, for example, when referring to a kind of evergreen trees people decorate on Christmas and New Year holidays? EDIT (more details about the roots of question): I've had a conversation with my North American friend about species of trees that are symbols of the holidays in different cultures and was confused about discovering that in some dictionaries both \"spruce\" and \"fir\" could be translated similarly into Russian. Thanks to @TimRomano and @deadrat, I see now that those are clearly distinguished species from the botany point of view. Therefore, let me narrow the question down a little. When you want to say \"Christmas tree\", but more specifically in terms of a kind of the tree, could you say, for instance: Christmas fir (spruce) is the symbol of Christmas in this country. Or it sounds unnatural as the phrase and better to say something like: They use fir trees as Christmas trees in their country.","answer":"Spruce and fir are different species and are distinguished by different physical characteristics as noted here. To tell spruce and fir trees apart, it helps to know that spruce needles are sharply pointed, square and easy to roll between your fingers. Fir needles, on the other hand, are softer, flat and cannot be rolled between your fingers. Spruce needles are attached to small, stalk-like woody projections. When needles are shed, these projections remain. As a result, the branches of spruce trees feel rough. Fir branches lack these projections, and thus have smooth bark. Spruce and fir are distinguished from pine species in that the latter have their needles attached in clusters and the former don't. The term conifer (cone bearing) covers all three. All of this is likely of interest only to arborolgists. It's hard to imagine that if you announce that you're decorating your Christmas tree that anyone would ask, \"Is it an Ables grandis or a Picea orientalis? (That is, fir or spruce?)","output":"Spruce and fir are different species and are distinguished by different physical characteristics as noted here. To tell spruce and fir trees apart, it helps to know that spruce needles are sharply pointed, square and easy to roll between your fingers. Fir needles, on the other hand, are softer, flat and cannot be rolled between your fingers. Spruce needles are attached to small, stalk-like woody projections. When needles are shed, these projections remain. As a result, the branches of spruce trees feel rough. Fir branches lack these projections, and thus have smooth bark. Spruce and fir are distinguished from pine species in that the latter have their needles attached in clusters and the former don't. The term conifer (cone bearing) covers all three. All of this is likely of interest only to arborolgists. It's hard to imagine that if you announce that you're decorating your Christmas tree that anyone would ask, \"Is it an Ables grandis or a Picea orientalis? (That is, fir or spruce?)"}
{"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\nHow do I say that something \"contains a lot of content\" with a single word? Is there an English word for this statement? something \u2014 may be a text, an article, a blog post contains a lot of content \u2014 contains good, new information that is usable for users a lot \u2014 is only about quantity, not about \"a wide variety of types\" or anything like that.","question":"How do I say that something \"contains a lot of content\" with a single word? Is there an English word for this statement? something \u2014 may be a text, an article, a blog post contains a lot of content \u2014 contains good, new information that is usable for users a lot \u2014 is only about quantity, not about \"a wide variety of types\" or anything like that.","answer":"A number of words might be suitable, depending on the context. They include copious, abundant, lavish, rich, extensive, ample, overflowing, bountiful and profuse.","output":"A number of words might be suitable, depending on the context. They include copious, abundant, lavish, rich, extensive, ample, overflowing, bountiful and profuse."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was helping my brother study for the SAT, and we came across this sentence: While it was different from all the other classes he had taken, Eric was unhappy with his psychology class. The answer was that there are no errors in that sentence. But my brother thinks that the noun following the comma should be consistent with the \"it\" in the first clause. I have come across sentences of this form in the works of well-known writers, but I do not know how to explain to him why this is correct.","question":"I was helping my brother study for the SAT, and we came across this sentence: While it was different from all the other classes he had taken, Eric was unhappy with his psychology class. The answer was that there are no errors in that sentence. But my brother thinks that the noun following the comma should be consistent with the \"it\" in the first clause. I have come across sentences of this form in the works of well-known writers, but I do not know how to explain to him why this is correct.","answer":"It's always a mistake to think of grammar as involving commas and words following them. Grammar is clauses and phrases and predicates; there are no commas in language, only in writing. In this case, there are two clauses: ((Eric's) psychology class) was different from the other classes (that) (Eric) had taken (Eric) was unhappy with ((Eric's) psychology class) The pieces in parentheses are either deletable markers (like relative that) or noun phrases that can be replaced by pronouns (like he, his, and it) in the appropriate circumstances. The problem is what the appropriate circumstances are for pronominalization, and that's what this question tests. Pronouns always refer to someone or something that's obvious in context. When the context consists of only one sentence, the word denoting the person or thing (called the \"antecedent\") must be in the same sentence as the pronoun in order to be obvious. But not just anywhere in that sentence. As the word antecedent (Latin for 'going before') suggests, normally the antecedent is spoken before the pronoun. He likes Eric's psychology class is a perfectly good sentence, provided he doesn't refer to Eric; otherwise it's garbage. Switch them and it's fine. But this sentence has two clauses: sentence 2 is the main clause, and sentence 1 is a subordinate clause; this makes a difference for pronoun usage. If the antecedent is in the main clause, and the pronoun is in a clause subordinate to the main clause, then a pronoun can come before its antecedent. For example, consider some simpler sentences: Before Marilyn became president I knew her. I knew Marilyn before she became president. Before she became president I knew Marilyn. *I knew her before Marilyn became president. The first three are fine; in the first two, the antecedent (Marilyn) comes before the pronoun (her or she). In the third, the antecedent is in the main clause but the pronoun is in a subordinate clause, so even though the pronoun precedes its antecedent, it's OK. That's the same structure as the SAT sentence, and that's why the answer says there is no mistake. But the fourth one is ungrammatical (that's what the asterisk indicates), because the pronoun is in the main clause and it precedes its antecedent, which is in a subordinate clause. So the SAT question tests whether you know the rule that distinguishes the third OK case from the fourth ungrammatical case.","output":"It's always a mistake to think of grammar as involving commas and words following them. Grammar is clauses and phrases and predicates; there are no commas in language, only in writing. In this case, there are two clauses: ((Eric's) psychology class) was different from the other classes (that) (Eric) had taken (Eric) was unhappy with ((Eric's) psychology class) The pieces in parentheses are either deletable markers (like relative that) or noun phrases that can be replaced by pronouns (like he, his, and it) in the appropriate circumstances. The problem is what the appropriate circumstances are for pronominalization, and that's what this question tests. Pronouns always refer to someone or something that's obvious in context. When the context consists of only one sentence, the word denoting the person or thing (called the \"antecedent\") must be in the same sentence as the pronoun in order to be obvious. But not just anywhere in that sentence. As the word antecedent (Latin for 'going before') suggests, normally the antecedent is spoken before the pronoun. He likes Eric's psychology class is a perfectly good sentence, provided he doesn't refer to Eric; otherwise it's garbage. Switch them and it's fine. But this sentence has two clauses: sentence 2 is the main clause, and sentence 1 is a subordinate clause; this makes a difference for pronoun usage. If the antecedent is in the main clause, and the pronoun is in a clause subordinate to the main clause, then a pronoun can come before its antecedent. For example, consider some simpler sentences: Before Marilyn became president I knew her. I knew Marilyn before she became president. Before she became president I knew Marilyn. *I knew her before Marilyn became president. The first three are fine; in the first two, the antecedent (Marilyn) comes before the pronoun (her or she). In the third, the antecedent is in the main clause but the pronoun is in a subordinate clause, so even though the pronoun precedes its antecedent, it's OK. That's the same structure as the SAT sentence, and that's why the answer says there is no mistake. But the fourth one is ungrammatical (that's what the asterisk indicates), because the pronoun is in the main clause and it precedes its antecedent, which is in a subordinate clause. So the SAT question tests whether you know the rule that distinguishes the third OK case from the fourth ungrammatical case."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"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\nAs I understand it, English's use of \"yes\" and \"no\" are distinct from \"true\" and \"false\". Does arXiV not host papers on biology? Can be replied with either: Yes (arXiV does host papers on biology). No (arXiV does not host papers on biology). But both answers seem uninformative when a question contains \"yet\": Have you yet to dine? Would \"yes\" mean that one has already dined? Or that one has yet to dine? Would \"no\" mean that one has not yet dined? Or that no, one has already dined? Apart from the archaic sentence construction, what is missing\/wrong about how I understand \"yes\"\/\"no\" in English?","question":"As I understand it, English's use of \"yes\" and \"no\" are distinct from \"true\" and \"false\". Does arXiV not host papers on biology? Can be replied with either: Yes (arXiV does host papers on biology). No (arXiV does not host papers on biology). But both answers seem uninformative when a question contains \"yet\": Have you yet to dine? Would \"yes\" mean that one has already dined? Or that one has yet to dine? Would \"no\" mean that one has not yet dined? Or that no, one has already dined? Apart from the archaic sentence construction, what is missing\/wrong about how I understand \"yes\"\/\"no\" in English?","answer":"\"Yet to\" is indeed a kind of negative (note that it takes negative polarity items such as \"any\"). Your problem with Yes and No is a general problem with negative questions in English. Unlike French and German, we haven't a word that means \"Yes, contrary to your suggestion or question\", so \"yes\" and \"no\" are in general ambiguous in response to a negative question. [\"Yet\" on its own is quite different from \"yet to\": it is not a negator, but it is a negative polarity item].","output":"\"Yet to\" is indeed a kind of negative (note that it takes negative polarity items such as \"any\"). Your problem with Yes and No is a general problem with negative questions in English. Unlike French and German, we haven't a word that means \"Yes, contrary to your suggestion or question\", so \"yes\" and \"no\" are in general ambiguous in response to a negative question. [\"Yet\" on its own is quite different from \"yet to\": it is not a negator, but it is a negative polarity item]."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI know the meaning of the word quite and how to use it in most of the cases. Yet, when it comes to negatives I am in a state of uncertainty. For example: I\u2019m not quite right. And I\u2019m completely wrong. Are they equivalent? Do they mean exactly the same thing? I don\u2019t think so. I\u2019d say that 1. implies that I\u2019m wrong but not completely while 2. leaves no room for any rightness, but I\u2019m not sure if I\u2019m getting it right. The dictionaries don\u2019t explain about its usage with negatives, they simply say in definition #2 and #4: (not used with a negative) However, I have tried to use with a negative: Ngram viewer and it returned a lot of hits which I don\u2019t know to interpret. Would you enlighten me please?","question":"I know the meaning of the word quite and how to use it in most of the cases. Yet, when it comes to negatives I am in a state of uncertainty. For example: I\u2019m not quite right. And I\u2019m completely wrong. Are they equivalent? Do they mean exactly the same thing? I don\u2019t think so. I\u2019d say that 1. implies that I\u2019m wrong but not completely while 2. leaves no room for any rightness, but I\u2019m not sure if I\u2019m getting it right. The dictionaries don\u2019t explain about its usage with negatives, they simply say in definition #2 and #4: (not used with a negative) However, I have tried to use with a negative: Ngram viewer and it returned a lot of hits which I don\u2019t know to interpret. Would you enlighten me please?","answer":"If you are \"quite wrong\" about something, you are very wrong (dead wrong) about it. He was \"quite sick\" means he was very ill. To say \"I'm quite content\" means, \"I'm very satisfied with how things are going\". In those senses, \"quite\" is an emphatic. But if you are \"not quite right\" about something, you are not entirely correct about it, although there may be some truth in what you have said or in what you think. If there's something \"not quite right\" about a piece of pie, say, it has a slightly bad taste or a weird texture, perhaps. It is difficult to say exactly what is wrong with it. Maybe there was some dish soap residue on the pie pan. In those senses, \"not quite\" qualifies the assertion, that is, it limits it in some way or makes it less emphatic.","output":"If you are \"quite wrong\" about something, you are very wrong (dead wrong) about it. He was \"quite sick\" means he was very ill. To say \"I'm quite content\" means, \"I'm very satisfied with how things are going\". In those senses, \"quite\" is an emphatic. But if you are \"not quite right\" about something, you are not entirely correct about it, although there may be some truth in what you have said or in what you think. If there's something \"not quite right\" about a piece of pie, say, it has a slightly bad taste or a weird texture, perhaps. It is difficult to say exactly what is wrong with it. Maybe there was some dish soap residue on the pie pan. In those senses, \"not quite\" qualifies the assertion, that is, it limits it in some way or makes it less emphatic."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"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":"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 am looking for a word that incorporates all, or most, of the following (when referring to a sentence or a piece of technical literature): Highly academic Not useful (despite being technically correct) Overly verbose\/eloquent Superfluous (to be honest, this seems to incorporate the rest, but I want to see if there is a better word here) Sample sentence (I hear it's required): There are many ____ white-paper definitions which only serve to dazzle the reader with the author's purported intelligence.","question":"I am looking for a word that incorporates all, or most, of the following (when referring to a sentence or a piece of technical literature): Highly academic Not useful (despite being technically correct) Overly verbose\/eloquent Superfluous (to be honest, this seems to incorporate the rest, but I want to see if there is a better word here) Sample sentence (I hear it's required): There are many ____ white-paper definitions which only serve to dazzle the reader with the author's purported intelligence.","answer":"The two most common, apart from Lux's pretentious, are going to be pedantic in the manner of a pedant, hence a. excessively concerned with minutiae. b. needlessly displaying academic learning. and pompous (originally) characterized by pomp and splendor. (now the primary sense) affectedly solemn and self-important. You'd use the first if the important aspect was how unimportant the information being shared was, the later if you wanted to emphasize the (undeserved) self-importance with which it was being shared. Since scholars have been writing for ages and this kind of behavior was, if anything, more common during the era when all scholars were monks, there are absolute scads of synonyms for variants and subvarieties. Some, like precious, could be considered gendered slurs; others, like bookish or nerdy, may not be taken as negative at all in our present culture. Two of my favorites are mumpsimus and sumpsimus.","output":"The two most common, apart from Lux's pretentious, are going to be pedantic in the manner of a pedant, hence a. excessively concerned with minutiae. b. needlessly displaying academic learning. and pompous (originally) characterized by pomp and splendor. (now the primary sense) affectedly solemn and self-important. You'd use the first if the important aspect was how unimportant the information being shared was, the later if you wanted to emphasize the (undeserved) self-importance with which it was being shared. Since scholars have been writing for ages and this kind of behavior was, if anything, more common during the era when all scholars were monks, there are absolute scads of synonyms for variants and subvarieties. Some, like precious, could be considered gendered slurs; others, like bookish or nerdy, may not be taken as negative at all in our present culture. Two of my favorites are mumpsimus and sumpsimus."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"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\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"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\nIf this sentence is correct, so what is subject? But to start it probably helps to have an understanding of what a 404 page actually is. I think the subject is \"To start it probably\".","question":"If this sentence is correct, so what is subject? But to start it probably helps to have an understanding of what a 404 page actually is. I think the subject is \"To start it probably\".","answer":"The subject is it. This is called a prop it or dummy it (or a few other names). It's there because the sentence needs to have a subject, and an obvious one fails to present itself. It's precisely the same kind of it as in these sentences: It rains most of the time in the spring. It is a nice day today. It goes without saying that the winner wins. It is difficult to remember the last time that happened. For more information, see this page. Edit: I see that you're getting confused by To start in your sentence. The sentence is clearer if you add a comma: But to start, it probably helps to have an understanding of what a 404 page actually is. This has this meaning: But as an initial concern, it probably helps to have an understanding of what a 404 page actually is. Have a look at these: The car is out of gas. To start it, we will need to get more gas. The car is out of gas. If we want to get it running, then, to start, we will need to get more gas. After that, we'll need to put the gas in the tank. Once we do that, we can start the car again. In your sentence, to start has a meaning similar to the one in my second example. It doesn't have the meaning of to start in my first example. I believe you're confusing the two. For some further clarification, see the comments.","output":"The subject is it. This is called a prop it or dummy it (or a few other names). It's there because the sentence needs to have a subject, and an obvious one fails to present itself. It's precisely the same kind of it as in these sentences: It rains most of the time in the spring. It is a nice day today. It goes without saying that the winner wins. It is difficult to remember the last time that happened. For more information, see this page. Edit: I see that you're getting confused by To start in your sentence. The sentence is clearer if you add a comma: But to start, it probably helps to have an understanding of what a 404 page actually is. This has this meaning: But as an initial concern, it probably helps to have an understanding of what a 404 page actually is. Have a look at these: The car is out of gas. To start it, we will need to get more gas. The car is out of gas. If we want to get it running, then, to start, we will need to get more gas. After that, we'll need to put the gas in the tank. Once we do that, we can start the car again. In your sentence, to start has a meaning similar to the one in my second example. It doesn't have the meaning of to start in my first example. I believe you're confusing the two. For some further clarification, see the comments."}
{"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\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nPresident Trumps wrote he is a \"stable genius\". According to my dictionary research, \"stable\" could mean: resistant to change not showing erratic emotions. So does Trump mean that he is \"a genius, who will always remain a genius\" or \"a mentally stable person who happens to be a genius\"?","question":"President Trumps wrote he is a \"stable genius\". According to my dictionary research, \"stable\" could mean: resistant to change not showing erratic emotions. So does Trump mean that he is \"a genius, who will always remain a genius\" or \"a mentally stable person who happens to be a genius\"?","answer":"The word stable can have many meanings. When something is stable, it's fixed and steady. If you needed advice, you'd probably go to your most stable friend, the one least likely to act crazy or be easily upset. Whether you're talking about an object or a person, the adjective stable implies reliability and strength. You can describe a government as stable, or a relationship, or a desk. A completely different meaning of stable is the noun \"building used for housing horses or other animals.\" Both senses of the word come from the Latin stabilis, \"firm or steadfast.\" In our case it is just like with the friend mentioned above.","output":"The word stable can have many meanings. When something is stable, it's fixed and steady. If you needed advice, you'd probably go to your most stable friend, the one least likely to act crazy or be easily upset. Whether you're talking about an object or a person, the adjective stable implies reliability and strength. You can describe a government as stable, or a relationship, or a desk. A completely different meaning of stable is the noun \"building used for housing horses or other animals.\" Both senses of the word come from the Latin stabilis, \"firm or steadfast.\" In our case it is just like with the friend mentioned above."}
{"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\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"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\nShould I buy\/purchase web hosting? Should I buy\/purchase Adobe Photoshop? Should I buy\/purchase this car? Should I buy\/purchase this land? When should I use buy and purchase? Why?","question":"Should I buy\/purchase web hosting? Should I buy\/purchase Adobe Photoshop? Should I buy\/purchase this car? Should I buy\/purchase this land? When should I use buy and purchase? Why?","answer":"In meaning, they're exactly the same. You can interchange fairly freely. Looking at the definitions on The Free Dictionary, each is used to define the other. In practice, \"purchase\" is of a higher register than \"buy\", making it more formal. You might find \"purchase\" in a legal document, or regarding government expenditure, whereas \"buy\" is perhaps more for daily use. The only other discernible difference I can think of is that \"purchase\" has the noun \"purchase\/s\" whereas \"buy\" doesn't. In your examples, simply consider the formality required for the context.","output":"In meaning, they're exactly the same. You can interchange fairly freely. Looking at the definitions on The Free Dictionary, each is used to define the other. In practice, \"purchase\" is of a higher register than \"buy\", making it more formal. You might find \"purchase\" in a legal document, or regarding government expenditure, whereas \"buy\" is perhaps more for daily use. The only other discernible difference I can think of is that \"purchase\" has the noun \"purchase\/s\" whereas \"buy\" doesn't. In your examples, simply consider the formality required for the context."}
{"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 negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI imagine there must be a term\/idiom\/phrase for polishing something too early... For example: Painting the walls of a room before completing other work which may accidentally damage them. Adding detail to a section of a drawing that you may likely need to radically change later (and lose the detail work) Optimizing a software function which might be deemed unnecessary before it's even used Though I can't seem to think of what this is called (no luck with searching either). Originally I posted this in the 'workplace' stack exchange but was recommended to try here.","question":"I imagine there must be a term\/idiom\/phrase for polishing something too early... For example: Painting the walls of a room before completing other work which may accidentally damage them. Adding detail to a section of a drawing that you may likely need to radically change later (and lose the detail work) Optimizing a software function which might be deemed unnecessary before it's even used Though I can't seem to think of what this is called (no luck with searching either). Originally I posted this in the 'workplace' stack exchange but was recommended to try here.","answer":"Here's a couple of IT specific terms. In the context of IT premature optimisation is a common term, with the phrase 'premature optimisation is the root of all evil' coined. While this explicitly refers to program optimisation, it can also make sense in other IT contexts. For example, if you're talking the ideal arrangement of buttons when mocking up a quick working prototype, saying I think we're suffering from a case of premature optimisation here would be perfectly understandable and get your point across. Additionally in IT, there's the You ain't going to need it (YAGNI) principle, which states \"Always implement things when you actually need them, never when you just foresee that you need them.\". You might say This is breaking the you ain't gonna need it principle.","output":"Here's a couple of IT specific terms. In the context of IT premature optimisation is a common term, with the phrase 'premature optimisation is the root of all evil' coined. While this explicitly refers to program optimisation, it can also make sense in other IT contexts. For example, if you're talking the ideal arrangement of buttons when mocking up a quick working prototype, saying I think we're suffering from a case of premature optimisation here would be perfectly understandable and get your point across. Additionally in IT, there's the You ain't going to need it (YAGNI) principle, which states \"Always implement things when you actually need them, never when you just foresee that you need them.\". You might say This is breaking the you ain't gonna need it principle."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSo this question gives an answer to the difference between yell and scream, but I'd also like clarification about shout and cry, which have to be linked with the other two. Whatever the case when I use one of them I feel like I used the wrong one. Also, the top answer used \"to cry\" in the definition of \"to scream\" and \"to shout\" in the definition of \"to yell\". Most dictionaries also give other words as definitions, which doesn't help. I have a bunch of related question which I think makes sense to be asked and answer together. When I ask for difference about words, it's mostly for edge cases. Of course, I mean cry in other ways that \"to shed tears\". I would think that it implies that you're in danger (i.e. \"cry for help\") and it's not directed to anyone, but what about \"battle cry\" ? Are there other uses that don't imply you're in danger ? What's the word for when a metal vocalist \"sings\" very loudly in the mic ? Is it yelling if it's not directed to someone in particular ? And if a rapper raps increasingly louder, is he screaming or yelling at the end ? IMO yelling can never be non-annoying, am I correct ? To describe someone cursing really loud, what do you use ? Is it different words depending on if the insults are directed to someone or just interjections like \"SHIT!\" ?","question":"So this question gives an answer to the difference between yell and scream, but I'd also like clarification about shout and cry, which have to be linked with the other two. Whatever the case when I use one of them I feel like I used the wrong one. Also, the top answer used \"to cry\" in the definition of \"to scream\" and \"to shout\" in the definition of \"to yell\". Most dictionaries also give other words as definitions, which doesn't help. I have a bunch of related question which I think makes sense to be asked and answer together. When I ask for difference about words, it's mostly for edge cases. Of course, I mean cry in other ways that \"to shed tears\". I would think that it implies that you're in danger (i.e. \"cry for help\") and it's not directed to anyone, but what about \"battle cry\" ? Are there other uses that don't imply you're in danger ? What's the word for when a metal vocalist \"sings\" very loudly in the mic ? Is it yelling if it's not directed to someone in particular ? And if a rapper raps increasingly louder, is he screaming or yelling at the end ? IMO yelling can never be non-annoying, am I correct ? To describe someone cursing really loud, what do you use ? Is it different words depending on if the insults are directed to someone or just interjections like \"SHIT!\" ?","answer":"\"Shout\" and \"yell\" are more or less synonymous. Other than style or poetry (and a few idiomatic expressions), I can't think of any reason why you couldn't use one in place of the other. A \"scream\" includes a shrill note that indicates extreme emotion. This is the infamous \"Wilhelm Scream'. These are also screams: American girls screaming at the Beatles A \"cry\" is a loud exclamation, often sounding like someone (or something) in distress. There is also the additional nuance that a \"cry\" is meant to be heard over some distance. As you mentioned, you can \"cry\" for help, but so can animals: Bear cub crying for its mom.. We can describe the sound wildcats make as \"cries\" (or \"screams\") even though these are not from distress, because it sounds like something that needs help. (Edit) We would most likely say that a heavy metal vocalist screams into the microphone. Apparently this (along with growling) is the actual term for this style. As a scream, by definition, includes higher-pitched elements, a rapper who is \"singing\" loudly into the mike could be said to be either shouting or yelling. Be aware that, in current slang, to \"shout out\" means to \"favorably acknowledge\" as in \"a public expression of thanks\". I want to give a shout out to all of my fans, without whom I wouldn't be here on this stage.","output":"\"Shout\" and \"yell\" are more or less synonymous. Other than style or poetry (and a few idiomatic expressions), I can't think of any reason why you couldn't use one in place of the other. A \"scream\" includes a shrill note that indicates extreme emotion. This is the infamous \"Wilhelm Scream'. These are also screams: American girls screaming at the Beatles A \"cry\" is a loud exclamation, often sounding like someone (or something) in distress. There is also the additional nuance that a \"cry\" is meant to be heard over some distance. As you mentioned, you can \"cry\" for help, but so can animals: Bear cub crying for its mom.. We can describe the sound wildcats make as \"cries\" (or \"screams\") even though these are not from distress, because it sounds like something that needs help. (Edit) We would most likely say that a heavy metal vocalist screams into the microphone. Apparently this (along with growling) is the actual term for this style. As a scream, by definition, includes higher-pitched elements, a rapper who is \"singing\" loudly into the mike could be said to be either shouting or yelling. Be aware that, in current slang, to \"shout out\" means to \"favorably acknowledge\" as in \"a public expression of thanks\". I want to give a shout out to all of my fans, without whom I wouldn't be here on this stage."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have often seen the following expressions: [ex.] 1. I have no allergies or any medical issues. 2. John serves a chicken with no sauce or any kind of seasoning. I suspect that such a use is wrong from a prescriptive grammatical point of view, because \"no\" modifies \"allergies\" in (ex.1) and the sentence is split as follows: \"I have no allergies\" or \"I have any medical issues\". But this is not what sentence (ex.1) means. (ex.1) means that I have no allergies or (and?) no medical issues. Probably, I think that (ex.1) is reanalyzed as \"I don't have any allergies or any medical issues\". My question is: (1) Is the use like (ex.) correct (in prescriptive grammatical terms)? (2) If not, what is the correct expression to tell the expressions like (ex.1) and (ex.2)? (3) Or is there some grammatical rule where when \"no\" is used, the word that comes after \"or\" may be \"any\". (4) Given that I am wrong and the use like (ex.) is correct, why is this so?","question":"I have often seen the following expressions: [ex.] 1. I have no allergies or any medical issues. 2. John serves a chicken with no sauce or any kind of seasoning. I suspect that such a use is wrong from a prescriptive grammatical point of view, because \"no\" modifies \"allergies\" in (ex.1) and the sentence is split as follows: \"I have no allergies\" or \"I have any medical issues\". But this is not what sentence (ex.1) means. (ex.1) means that I have no allergies or (and?) no medical issues. Probably, I think that (ex.1) is reanalyzed as \"I don't have any allergies or any medical issues\". My question is: (1) Is the use like (ex.) correct (in prescriptive grammatical terms)? (2) If not, what is the correct expression to tell the expressions like (ex.1) and (ex.2)? (3) Or is there some grammatical rule where when \"no\" is used, the word that comes after \"or\" may be \"any\". (4) Given that I am wrong and the use like (ex.) is correct, why is this so?","answer":"First of all, you can analyze the sentence as I have no (allergies or any medical issues) and your uneasiness about the negation can be resolved. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has a few examples of people using this. However, you could also use \"nor\" instead of \"or\": I have no allergies, nor any medical issues. The COCA has examples of that as well. Some people are uneasy with the use of \"nor\" without \"neither\" so for full prescriptive correctness you could say John serves a chicken with neither sauce nor any kind of seasoning. which is indisputably standard and grammatical, but in casual speech it sounds a bit stuffy and many normal humans don't speak that way.","output":"First of all, you can analyze the sentence as I have no (allergies or any medical issues) and your uneasiness about the negation can be resolved. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has a few examples of people using this. However, you could also use \"nor\" instead of \"or\": I have no allergies, nor any medical issues. The COCA has examples of that as well. Some people are uneasy with the use of \"nor\" without \"neither\" so for full prescriptive correctness you could say John serves a chicken with neither sauce nor any kind of seasoning. which is indisputably standard and grammatical, but in casual speech it sounds a bit stuffy and many normal humans don't speak that way."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nVodafone error sees customers hit by thousands in charges What is the meaning of in charges here? I understand in charge mean to \"be in control\" or like this. But in this sentence how to understand?","question":"Vodafone error sees customers hit by thousands in charges What is the meaning of in charges here? I understand in charge mean to \"be in control\" or like this. But in this sentence how to understand?","answer":"\"Charge\" (noun) can mean: the amount of money that you have to pay for something, especially for an activity or service Charge (Cambridge Dictionary) Vodafone is a UK mobile phone company; they made an error which resulted in customers being billed for thousands of pounds (in charges) (for services they had not received). In \"in charges\", \"in\" can be replaced with 'of'.","output":"\"Charge\" (noun) can mean: the amount of money that you have to pay for something, especially for an activity or service Charge (Cambridge Dictionary) Vodafone is a UK mobile phone company; they made an error which resulted in customers being billed for thousands of pounds (in charges) (for services they had not received). In \"in charges\", \"in\" can be replaced with 'of'."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nFor example, he just \"disowned his friend\" or \"broke up with his friend\" or \"broke off the friendship with his friend\". Which are correct? Is there any difference between correct ones\"?","question":"For example, he just \"disowned his friend\" or \"broke up with his friend\" or \"broke off the friendship with his friend\". Which are correct? Is there any difference between correct ones\"?","answer":"\"Broke up with\" is normally used to describe ending a romantic relationship. For example, \"He broke up with his girlfriend\". The two people might or might not remain on friendly terms. Note this is only used for a dating relationship, not marriage. If you end a marriage, then it's \"They got divorced\" or \"They separated\". \"Broke off the friendship\" is used to describe ending a non-romantic relationship. This always means that the two people had some sort of argument or sharp disagreement. Like, \"When Al learned that Bob had lied about him, he broke off the friendship.\" You would not use this phrase to describe two people who just \"drift apart\". Like if one person moves to another city and so they don't see each other very often, at some point you might say that they aren't really friends any more, but no one \"broke it off\", it just happened. To \"disown\" someone is to renounce responsibility for them. I think it's most often used to describe a parent completely cutting ties to a child. Like, \"After Sally was arrested for the fourth time, her father disowned her.\" Normally this would only be used to talk about a child who has reached adulthood, or at least late teens. People do sometimes talk about a child disowning a parent or someone disowning a brother or sister. It is considered a very severing of the relationship, the \"moral equivalent\" of divorce. It may include legal steps, like removing the person from your will. Occasionally someone will say that he disowned a friend, but I think this is pretty rare, as to \"disown\" something you had to first \"own\" it, and we don't normally think of friendship as being that tight. It's normally only used for family relationships.","output":"\"Broke up with\" is normally used to describe ending a romantic relationship. For example, \"He broke up with his girlfriend\". The two people might or might not remain on friendly terms. Note this is only used for a dating relationship, not marriage. If you end a marriage, then it's \"They got divorced\" or \"They separated\". \"Broke off the friendship\" is used to describe ending a non-romantic relationship. This always means that the two people had some sort of argument or sharp disagreement. Like, \"When Al learned that Bob had lied about him, he broke off the friendship.\" You would not use this phrase to describe two people who just \"drift apart\". Like if one person moves to another city and so they don't see each other very often, at some point you might say that they aren't really friends any more, but no one \"broke it off\", it just happened. To \"disown\" someone is to renounce responsibility for them. I think it's most often used to describe a parent completely cutting ties to a child. Like, \"After Sally was arrested for the fourth time, her father disowned her.\" Normally this would only be used to talk about a child who has reached adulthood, or at least late teens. People do sometimes talk about a child disowning a parent or someone disowning a brother or sister. It is considered a very severing of the relationship, the \"moral equivalent\" of divorce. It may include legal steps, like removing the person from your will. Occasionally someone will say that he disowned a friend, but I think this is pretty rare, as to \"disown\" something you had to first \"own\" it, and we don't normally think of friendship as being that tight. It's normally only used for family relationships."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI found that both words have similar meaning as in when they are verbs, they can mean similar action. But I'm confused with their usages when this similar usage takes place, which is \"sending\". May I ask what is the difference in usages between \"send\" and \"dispatch\"?","question":"I found that both words have similar meaning as in when they are verbs, they can mean similar action. But I'm confused with their usages when this similar usage takes place, which is \"sending\". May I ask what is the difference in usages between \"send\" and \"dispatch\"?","answer":"Haste is the difference - dispatch primarily means to send off in hurry. It also has the additional meaning of kill a person. Etymonline has the following: dispatch (v.) 1510s, \"to send off in a hurry,\" from a word in Spanish (despachar \"expedite, hasten\") or Italian (dispacciare \"to dispatch\"). Meaning \"to get rid of by killing\" is attested from 1520s. Interestingly, the spelling variant despatch which is equally popular now was due to a spelling error in the Johnson's dictionary.","output":"Haste is the difference - dispatch primarily means to send off in hurry. It also has the additional meaning of kill a person. Etymonline has the following: dispatch (v.) 1510s, \"to send off in a hurry,\" from a word in Spanish (despachar \"expedite, hasten\") or Italian (dispacciare \"to dispatch\"). Meaning \"to get rid of by killing\" is attested from 1520s. Interestingly, the spelling variant despatch which is equally popular now was due to a spelling error in the Johnson's dictionary."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn the programming world, I've often seen and used the phrase: Create new table if not already exists. Is this valid English wording and\/or grammar?","question":"In the programming world, I've often seen and used the phrase: Create new table if not already exists. Is this valid English wording and\/or grammar?","answer":"The clause if not already exists is programming jargon found primarily in inline documentation or reference to it. In the interests of economy, it violates the syntax of standard English as if the words in bold if it doesn\u2019t already exist were mere adjuncts that could be omitted. The original expression, as Laurel pointed out in a comment below, was the even more truncated IF NOT EXISTSin MySQL, language used not between people, but people and computers. If selected and if not already exists, a document set will be created with name as specified in the value of the specified Property column for each document item. Jargon is a subset of a standard language created and used by a discourse group engaged in an activity or profession \u2014 sports, high finance, investment banking, the military \u2014 where technical terms may be coined whose meaning may be completely opaque to those outside the group until it is promulgated by print, broadcast, or digital media. For instance, during the Financial Crisis many, unfortunately, discovered what it meant to have an underwater mortgage. Computer jargon even has its own dictionary, the Jargon File, which as all dictionaries will have a certain prescriptive and standardizing effect, in this case including lexical and semantic features distinct from the standard language. Who first coined a word or expression \u2014 or at least where it first appeared \u2014 is apparently part of programming lore. This would suggest a certain status accrues to those who provide the discourse group with economical or mildly amusing coinages such as kludge, which in turn suggests one reason why this particular group is so productive in inventing new words. In programming contexts, the use of if not already exists is standard. If at home a programmer says: Hey, I can\u2019t find that jar of black olives for the salad. Can you run to the store if not already exists? then I\u2019d begin to worry.","output":"The clause if not already exists is programming jargon found primarily in inline documentation or reference to it. In the interests of economy, it violates the syntax of standard English as if the words in bold if it doesn\u2019t already exist were mere adjuncts that could be omitted. The original expression, as Laurel pointed out in a comment below, was the even more truncated IF NOT EXISTSin MySQL, language used not between people, but people and computers. If selected and if not already exists, a document set will be created with name as specified in the value of the specified Property column for each document item. Jargon is a subset of a standard language created and used by a discourse group engaged in an activity or profession \u2014 sports, high finance, investment banking, the military \u2014 where technical terms may be coined whose meaning may be completely opaque to those outside the group until it is promulgated by print, broadcast, or digital media. For instance, during the Financial Crisis many, unfortunately, discovered what it meant to have an underwater mortgage. Computer jargon even has its own dictionary, the Jargon File, which as all dictionaries will have a certain prescriptive and standardizing effect, in this case including lexical and semantic features distinct from the standard language. Who first coined a word or expression \u2014 or at least where it first appeared \u2014 is apparently part of programming lore. This would suggest a certain status accrues to those who provide the discourse group with economical or mildly amusing coinages such as kludge, which in turn suggests one reason why this particular group is so productive in inventing new words. In programming contexts, the use of if not already exists is standard. If at home a programmer says: Hey, I can\u2019t find that jar of black olives for the salad. Can you run to the store if not already exists? then I\u2019d begin to worry."}
{"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\nI got involved in a discussion about some Math problems provided in the local primary school education: 20 more than 543 is 563 25 less than 261 is 236 155 less than 310 is 155 355 more than 1233 is 1588 Some of us (including me) argued that this is unclear or incorrect English, while others said that it is correct or that we are not creative if we do not understand it (huh?). In my own Math education, I have learnt that \"less than\" and \"more than\" (or rather, \"greater than\") are comparative operators. However, in the above, they are used as manipulative operators (subtraction or addition) - a usage I never learnt. At first I thought this must be something peculiar with the Singapore Math education, as those who argued that this is incorrect are mostly foreigners, while the other side is made up of mostly locals. After some searching for similar use on the Internet, the two instances I could find are an exercise paper from Math Activities Resource Center, Mt. San Antonio College, Walnut, CA (USA) [link], and a lecture paper from Professor Weissman's Algebra Classroom [link]. In the exercise paper, the lecturer also mentions that \"less than\" is different from \"is less than\", in that \"less than\" is used to mean subtraction (where the numbers are inverted), whereas \"is less than\" is used to compare two numbers. In the lecture paper, it is mentioned that \"3 is less than 7\" translates to \"3, \"3 less than 7\" translates to \"7-3\" and \"3 less 7\" translates to \"3-7\". I want to hear from some experts regarding how correct and\/or widespread this kind of usage of these terms is. No matter how many times I read the examples back to myself I feel it's odd and wrong to use it this way, and that the correct usage for manipulation should be: 20 added to 543 is 563 25 subtracted from 261 is 236 155 subtracted from 310 is 155 355 added to 1233 is 1588 Whereas the correct usage for comparison should be: 20 more than 543 is False 25 less than 261 is True 155 less than 310 is True 355 more than 1233 is False","question":"I got involved in a discussion about some Math problems provided in the local primary school education: 20 more than 543 is 563 25 less than 261 is 236 155 less than 310 is 155 355 more than 1233 is 1588 Some of us (including me) argued that this is unclear or incorrect English, while others said that it is correct or that we are not creative if we do not understand it (huh?). In my own Math education, I have learnt that \"less than\" and \"more than\" (or rather, \"greater than\") are comparative operators. However, in the above, they are used as manipulative operators (subtraction or addition) - a usage I never learnt. At first I thought this must be something peculiar with the Singapore Math education, as those who argued that this is incorrect are mostly foreigners, while the other side is made up of mostly locals. After some searching for similar use on the Internet, the two instances I could find are an exercise paper from Math Activities Resource Center, Mt. San Antonio College, Walnut, CA (USA) [link], and a lecture paper from Professor Weissman's Algebra Classroom [link]. In the exercise paper, the lecturer also mentions that \"less than\" is different from \"is less than\", in that \"less than\" is used to mean subtraction (where the numbers are inverted), whereas \"is less than\" is used to compare two numbers. In the lecture paper, it is mentioned that \"3 is less than 7\" translates to \"3, \"3 less than 7\" translates to \"7-3\" and \"3 less 7\" translates to \"3-7\". I want to hear from some experts regarding how correct and\/or widespread this kind of usage of these terms is. No matter how many times I read the examples back to myself I feel it's odd and wrong to use it this way, and that the correct usage for manipulation should be: 20 added to 543 is 563 25 subtracted from 261 is 236 155 subtracted from 310 is 155 355 added to 1233 is 1588 Whereas the correct usage for comparison should be: 20 more than 543 is False 25 less than 261 is True 155 less than 310 is True 355 more than 1233 is False","answer":"The paper you found describing the difference between less than meaning subtraction and is less than meaning comparison is correct. Here are some examples from published English works I found in the Corpus of Contemporary American English. (more than query) (less than query): For example, children need to learn that numbers later in the count list have larger quantities and that numbers themselves have magnitudes (e.g., 4 is one more than 3 and one less than 5) \u2014 Jordan, Nancy et al. \u201cValidating a Number Sense Screening Tool for Use in Kindergarten and First Grade: Prediction of Mathematics Proficiency in Third Grade\u201d School Psychology Review, 2010 As the number of killings has crept this year to 95 -- seven more than the total for all of 2004 -- the city has only sporadically increased foot and bicycle patrols, key elements of any community policing plan. \u2014 Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer. San Francisco Chronicle, December 21, 2005 A month before your trip, you see a newspaper ad showing fares for the same trip are $100 less than what you paid. \u2014 Rosato, Donna. USA Today, October 8, 1996 The four-cam, 32-valve engine produces 280 horsepower, 15 less than the Northstar, and it drives the rear wheels through a new four-speed automatic transmission. \u2014 Schuon, Marshall. New York Times \u201cABOUT CARS; With a New V8, Lincoln Introduces an All-New Mark VIII\u201d, November 11, 1992 These are standard English usages, so get used to them.","output":"The paper you found describing the difference between less than meaning subtraction and is less than meaning comparison is correct. Here are some examples from published English works I found in the Corpus of Contemporary American English. (more than query) (less than query): For example, children need to learn that numbers later in the count list have larger quantities and that numbers themselves have magnitudes (e.g., 4 is one more than 3 and one less than 5) \u2014 Jordan, Nancy et al. \u201cValidating a Number Sense Screening Tool for Use in Kindergarten and First Grade: Prediction of Mathematics Proficiency in Third Grade\u201d School Psychology Review, 2010 As the number of killings has crept this year to 95 -- seven more than the total for all of 2004 -- the city has only sporadically increased foot and bicycle patrols, key elements of any community policing plan. \u2014 Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer. San Francisco Chronicle, December 21, 2005 A month before your trip, you see a newspaper ad showing fares for the same trip are $100 less than what you paid. \u2014 Rosato, Donna. USA Today, October 8, 1996 The four-cam, 32-valve engine produces 280 horsepower, 15 less than the Northstar, and it drives the rear wheels through a new four-speed automatic transmission. \u2014 Schuon, Marshall. New York Times \u201cABOUT CARS; With a New V8, Lincoln Introduces an All-New Mark VIII\u201d, November 11, 1992 These are standard English usages, so get used to them."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI got this feedback of \"wrong collocation\" on my essay. Here is the line - The average level of computer ownership in 2002 was in the high fifties (in percentage). The teacher said that 'high fifties' is incorrect grammar (wrong collocation). I just want to know why and how to correct it.","question":"I got this feedback of \"wrong collocation\" on my essay. Here is the line - The average level of computer ownership in 2002 was in the high fifties (in percentage). The teacher said that 'high fifties' is incorrect grammar (wrong collocation). I just want to know why and how to correct it.","answer":"There is nothing grammatically wrong with saying \"high fifties\". The numbers that are greater then or equal to fifty, but lower than sixty, are called \"the fifties\". The higher ones are called \"the high fifties \". So in the \"high fifties\" means approximately between 55 and 60. There is an issue in that \"level\" is not defined in the sentence. This makes the sentence meaning not completely clear on its own. But if \"level\" is defined elsewhere, perhaps because all previous levels have been defined in some way, then the sentence is correct. In any case, the sentence is definitely grammatically correct. If the definition of \"level\" is not clear from context, then substituting the word \"percentage\" for \"level\" makes the sentence clear, self-contained and correct.","output":"There is nothing grammatically wrong with saying \"high fifties\". The numbers that are greater then or equal to fifty, but lower than sixty, are called \"the fifties\". The higher ones are called \"the high fifties \". So in the \"high fifties\" means approximately between 55 and 60. There is an issue in that \"level\" is not defined in the sentence. This makes the sentence meaning not completely clear on its own. But if \"level\" is defined elsewhere, perhaps because all previous levels have been defined in some way, then the sentence is correct. In any case, the sentence is definitely grammatically correct. If the definition of \"level\" is not clear from context, then substituting the word \"percentage\" for \"level\" makes the sentence clear, self-contained and correct."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nResearches is a verb. Can it be used in a context like: Researches are going on OR should it be Research is being carried out? Which is syntactically and semantically correct English?","question":"Researches is a verb. Can it be used in a context like: Researches are going on OR should it be Research is being carried out? Which is syntactically and semantically correct English?","answer":"In American English, \"Researches are going on\" is grammatically incorrect. As a noun, \"research\" is not countable. If Americans want to talk about more than one research project, they talk about \"research projects\", not \"researches\". As a verb, \"research\" is conjugated the usual way. In the present tense: I research. We research. You research. You research. He researches. They research. Because \"research\" is a formal word, \"You research\" is much, much more common than \"Y'all research\".","output":"In American English, \"Researches are going on\" is grammatically incorrect. As a noun, \"research\" is not countable. If Americans want to talk about more than one research project, they talk about \"research projects\", not \"researches\". As a verb, \"research\" is conjugated the usual way. In the present tense: I research. We research. You research. You research. He researches. They research. Because \"research\" is a formal word, \"You research\" is much, much more common than \"Y'all research\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have watched many interviews and talk shows in English and in many of them, when the host is saying goodbye, they say \"I've been Xxxx Xxxxxx and this is The Talk Show X!\" Why do they say \"I've been...\" when they can perfectly say \"I am...\"? Is there a rule for this or is this just popular language? An example of what I'm trying to say is this video by Tom Scott (I've copied the link on the time he is saying goodbye because the video is too long): https:\/\/youtu.be\/3kgI-TZXCa8?t=920","question":"I have watched many interviews and talk shows in English and in many of them, when the host is saying goodbye, they say \"I've been Xxxx Xxxxxx and this is The Talk Show X!\" Why do they say \"I've been...\" when they can perfectly say \"I am...\"? Is there a rule for this or is this just popular language? An example of what I'm trying to say is this video by Tom Scott (I've copied the link on the time he is saying goodbye because the video is too long): https:\/\/youtu.be\/3kgI-TZXCa8?t=920","answer":"It began as a particular host's catch phrase some decades ago, and has gradually crept into more general use. While originally used to make the host's sign-off more memorable (and therefore make the host more memorable), it was a play on the fact that the person's role as the host of the programme you had just been watching was now at an end. Essentially, a short-form of: \"I, Johnny Bloggs, have been your host (and now my role as host is over for now).\" which elides to \"I have been your host, Johnny Bloggs\" which elides to \"I've been Johnny Bloggs\"","output":"It began as a particular host's catch phrase some decades ago, and has gradually crept into more general use. While originally used to make the host's sign-off more memorable (and therefore make the host more memorable), it was a play on the fact that the person's role as the host of the programme you had just been watching was now at an end. Essentially, a short-form of: \"I, Johnny Bloggs, have been your host (and now my role as host is over for now).\" which elides to \"I have been your host, Johnny Bloggs\" which elides to \"I've been Johnny Bloggs\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIt seems to have been common practice in the 17th and 18th centuries in English-language sources to capitalise the first letters of nouns, as in At which Time he prov'd himself the Noah's Dove, that finding himself no Rest anywhere, was receiv'd again into his own Ark, and brought a peaceable Olive-Leaf in his mouth. \u2014 Titus Britannicus: an Essay of History Royal (1685) Most original sources I can find on the web have used modern rules for capitalisation, so I have a few questions: Was the practice used for all nouns (Note mouth isn't capitalised in my quotation above.)? When did this practice begin? When and why did it end?","question":"It seems to have been common practice in the 17th and 18th centuries in English-language sources to capitalise the first letters of nouns, as in At which Time he prov'd himself the Noah's Dove, that finding himself no Rest anywhere, was receiv'd again into his own Ark, and brought a peaceable Olive-Leaf in his mouth. \u2014 Titus Britannicus: an Essay of History Royal (1685) Most original sources I can find on the web have used modern rules for capitalisation, so I have a few questions: Was the practice used for all nouns (Note mouth isn't capitalised in my quotation above.)? When did this practice begin? When and why did it end?","answer":"Capitalisation to this extent wasn't around in Old English, and I didn't remember any in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, but it seemed exist in some Shakespeare folios and not others, so it certainly hasn't been around since the beginning of written English. I found this in an actual printed book, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (David Crystal), p67, where the internet let me down. It's in the section about emerging orthography in the 16th Century: Hart recommended his readers to use a capital letter at the beginning of every sentence, proper name, and important common noun. By the 17th century, the practice had extended to titles (Sir, Lady), forms of address (Father, Mistris), and personified nouns (Nature). Emphasized words and phrases would also attract a capital. By the beginning of the 18th century, the influence of Continental books had caused this practice to be extended still further (e.g. to the names of the branches of knowledge), and it was not long before some writers began using a capital for any noun that they felt to be important. Books appeared in which all or most nouns were given an initial capital (as is done systematically in modern German) - perhaps for aesthetic reasons, or perhaps because printers were uncertain about which nouns to capitalize, and so capitalized them all. The fashion was at its height in the later 17th century, and continued into the 18th. The manuscripts of Butler, Traherne, Swift, and Pope are full of initial capitals. However, the later 18th-century grammarians were not amused by this apparent lack of discipline in the written language. In their view, the proliferation of capitals was unnecessary, and causing the loss of a useful potential distinction. Their rules brought a dramatic reduction in the types of noun permitted to take a capital letter. It seems odd that Hart's recommendations on capitalisation should have taken root where his suggestions for phonetic spelling have fallen on deaf ears...","output":"Capitalisation to this extent wasn't around in Old English, and I didn't remember any in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, but it seemed exist in some Shakespeare folios and not others, so it certainly hasn't been around since the beginning of written English. I found this in an actual printed book, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (David Crystal), p67, where the internet let me down. It's in the section about emerging orthography in the 16th Century: Hart recommended his readers to use a capital letter at the beginning of every sentence, proper name, and important common noun. By the 17th century, the practice had extended to titles (Sir, Lady), forms of address (Father, Mistris), and personified nouns (Nature). Emphasized words and phrases would also attract a capital. By the beginning of the 18th century, the influence of Continental books had caused this practice to be extended still further (e.g. to the names of the branches of knowledge), and it was not long before some writers began using a capital for any noun that they felt to be important. Books appeared in which all or most nouns were given an initial capital (as is done systematically in modern German) - perhaps for aesthetic reasons, or perhaps because printers were uncertain about which nouns to capitalize, and so capitalized them all. The fashion was at its height in the later 17th century, and continued into the 18th. The manuscripts of Butler, Traherne, Swift, and Pope are full of initial capitals. However, the later 18th-century grammarians were not amused by this apparent lack of discipline in the written language. In their view, the proliferation of capitals was unnecessary, and causing the loss of a useful potential distinction. Their rules brought a dramatic reduction in the types of noun permitted to take a capital letter. It seems odd that Hart's recommendations on capitalisation should have taken root where his suggestions for phonetic spelling have fallen on deaf ears..."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThat may be just the beginning of Russia\u2019s growing presence. In addition, Iran is worried that Syria will fall to Syrian rebels backed by Saudi Arabia, Tehran\u2019s enduring rival in the region, and so has extended a $1 billion credit line to Assad\u2019s regime to help it import critical goods and commodities. Iran\u2019s escape from sanctions\u2014and its ability to earn more revenue by producing an additional one million barrels of oil per day by late next year\u2014suggest there\u2019s more where that came from. Source: http:\/\/time.com\/4039940\/these-5-facts-explain-bashar-assads-hold-in-syria\/ I am not able to figure out the meaning of the bold part of above text. Not sure which noun the pronoun \"that\" represents in the clause. Can you tell me what does exactly Iran\u2019s escape from sanctions suggest?","question":"That may be just the beginning of Russia\u2019s growing presence. In addition, Iran is worried that Syria will fall to Syrian rebels backed by Saudi Arabia, Tehran\u2019s enduring rival in the region, and so has extended a $1 billion credit line to Assad\u2019s regime to help it import critical goods and commodities. Iran\u2019s escape from sanctions\u2014and its ability to earn more revenue by producing an additional one million barrels of oil per day by late next year\u2014suggest there\u2019s more where that came from. Source: http:\/\/time.com\/4039940\/these-5-facts-explain-bashar-assads-hold-in-syria\/ I am not able to figure out the meaning of the bold part of above text. Not sure which noun the pronoun \"that\" represents in the clause. Can you tell me what does exactly Iran\u2019s escape from sanctions suggest?","answer":"There\u2019s [plenty] more where that came from! is an idiomatic informal expression often used after an act of aggression, telling whoever you've just attacked that you are able and willing to continue hostilities if the victim doesn't concede defeat (you still have more aggressive capabilities in reserve). In the cited context, \"that\" refers back to the fact that Iran has lent Assad\u2019s regime $1b. The writer is saying that since the rest of the world haven't imposed effective economic sanctions on Iran for doing this, there's every reason to suppose that they will continue to support Assad with further loans in future. They've still got plenty more money, and a (probably increasing) wish to keep Assad in power.","output":"There\u2019s [plenty] more where that came from! is an idiomatic informal expression often used after an act of aggression, telling whoever you've just attacked that you are able and willing to continue hostilities if the victim doesn't concede defeat (you still have more aggressive capabilities in reserve). In the cited context, \"that\" refers back to the fact that Iran has lent Assad\u2019s regime $1b. The writer is saying that since the rest of the world haven't imposed effective economic sanctions on Iran for doing this, there's every reason to suppose that they will continue to support Assad with further loans in future. They've still got plenty more money, and a (probably increasing) wish to keep Assad in power."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn every sentence I have ever read that uses the word \"cognizant,\" the word could easily be replaced by \"aware.\" On top of that, \"aware\" sounds much less pretentious and to-the-point. Are there situations or contexts which lend themselves more to \"cognizant\"?","question":"In every sentence I have ever read that uses the word \"cognizant,\" the word could easily be replaced by \"aware.\" On top of that, \"aware\" sounds much less pretentious and to-the-point. Are there situations or contexts which lend themselves more to \"cognizant\"?","answer":"Personally, I eschew utilization of an over-augmented, trisyllabic linguistic unit like \"cognizant\" to express a paradigm when diminutive constructions are accessible. I applaud you for NOT asking, \"As 'cognizant' is longer and sounds more intellectual than 'aware' while it means pretty much the same thing, is there ever a time when I should use 'aware' when I could say 'cognizant' instead and sound so much smarter?\" On the serious side, I think the only time I've used \"cognizant\" was when I was doing contracts for the military and the word had a specialized technical meaning: a \"cognizant activity\" was the agency or department responsbile for some contract or task. While a simple dictionary definition doesn't make this distinction, to my mind \"cognizant\" implies a true knowledge about or understanding of something, as opposed to simply having heard that it exists. So \"Bob is aware of calculus\" says to me that he knows it exists. \"Bob is cognizant of calculus\" tells me that he really knows something about it. You might use \"cognizant\" for the same reasons that you would use any synonym: to avoid using the same word several times in the same sentence, to avoid unintended rhyme, to avoid using a word that sounds too similar to another word you have just used, etc. For example, if I started to write, \"Are you aware that Wally is aware of the need to be wary of Warren's ward's housewares?\", I think I would start looking for alternative words, and replacing one of the \"aware\"s with \"cognizant\" would be a possibility.","output":"Personally, I eschew utilization of an over-augmented, trisyllabic linguistic unit like \"cognizant\" to express a paradigm when diminutive constructions are accessible. I applaud you for NOT asking, \"As 'cognizant' is longer and sounds more intellectual than 'aware' while it means pretty much the same thing, is there ever a time when I should use 'aware' when I could say 'cognizant' instead and sound so much smarter?\" On the serious side, I think the only time I've used \"cognizant\" was when I was doing contracts for the military and the word had a specialized technical meaning: a \"cognizant activity\" was the agency or department responsbile for some contract or task. While a simple dictionary definition doesn't make this distinction, to my mind \"cognizant\" implies a true knowledge about or understanding of something, as opposed to simply having heard that it exists. So \"Bob is aware of calculus\" says to me that he knows it exists. \"Bob is cognizant of calculus\" tells me that he really knows something about it. You might use \"cognizant\" for the same reasons that you would use any synonym: to avoid using the same word several times in the same sentence, to avoid unintended rhyme, to avoid using a word that sounds too similar to another word you have just used, etc. For example, if I started to write, \"Are you aware that Wally is aware of the need to be wary of Warren's ward's housewares?\", I think I would start looking for alternative words, and replacing one of the \"aware\"s with \"cognizant\" would be a possibility."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nTo \"cotton to\" is an idiom born of the cotton industry, meaning to get to know or understand something. In the textile industry, when a fiber cottons, it does a good job of blending in with other fibers to make cloth. Example using the idiom: I don't recon that boy cottons likely to strangers. This has been in the language for centuries but I don't often hear it much, if at all.","question":"To \"cotton to\" is an idiom born of the cotton industry, meaning to get to know or understand something. In the textile industry, when a fiber cottons, it does a good job of blending in with other fibers to make cloth. Example using the idiom: I don't recon that boy cottons likely to strangers. This has been in the language for centuries but I don't often hear it much, if at all.","answer":"The predominant meaning of \"to cotton\" is to like something. Cotton on to, meaning to understand, grasp, was colloquial in the early 1900s. (OED) Besides its usual sense as a noun for the plant used to make cloth, cotton is also a verb meaning to get along with, to like. It's been used since 1488, but didn't take on it's meaning of being in harmony with until the beginning of the 17th century, the sense of prospering had shifted to that of being in harmony, of getting along. From the 1605 Play Stucley: John a Nokes and John a Style and I cannot cotton. Yes, it's still being used, especially in the South (where cotton was king). From the internet: Nov 21, 2012 - He never did take a cotton to authority. Oct 17, 2013 - Sparky is said to be a headless man who does not take a cotton to uninvited guests. Dec 4, 2009 - Watt and his brothers didn't take a \"cotton\" to them. Dec 1, 2014 - Just didn't take a cotton to FPJ. His accent is weirdly variable...","output":"The predominant meaning of \"to cotton\" is to like something. Cotton on to, meaning to understand, grasp, was colloquial in the early 1900s. (OED) Besides its usual sense as a noun for the plant used to make cloth, cotton is also a verb meaning to get along with, to like. It's been used since 1488, but didn't take on it's meaning of being in harmony with until the beginning of the 17th century, the sense of prospering had shifted to that of being in harmony, of getting along. From the 1605 Play Stucley: John a Nokes and John a Style and I cannot cotton. Yes, it's still being used, especially in the South (where cotton was king). From the internet: Nov 21, 2012 - He never did take a cotton to authority. Oct 17, 2013 - Sparky is said to be a headless man who does not take a cotton to uninvited guests. Dec 4, 2009 - Watt and his brothers didn't take a \"cotton\" to them. Dec 1, 2014 - Just didn't take a cotton to FPJ. His accent is weirdly variable..."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhile I was reading a paper, I found \"mechanistically-motivated.\" We use our models to suggest mechanistically-motivated ways of comparing models. Because English is my second language, I don't get what the meaning is. I hope someone can explain it.","question":"While I was reading a paper, I found \"mechanistically-motivated.\" We use our models to suggest mechanistically-motivated ways of comparing models. Because English is my second language, I don't get what the meaning is. I hope someone can explain it.","answer":"Mechanistically motivated is a term of art in scientific modeling, a description in contrast to phenomenologically motivated. As an abstract from a paper on molecular evolution states Descriptive models are often said to be phenomenologically motivated whereas explanatory models are said to be mechanistically motivated. That is, descriptive models of natural phenomena (the phenomenologically motivated) take into account what things are observed, while explanatory models (the mechanistically motivated) take into account why things are observed as they are. The canonical examples of the latter are thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. The former derives its explanations of the workings of heat and work from the axioms of statistical mechanics; the latter derives its explanations of the activity of subatomic particles from the axioms of Hilbert spaces. Scientific theories are necessarily a mix of the two approaches.","output":"Mechanistically motivated is a term of art in scientific modeling, a description in contrast to phenomenologically motivated. As an abstract from a paper on molecular evolution states Descriptive models are often said to be phenomenologically motivated whereas explanatory models are said to be mechanistically motivated. That is, descriptive models of natural phenomena (the phenomenologically motivated) take into account what things are observed, while explanatory models (the mechanistically motivated) take into account why things are observed as they are. The canonical examples of the latter are thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. The former derives its explanations of the workings of heat and work from the axioms of statistical mechanics; the latter derives its explanations of the activity of subatomic particles from the axioms of Hilbert spaces. Scientific theories are necessarily a mix of the two approaches."}
{"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 often see that the same thing - a sum of money is being called differently in different contexts and even sometimes in equal contexts. I know all the three words and their other meanings but when it comes to money I'm not sure if people use them wisely and whether a difference even a slight one exists within this or that context. For instance: If a developer creates a software and he gives it out for free but wishes to have a certain income to enhance it and continue working on it, most usually that would be a \"contribution\" right? However, I sometimes see people write \"donation\" in there software and on the web sites. If an organization helps street animals and asks for money from people for that help then usually that's called \"charity\" but I sometimes hear and see people use \"donation\" is this case. If somebody is sick and needs medical attention but there family hasn't a sufficient sum of money they ask for \"donation\" but not \"charity\". However, when they speak of someone who gave them quite a sum they call it a \"contribution\". Could someone explain in which situation should one use \"contribution\", \"charity\" and \"donation\"?","question":"I often see that the same thing - a sum of money is being called differently in different contexts and even sometimes in equal contexts. I know all the three words and their other meanings but when it comes to money I'm not sure if people use them wisely and whether a difference even a slight one exists within this or that context. For instance: If a developer creates a software and he gives it out for free but wishes to have a certain income to enhance it and continue working on it, most usually that would be a \"contribution\" right? However, I sometimes see people write \"donation\" in there software and on the web sites. If an organization helps street animals and asks for money from people for that help then usually that's called \"charity\" but I sometimes hear and see people use \"donation\" is this case. If somebody is sick and needs medical attention but there family hasn't a sufficient sum of money they ask for \"donation\" but not \"charity\". However, when they speak of someone who gave them quite a sum they call it a \"contribution\". Could someone explain in which situation should one use \"contribution\", \"charity\" and \"donation\"?","answer":"T\u1d1ao\u026f\u0250uo's comment pretty much answered your question, but I thought I'd add a bit more detail. Donation - to voluntarily give something away for free as a gift, usually to charity, or for a charitable cause. The giver has not received, and does not expect to receive, anything in return for their donation. The \"something\" donated can be money, an object, or a service (i.e. something that has a value to the receiver of the donation). Contribution - to give something as part of a number of people giving something. As above, this could be money, an object or a service. A contribution may or may not be voluntary and may or may not be charitable (e.g. contributing to the payment for a group meal in a restaurant, where everyone pays for what they ate). Charity - Most often used to refer to a particular organisation The charity cares for abandoned animals, or the subset of organisations that are defined as \"charities\" (i.e. non-profit organisations that give some form of aid and (usually) raise money for this purpose) The proceeds went to charity. It is sometimes used to mean the aid provided to or by someone (voluntarily and for free) She relied on charity to survive. It is not very common to use it to mean a sum of money specifically, but it can do in some contexts. Donation and contribution can mostly be used interchangeably when the charitable context is clear. If it is not, donation can make it clear. Donate or donation is much more commonly used when asking for a contribution, or when talking about charitable giving. For example, you would never say that you \"contributed blood\" to a blood bank\/hospital, but you would say that you \"donated\" or \"gave\" blood. Some people consider there to be a stigma attached to receiving charity, so if they have received charitable (especially financial) help from a friend, relative, or stranger they may be less likely to refer to it as charity or a donation because of this.","output":"T\u1d1ao\u026f\u0250uo's comment pretty much answered your question, but I thought I'd add a bit more detail. Donation - to voluntarily give something away for free as a gift, usually to charity, or for a charitable cause. The giver has not received, and does not expect to receive, anything in return for their donation. The \"something\" donated can be money, an object, or a service (i.e. something that has a value to the receiver of the donation). Contribution - to give something as part of a number of people giving something. As above, this could be money, an object or a service. A contribution may or may not be voluntary and may or may not be charitable (e.g. contributing to the payment for a group meal in a restaurant, where everyone pays for what they ate). Charity - Most often used to refer to a particular organisation The charity cares for abandoned animals, or the subset of organisations that are defined as \"charities\" (i.e. non-profit organisations that give some form of aid and (usually) raise money for this purpose) The proceeds went to charity. It is sometimes used to mean the aid provided to or by someone (voluntarily and for free) She relied on charity to survive. It is not very common to use it to mean a sum of money specifically, but it can do in some contexts. Donation and contribution can mostly be used interchangeably when the charitable context is clear. If it is not, donation can make it clear. Donate or donation is much more commonly used when asking for a contribution, or when talking about charitable giving. For example, you would never say that you \"contributed blood\" to a blood bank\/hospital, but you would say that you \"donated\" or \"gave\" blood. Some people consider there to be a stigma attached to receiving charity, so if they have received charitable (especially financial) help from a friend, relative, or stranger they may be less likely to refer to it as charity or a donation because of this."}
{"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\nA book titled Flappers 2 Rappers lists youth slang from the 1920s, and one of the terms it lists is \"pine feather period.\" \"Pine feather period\" is defined as a period in a woman's life when she blossoms. I can't comprehend how \"pine feather period\" and a woman blossoming are related. I've researched the matter and still I haven't the least notion. Can anyone please help me understand better how \"pine feather period\" could be used to describe a young lady blossoming?","question":"A book titled Flappers 2 Rappers lists youth slang from the 1920s, and one of the terms it lists is \"pine feather period.\" \"Pine feather period\" is defined as a period in a woman's life when she blossoms. I can't comprehend how \"pine feather period\" and a woman blossoming are related. I've researched the matter and still I haven't the least notion. Can anyone please help me understand better how \"pine feather period\" could be used to describe a young lady blossoming?","answer":"It's a long-defunct slang usage, resuscitated by OP's citation and the Chicago Artists' Coalition... Pine Feather Period marks the first of three exhibitions for the sixteen artists selected to participate in Coalition Gallery, a one-year, juried, co-operative exhibition program for emerging, contemporary Chicago artists. In the spirit of a debut, Pine Feather Period, a 1920's flapper slang phrase, describes the period of a debutante's coming out. As StoneyB points out, it's almost certainly a mistranscription of a trivially figurative usage... pinfeather - a feather not fully developed; especially : a feather just emerging through the skin. They're also (dialectally) sometimes penfeathers, but pine feather sounds unlikely to me. Here's a 1904 example of the usage in approximately OP's sense... You are now at the Pin-Feather Period, and Mother must teach you how to Fly. I have been giving a lot of Hard Thought to the Man Game [blah blah and I'll help you get successfully married off...]","output":"It's a long-defunct slang usage, resuscitated by OP's citation and the Chicago Artists' Coalition... Pine Feather Period marks the first of three exhibitions for the sixteen artists selected to participate in Coalition Gallery, a one-year, juried, co-operative exhibition program for emerging, contemporary Chicago artists. In the spirit of a debut, Pine Feather Period, a 1920's flapper slang phrase, describes the period of a debutante's coming out. As StoneyB points out, it's almost certainly a mistranscription of a trivially figurative usage... pinfeather - a feather not fully developed; especially : a feather just emerging through the skin. They're also (dialectally) sometimes penfeathers, but pine feather sounds unlikely to me. Here's a 1904 example of the usage in approximately OP's sense... You are now at the Pin-Feather Period, and Mother must teach you how to Fly. I have been giving a lot of Hard Thought to the Man Game [blah blah and I'll help you get successfully married off...]"}
{"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 lampau:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"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\nAccording to one dictionary, \"to this day\" means: up to now : continuing until today But according to some other dictionary, \"to this day\" means: even now, after a very long time The first definition suggests a period of time, but the second suggests a point in time. Is one of them wrong? Example Usage: link They started appearing even before his death on 17 August 1786, and they still crop up to this day.","question":"According to one dictionary, \"to this day\" means: up to now : continuing until today But according to some other dictionary, \"to this day\" means: even now, after a very long time The first definition suggests a period of time, but the second suggests a point in time. Is one of them wrong? Example Usage: link They started appearing even before his death on 17 August 1786, and they still crop up to this day.","answer":"They mean essentially the same thing - note that 'now' is part of both definitions. The Learners Dictionary emphasizes the phrase's literal meaning, until the present, while the Macmillan definition emphasizes its ordinary use to speak of something instituted a long time ago. Another way of paraphrasing this would be continuing from long ago all the way up to the present","output":"They mean essentially the same thing - note that 'now' is part of both definitions. The Learners Dictionary emphasizes the phrase's literal meaning, until the present, while the Macmillan definition emphasizes its ordinary use to speak of something instituted a long time ago. Another way of paraphrasing this would be continuing from long ago all the way up to the present"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe following paragraph is from a story \"Ghost in the city\" \"You can say that again!\" chimed Barbara after I explained how difficult I felt the test had been. Can someone please explain what the speaker was trying to say? In my understanding so far, You can say that means You can tell\/ask me again if you have any problem! Please correct me!","question":"The following paragraph is from a story \"Ghost in the city\" \"You can say that again!\" chimed Barbara after I explained how difficult I felt the test had been. Can someone please explain what the speaker was trying to say? In my understanding so far, You can say that means You can tell\/ask me again if you have any problem! Please correct me!","answer":"It is a statement of concurrence and agreement. It indicates that the speaker agrees with the previous statement and wishes to reinforce it. Similar phrases, like \"you bet\" and \"absolutely!\", means essentially the same thing. The phrase \"you can say that again\" (usually with an exclamation mark at the end) is, in my experience, somewhat casual or familiar. Also see this definition at TFD.","output":"It is a statement of concurrence and agreement. It indicates that the speaker agrees with the previous statement and wishes to reinforce it. Similar phrases, like \"you bet\" and \"absolutely!\", means essentially the same thing. The phrase \"you can say that again\" (usually with an exclamation mark at the end) is, in my experience, somewhat casual or familiar. Also see this definition at TFD."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCambridge dictionary lists \"shorthand\" as an uncountable word. (https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/dictionary\/english\/shorthand) However, I see a lot of its usage with the indefinite article. For example: Another was labeled \"Braves,\" a shorthand for ICE. - The New York Times Developers have a shorthand for this style: the \"classic graybox\". - The New Yorker There's a shorthand for this type of guy. - The Guardian - Film \"Bach and Beethoven\" has become a shorthand for Western classical music. - Britannica Why?","question":"Cambridge dictionary lists \"shorthand\" as an uncountable word. (https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/dictionary\/english\/shorthand) However, I see a lot of its usage with the indefinite article. For example: Another was labeled \"Braves,\" a shorthand for ICE. - The New York Times Developers have a shorthand for this style: the \"classic graybox\". - The New Yorker There's a shorthand for this type of guy. - The Guardian - Film \"Bach and Beethoven\" has become a shorthand for Western classical music. - Britannica Why?","answer":"The dictionary definition that you cite is the traditional meaning. It is a skill that is rapidly being lost because voice recognition technology can replace it. The name of a skill is uncountable. The usage that you are referring to is relatively new one that takes advantage of an existing word to mean something new but related. That meaning is a word or phrase routinely used as an allusive name for something. \u201cName\u201d is a countable noun. One meaning is countable; the other is not.","output":"The dictionary definition that you cite is the traditional meaning. It is a skill that is rapidly being lost because voice recognition technology can replace it. The name of a skill is uncountable. The usage that you are referring to is relatively new one that takes advantage of an existing word to mean something new but related. That meaning is a word or phrase routinely used as an allusive name for something. \u201cName\u201d is a countable noun. One meaning is countable; the other is not."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nOne of my colleagues has been to the USA recently, and I want to ask him how the country is. Which of the below is grammatically correct? How is USA? or How is the USA? Is \"the\" actually required in the above context?","question":"One of my colleagues has been to the USA recently, and I want to ask him how the country is. Which of the below is grammatically correct? How is USA? or How is the USA? Is \"the\" actually required in the above context?","answer":"The correct grammatical way to say it would be How is the USA? because USA stands for United States of America. It would be incorrect to say How is USA? because this means How is United States of America? It is missing a definite article (the), since there is only one USA. So, to answer your question, yes, you would need the \"the\".","output":"The correct grammatical way to say it would be How is the USA? because USA stands for United States of America. It would be incorrect to say How is USA? because this means How is United States of America? It is missing a definite article (the), since there is only one USA. So, to answer your question, yes, you would need the \"the\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShould you use a comma before the \"Inc.\" in a company name? Xona Games, Inc. vs. Xona Games Inc. (in this example, this is the official registration format) ?","question":"Should you use a comma before the \"Inc.\" in a company name? Xona Games, Inc. vs. Xona Games Inc. (in this example, this is the official registration format) ?","answer":"One should write the name of a company exactly as it was spelled (or misspelled) in the official registration.","output":"One should write the name of a company exactly as it was spelled (or misspelled) in the official registration."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSupposing that I am commenting about an answer given from somebody on Stack Exchange that is so short that could be a comment, what should I say? This [the answer for which I am leaving the comment] is borderline with being a comment. This is borderline with comments.","question":"Supposing that I am commenting about an answer given from somebody on Stack Exchange that is so short that could be a comment, what should I say? This [the answer for which I am leaving the comment] is borderline with being a comment. This is borderline with comments.","answer":"I would say something like: This is almost just a comment. Next time, please consider just adding a comment if your answer is this short. If you really want to use the word \"borderline\", you might say something like this: This answer borders on being just a comment. If your answer is on the borderline like this one, please consider making it a comment instead of an answer. Edit: You could also say something like this: In the case of a borderline comment like this short answer, next time please consider just making it a comment.","output":"I would say something like: This is almost just a comment. Next time, please consider just adding a comment if your answer is this short. If you really want to use the word \"borderline\", you might say something like this: This answer borders on being just a comment. If your answer is on the borderline like this one, please consider making it a comment instead of an answer. Edit: You could also say something like this: In the case of a borderline comment like this short answer, next time please consider just making it a comment."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen do you use bronzed vs. brazed? Is a bronze statue bronzed or brazed? What would be the best word for a man that was commemorated with a bronze statue?","question":"When do you use bronzed vs. brazed? Is a bronze statue bronzed or brazed? What would be the best word for a man that was commemorated with a bronze statue?","answer":"If you're attempting to describe a bronze statue, then bronze statue would be the best descriptor. Brazed means to solder a joint. Bronzed means that something is coated in bronze, not made of it. Brazen means that something is made of brass, which is different than bronze.","output":"If you're attempting to describe a bronze statue, then bronze statue would be the best descriptor. Brazed means to solder a joint. Bronzed means that something is coated in bronze, not made of it. Brazen means that something is made of brass, which is different than bronze."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAs one say creation for \"the act of creating something\", couldn't the word edition mean \"the act of changing something\"? I was under the impression it was the case. But a remark from one of my colleagues, telling me I should use editing instead, prompted me to check on Wiktionary. As it turned out, I didn't find the meaning I searched under the definitions. Note that my colleague and I both are not native speakers. So which of us is right?","question":"As one say creation for \"the act of creating something\", couldn't the word edition mean \"the act of changing something\"? I was under the impression it was the case. But a remark from one of my colleagues, telling me I should use editing instead, prompted me to check on Wiktionary. As it turned out, I didn't find the meaning I searched under the definitions. Note that my colleague and I both are not native speakers. So which of us is right?","answer":"Your colleague is correct. Though it would make sense for edition to mean editing, it has come only to mean the result of the editing (e.g. second edition) or the format of the finished work (e.g. leather-bound edition). It would be better to use editing or revising.","output":"Your colleague is correct. Though it would make sense for edition to mean editing, it has come only to mean the result of the editing (e.g. second edition) or the format of the finished work (e.g. leather-bound edition). It would be better to use editing or revising."}
{"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 just wondering: why \"red\"?","question":"I'm just wondering: why \"red\"?","answer":"On etymonline you will find that it is, presumably, from the blood on hands. There are other more detailed articles around, quote: Red-handed doesn't have a mythical origin however - it is a straightforward allusion to having blood on one's hands after the execution of a murder or a poaching session. The term originates, not from Northern Ireland, but from a country not so far from there, socially and geographically, i.e. Scotland. An earlier form of 'red-handed', simply 'red hand', dates back to a usage in the Scottish Acts of Parliament of James I, 1432. Red-hand appears in print many times in Scottish legal proceedings from the 15th century onward. For example, this piece from Sir George Mackenzie's A discourse upon the laws and customs of Scotland in matters criminal, 1674: \"If he be not taken red-hand the sheriff cannot proceed against him.\"","output":"On etymonline you will find that it is, presumably, from the blood on hands. There are other more detailed articles around, quote: Red-handed doesn't have a mythical origin however - it is a straightforward allusion to having blood on one's hands after the execution of a murder or a poaching session. The term originates, not from Northern Ireland, but from a country not so far from there, socially and geographically, i.e. Scotland. An earlier form of 'red-handed', simply 'red hand', dates back to a usage in the Scottish Acts of Parliament of James I, 1432. Red-hand appears in print many times in Scottish legal proceedings from the 15th century onward. For example, this piece from Sir George Mackenzie's A discourse upon the laws and customs of Scotland in matters criminal, 1674: \"If he be not taken red-hand the sheriff cannot proceed against him.\""}
{"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\n\"That\" is a very difficult word for me. I keep feeling compelled to add it in just about any sentence in which I talk about an action or state something I believe\/think. I think that you're wrong. Or I hope that the company will get back to what they do best and come up with a proper keyboard next time. Or And don\u2019t tell me that the price is justified. Or But I doubt that they have any programmers working on this. All these constructions make sense without the \"that\", don't they? So then why do I feel this compulsion to add it? Am I a \"that\" junkie? ::- D. Is there such a thing as a \"that\" junkie? ::- >.","question":"\"That\" is a very difficult word for me. I keep feeling compelled to add it in just about any sentence in which I talk about an action or state something I believe\/think. I think that you're wrong. Or I hope that the company will get back to what they do best and come up with a proper keyboard next time. Or And don\u2019t tell me that the price is justified. Or But I doubt that they have any programmers working on this. All these constructions make sense without the \"that\", don't they? So then why do I feel this compulsion to add it? Am I a \"that\" junkie? ::- D. Is there such a thing as a \"that\" junkie? ::- >.","answer":"No. Don't worry. It will pass. You're still apparently being thrilled by the freedom of adding or deleting complementizers ad libitum. Generally, keeping that is useful in speech when one wants to be more formal, or to be more precise, or to appear to be more precise, or to provide an extra unstressed syllable to keep up the hypnotic iambic flow of a sales pitch. Complementizer deletion is one of a number of shortenings that English uses, like contractions (don't, we'll), informal spellings of new contractions, (hafta, shouldna), Whiz-Deletion, Equi and Raising, etc. Like English (or better yet, Chinese) handwriting, such optional shortenings become matters of individual preference, as one learns useful ways to deploy them. Executive summary: Develop your own style.","output":"No. Don't worry. It will pass. You're still apparently being thrilled by the freedom of adding or deleting complementizers ad libitum. Generally, keeping that is useful in speech when one wants to be more formal, or to be more precise, or to appear to be more precise, or to provide an extra unstressed syllable to keep up the hypnotic iambic flow of a sales pitch. Complementizer deletion is one of a number of shortenings that English uses, like contractions (don't, we'll), informal spellings of new contractions, (hafta, shouldna), Whiz-Deletion, Equi and Raising, etc. Like English (or better yet, Chinese) handwriting, such optional shortenings become matters of individual preference, as one learns useful ways to deploy them. Executive summary: Develop your own style."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen writing a document that is divided into numbered sections and subsections, sometimes I would like to refer a certain subsection that has been numbered 2.3, for example. Here the 2 represents the section number and 3 is the subsection number within section 2. Question: Should I refer to \"Section 2.3\" or \"Subsection 2.3\"? To me, the latter seems tautological (or at least not completely necessary) since the \"sub-\" component of \"subsection\" is implied by the number 2.3 itself.","question":"When writing a document that is divided into numbered sections and subsections, sometimes I would like to refer a certain subsection that has been numbered 2.3, for example. Here the 2 represents the section number and 3 is the subsection number within section 2. Question: Should I refer to \"Section 2.3\" or \"Subsection 2.3\"? To me, the latter seems tautological (or at least not completely necessary) since the \"sub-\" component of \"subsection\" is implied by the number 2.3 itself.","answer":"I have to agree with you. Collins Dictionary defines \"subsection\": a section of a section; subdivision It is certainly grammatically correct to use either word, and I think it is semantically correct both ways as well. However, as you say, writing \"Subsection 2.3\" it introducing redundancy, as it is (as you say) blatantly obvious that section 2.3 is a subsection of section 2. I would say, however, that \"Section 2.3\" does not imply a subsection, it seems rather explicit that it is a subsection, to me. A quick search on Google for \"Section 2.3\" and \"Subsection 2.3\": Section has 1.2 million hits. Subsection has 46,000 hits. So it definitely makes much more sense to drop the \"sub-\". If we have the document: Birds 1.1. ParrotsThis is a bunch of information about parrots.1.2. HawksThis is a bunch of information about hawks. Both \"Parrots\" and \"Hawks\" are sections in their own right. They are simply sections within sections. This is similar to the folder metaphor in computing. A folder contains many subfolders, but each subfolder is still a complete, and real, folder in its own right. Princeton University's WordNet defines subsection: (n) subsection, subdivision (a section of a section; a part of a part; i.e., a part of something already divided) Furthermore, Merriam-Webster defines section: a distinct part or portion of something written (as a chapter, law, or newspaper) So if one takes a section, then takes another logical portion of that, that is another section\u2013also a subsection\u2013that happens to be inside the original section. E.g. a chapter is a section of a book. A paragraph is a section of a chapter. A sentence is a section of a paragraph. We can logically divide anything into however we like. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines subsection: one of the smaller parts into which the main parts of a document or organization are divided Further details can be found in section 7 subsection 4 of the report. From the example, we can see that they have referred to section 7.4 as section 7, subsection 4. My understanding of all this, is that we can call top-level sections, just \"section\". But we can call non-top-level sections either \"section\" OR \"subsection\".","output":"I have to agree with you. Collins Dictionary defines \"subsection\": a section of a section; subdivision It is certainly grammatically correct to use either word, and I think it is semantically correct both ways as well. However, as you say, writing \"Subsection 2.3\" it introducing redundancy, as it is (as you say) blatantly obvious that section 2.3 is a subsection of section 2. I would say, however, that \"Section 2.3\" does not imply a subsection, it seems rather explicit that it is a subsection, to me. A quick search on Google for \"Section 2.3\" and \"Subsection 2.3\": Section has 1.2 million hits. Subsection has 46,000 hits. So it definitely makes much more sense to drop the \"sub-\". If we have the document: Birds 1.1. ParrotsThis is a bunch of information about parrots.1.2. HawksThis is a bunch of information about hawks. Both \"Parrots\" and \"Hawks\" are sections in their own right. They are simply sections within sections. This is similar to the folder metaphor in computing. A folder contains many subfolders, but each subfolder is still a complete, and real, folder in its own right. Princeton University's WordNet defines subsection: (n) subsection, subdivision (a section of a section; a part of a part; i.e., a part of something already divided) Furthermore, Merriam-Webster defines section: a distinct part or portion of something written (as a chapter, law, or newspaper) So if one takes a section, then takes another logical portion of that, that is another section\u2013also a subsection\u2013that happens to be inside the original section. E.g. a chapter is a section of a book. A paragraph is a section of a chapter. A sentence is a section of a paragraph. We can logically divide anything into however we like. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines subsection: one of the smaller parts into which the main parts of a document or organization are divided Further details can be found in section 7 subsection 4 of the report. From the example, we can see that they have referred to section 7.4 as section 7, subsection 4. My understanding of all this, is that we can call top-level sections, just \"section\". But we can call non-top-level sections either \"section\" OR \"subsection\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat word is used to include students, faculty and staff at a university?","question":"What word is used to include students, faculty and staff at a university?","answer":"Besides the aforementioned community suggestion (a good one, IMO), the only other single words that come to mind are population or the variation populace. As in: The entire university population was expected to attend the event.","output":"Besides the aforementioned community suggestion (a good one, IMO), the only other single words that come to mind are population or the variation populace. As in: The entire university population was expected to attend the event."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs saying \"each and everyone\" redundant? Also, what is the difference between \"each and everyone\" and \"each and every one\"? Thanks","question":"Is saying \"each and everyone\" redundant? Also, what is the difference between \"each and everyone\" and \"each and every one\"? Thanks","answer":"*each and everyone -- ugly coordination of determiner and noun! each [one] [of them] = each (member of the things) = each thing every one [of them] = every (member of the things) = each thing everyone = every (member of the people) = every person each and every one [of them] -- redundancy used for emphasis","output":"*each and everyone -- ugly coordination of determiner and noun! each [one] [of them] = each (member of the things) = each thing every one [of them] = every (member of the things) = each thing everyone = every (member of the people) = every person each and every one [of them] -- redundancy used for emphasis"}
{"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":"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 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\nInspired by Dictionary.com's Word of the Day, \"botryoidal\" (adj. -having the form of a bunch of grapes), and the ongoing naming process of a product at my work which has these features: What is a word for something with a long cylindrical shape covered in small bulbs? If you understand how such a word would be constructed from Brussels sprout's Latin name, without including other vegetables in its species, that would be an acceptable alternative.","question":"Inspired by Dictionary.com's Word of the Day, \"botryoidal\" (adj. -having the form of a bunch of grapes), and the ongoing naming process of a product at my work which has these features: What is a word for something with a long cylindrical shape covered in small bulbs? If you understand how such a word would be constructed from Brussels sprout's Latin name, without including other vegetables in its species, that would be an acceptable alternative.","answer":"Well the best i could do was Bruxelloidal. This isn't a real word because not much in real life resembles a brussel sprout and if something did we would be able to describe it in a different way. I came to this word by basically following the same steps that were used to make botryoidal. The first problem i ran into was that \"botry\" is a Greek stem, and there were no brussel sprouts in Greece at the time when classical Greek was spoken, I did the next best thing an got the Latin translation of brussel sprouts, \"Bruxellis germinantis\". In essence this translates to \"German Brussles\", which is what the Romans called brussel sprouts. I figured id use the root Bruxellis for the new word. The rest is simple, cut off the ablative plural \"is\" from Bruxellis and your left with the stem, \"Bruxell\". The Greek suffixs \"oid\" and \"al\" mean resembling the form of so i threw both on the end in the same fashion they threw \"oidal\" onto the stem \"botry\", and got \"Bruxelloidal\".","output":"Well the best i could do was Bruxelloidal. This isn't a real word because not much in real life resembles a brussel sprout and if something did we would be able to describe it in a different way. I came to this word by basically following the same steps that were used to make botryoidal. The first problem i ran into was that \"botry\" is a Greek stem, and there were no brussel sprouts in Greece at the time when classical Greek was spoken, I did the next best thing an got the Latin translation of brussel sprouts, \"Bruxellis germinantis\". In essence this translates to \"German Brussles\", which is what the Romans called brussel sprouts. I figured id use the root Bruxellis for the new word. The rest is simple, cut off the ablative plural \"is\" from Bruxellis and your left with the stem, \"Bruxell\". The Greek suffixs \"oid\" and \"al\" mean resembling the form of so i threw both on the end in the same fashion they threw \"oidal\" onto the stem \"botry\", and got \"Bruxelloidal\"."}
{"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 know that the noun \"correction\" is both countable, meaning a change that makes something more accurate than it was before, and uncountable, meaning the act or process of correcting something. When I want to say, \"Any correction is appreciated,\" should I say \"any corrections', or are they both correct? Here, I'm referring to my correcting a friend's essay.","question":"I know that the noun \"correction\" is both countable, meaning a change that makes something more accurate than it was before, and uncountable, meaning the act or process of correcting something. When I want to say, \"Any correction is appreciated,\" should I say \"any corrections', or are they both correct? Here, I'm referring to my correcting a friend's essay.","answer":"The short answer is yes, both are accepted. The difference is that when saying any correction is appreciated, you can expand it to any act of correction is appreciated. Any corrections are appreciated, on the other hand, can expand to any number of corrections is appreciated.","output":"The short answer is yes, both are accepted. The difference is that when saying any correction is appreciated, you can expand it to any act of correction is appreciated. Any corrections are appreciated, on the other hand, can expand to any number of corrections is appreciated."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is a gender-neutral alternative to the expression \"man-days\"? I thought of \"work-days\" but am wondering if there might be another term. The use would be, for instance, \"This project requires staffing of 1000 man-days over a six-month period.\"","question":"What is a gender-neutral alternative to the expression \"man-days\"? I thought of \"work-days\" but am wondering if there might be another term. The use would be, for instance, \"This project requires staffing of 1000 man-days over a six-month period.\"","answer":"Person-hour or person-day are gender-neutral alternatives suggested by Wikipedia.","output":"Person-hour or person-day are gender-neutral alternatives suggested by Wikipedia."}
{"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\nFor example, this reddit post's title seems like it might be a run-on sentence, or at least have too much punctuation breaking it apart. The sentence is: For the first time, ants have been seen self-medicating - on food rich in hydrogen peroxide - to fight off fungal infection. My sense is that the proper way to write it is to remove all the punctuation cruft: For the first time ants have been seen self-medicating on food rich in hydrogen peroxide to fight off fungal infection. I'm afraid that it would be considered a run-on sentence. However, if I rewrite it as multiple sentences it seems needlessly long: For the first time ants have been seen self-medicating. They eat food rich in hydrogen peroxide to fight off fungal infection. Is there a rule to determine whether a sentence like this is grammatically correct, or is it a stylistic (i.e., opinion-based) issue?","question":"For example, this reddit post's title seems like it might be a run-on sentence, or at least have too much punctuation breaking it apart. The sentence is: For the first time, ants have been seen self-medicating - on food rich in hydrogen peroxide - to fight off fungal infection. My sense is that the proper way to write it is to remove all the punctuation cruft: For the first time ants have been seen self-medicating on food rich in hydrogen peroxide to fight off fungal infection. I'm afraid that it would be considered a run-on sentence. However, if I rewrite it as multiple sentences it seems needlessly long: For the first time ants have been seen self-medicating. They eat food rich in hydrogen peroxide to fight off fungal infection. Is there a rule to determine whether a sentence like this is grammatically correct, or is it a stylistic (i.e., opinion-based) issue?","answer":"There's nothing wrong with the original sentence, and it's not punctuated incorrectly. (And punctuation is not \"cruft,\" as you call it. Properly used, punctuation exists to help a reader make sense of written symbols without the intonation or stress markers of speech.) Multi-word introductory adverbial phrases are correctly set off with a comma, to enhance readability. Otherwise the reader might initially think there was such a thing as first time ants, and then have to make a mental correction. The phrase on food rich in hydrogen peroxide is correctly set off with the dashes to indicate that it is the first time the ants have been self-medicating (which, by the way, they did with food rich in hydrogen peroxide). Otherwise, they'd be saying that it was the first time the ants have been self-medicating on food rich in hydrogen peroxide (although they might have self-medicated on something else some other time).","output":"There's nothing wrong with the original sentence, and it's not punctuated incorrectly. (And punctuation is not \"cruft,\" as you call it. Properly used, punctuation exists to help a reader make sense of written symbols without the intonation or stress markers of speech.) Multi-word introductory adverbial phrases are correctly set off with a comma, to enhance readability. Otherwise the reader might initially think there was such a thing as first time ants, and then have to make a mental correction. The phrase on food rich in hydrogen peroxide is correctly set off with the dashes to indicate that it is the first time the ants have been self-medicating (which, by the way, they did with food rich in hydrogen peroxide). Otherwise, they'd be saying that it was the first time the ants have been self-medicating on food rich in hydrogen peroxide (although they might have self-medicated on something else some other time)."}
{"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe does not know anything. He pretends ignorance I have to join these two sentences without using and, but and so, but i do not understand their combined meaning. It seems senseless to me. How can one pretend ignorance when he does not know anything? I want to know what the two sentences together mean.","question":"He does not know anything. He pretends ignorance I have to join these two sentences without using and, but and so, but i do not understand their combined meaning. It seems senseless to me. How can one pretend ignorance when he does not know anything? I want to know what the two sentences together mean.","answer":"I think that the meaning of the two sentences together is going to be created by the way you choose to join them. Although he does not know anything, he pretends ignorance. The although sets up a bit of a mystery. He doesn't know anything, so why does he pretend ignorance? He pretends ignorance; unfortunately, he doesn't know anything. This suggests that he thinks he has knowledge that he doesn't really have, and it sets up an irony that we know this about him while he doesn't. You would get different results with other conjunctions: however, consequently, moreover, because, for examples.","output":"I think that the meaning of the two sentences together is going to be created by the way you choose to join them. Although he does not know anything, he pretends ignorance. The although sets up a bit of a mystery. He doesn't know anything, so why does he pretend ignorance? He pretends ignorance; unfortunately, he doesn't know anything. This suggests that he thinks he has knowledge that he doesn't really have, and it sets up an irony that we know this about him while he doesn't. You would get different results with other conjunctions: however, consequently, moreover, because, for examples."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nFor I would that all men were even as I myself. (1 Corinthians 7:7) I would to God my name were not so terrible to the enemy as it is. (2H4 I.ii.219-220) Do these would-constructions mean the same thing?","question":"For I would that all men were even as I myself. (1 Corinthians 7:7) I would to God my name were not so terrible to the enemy as it is. (2H4 I.ii.219-220) Do these would-constructions mean the same thing?","answer":"Would in both cases indicates a desire or intent, but the Shakespearean instance is more forceful. I'm no hermeneutician, but the Corinthians verse opens with \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9, which is straightforwardly translated as I want or I wish. Merriam-Webster lists this use of would as archaic, whereas OALD simply calls it \"literary\": would that\u2026 (literary): used to express a strong wish References to God (or the devil) intensify. Would to God [that] on its own can stand as an old-fashioned interjection, and in such cases the would cannot always be directly substituted with want or wish (How I hoped she would leave him. Would to God!).","output":"Would in both cases indicates a desire or intent, but the Shakespearean instance is more forceful. I'm no hermeneutician, but the Corinthians verse opens with \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9, which is straightforwardly translated as I want or I wish. Merriam-Webster lists this use of would as archaic, whereas OALD simply calls it \"literary\": would that\u2026 (literary): used to express a strong wish References to God (or the devil) intensify. Would to God [that] on its own can stand as an old-fashioned interjection, and in such cases the would cannot always be directly substituted with want or wish (How I hoped she would leave him. Would to God!)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow would we form the superlative of the adjective common? I thought it was most common, but my spelling checker recognizes commonest too.","question":"How would we form the superlative of the adjective common? I thought it was most common, but my spelling checker recognizes commonest too.","answer":"This is how software tools are designed including MS Word. Don't worry, commonest is the word and many dictionaries define it. commonest (adj) - Occurring, found, or done often; prevalent. However, if you find it on Ngram, most common is more popular than commonest especially in recent years. However, interesting point is, many people prefer speaking most common over commonest because if you say commonest problem it may sound communist problem! To avoid such ambiguity with such noun, prefer using most common.","output":"This is how software tools are designed including MS Word. Don't worry, commonest is the word and many dictionaries define it. commonest (adj) - Occurring, found, or done often; prevalent. However, if you find it on Ngram, most common is more popular than commonest especially in recent years. However, interesting point is, many people prefer speaking most common over commonest because if you say commonest problem it may sound communist problem! To avoid such ambiguity with such noun, prefer using most common."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn a book that I am reading (The Great Conversation) I found the following sentence: What is just in this social world is that each person receive the honor that is due, given that person's status and position. Is receive correct? Should not it be receives?","question":"In a book that I am reading (The Great Conversation) I found the following sentence: What is just in this social world is that each person receive the honor that is due, given that person's status and position. Is receive correct? Should not it be receives?","answer":"It's because this sentence is written in the subjunctive form. It's a very formal way of speaking; and is used for talking about opinions, ideas, and possibilities instead of just facts. If this world were just, he would say \"everyone receives the honor that is due.\" But the world is not just, so he's using the subjunctive clause to talk about the ideal situation. You don't have to use the subjunctive clause in this sentence, it would be equally correct to say What is just in this social world is that each person receives the honor that is due, given that person's status and position. The meaning's the same, but because it's not in the subjunctive mood it sounds maybe a little too authoritative. As if he's saying \"and that's a fact that everyone agrees with.\"","output":"It's because this sentence is written in the subjunctive form. It's a very formal way of speaking; and is used for talking about opinions, ideas, and possibilities instead of just facts. If this world were just, he would say \"everyone receives the honor that is due.\" But the world is not just, so he's using the subjunctive clause to talk about the ideal situation. You don't have to use the subjunctive clause in this sentence, it would be equally correct to say What is just in this social world is that each person receives the honor that is due, given that person's status and position. The meaning's the same, but because it's not in the subjunctive mood it sounds maybe a little too authoritative. As if he's saying \"and that's a fact that everyone agrees with.\""}
{"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\nWe were going on a trip. My class was divided into two groups. There were two buses. So my friend wanted to ask me Which bus will you be on tomorrow?\" But is it fine to use: Which bus are you taking? (tomorrow) Which bus will you be taking? (tomorrow) What sounds natural out of the two? Thank you:)","question":"We were going on a trip. My class was divided into two groups. There were two buses. So my friend wanted to ask me Which bus will you be on tomorrow?\" But is it fine to use: Which bus are you taking? (tomorrow) Which bus will you be taking? (tomorrow) What sounds natural out of the two? Thank you:)","answer":"They both sound equally natural to me.","output":"They both sound equally natural to me."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have seen many authors uses \"an\" before \"hour\" like \"an hour\" some times. Please consider the below excerpts. \"How long is your break?\", I shouted. A group of labourers sat under the banyan tree near the main campus building. \"It's two-thirty, lunch ended an hour ago.\" and another one is below I would take his boat for an hour, and buy him tea and biscuits in return. one more ' I won't take more than half an hour' I promised. I learned from my teachers that the article \"an\" comes before vowels and not before consonants. Here \"H\" is consonant, still author uses the article \"an\" before \"hour\". My question is, is this \"an\" before \"hour\" is acceptable? If yes can you explain why?","question":"I have seen many authors uses \"an\" before \"hour\" like \"an hour\" some times. Please consider the below excerpts. \"How long is your break?\", I shouted. A group of labourers sat under the banyan tree near the main campus building. \"It's two-thirty, lunch ended an hour ago.\" and another one is below I would take his boat for an hour, and buy him tea and biscuits in return. one more ' I won't take more than half an hour' I promised. I learned from my teachers that the article \"an\" comes before vowels and not before consonants. Here \"H\" is consonant, still author uses the article \"an\" before \"hour\". My question is, is this \"an\" before \"hour\" is acceptable? If yes can you explain why?","answer":"The first sound\u2014 not the first letter\u2014 is what determines which indefinite article to use. The spelling of a word is of no concern at all; if the first sound is a vowel sound, use an, and if the first sound is consonant, use a. Since the h in hour is silent, an hour is correct, and a hour is incorrect. We also say an honor \/ an honour an heir an honest man There are cases where the h may or may not be silent depending on the local dialect, as with history, herb, or hotel, in which case you should follow the local style.","output":"The first sound\u2014 not the first letter\u2014 is what determines which indefinite article to use. The spelling of a word is of no concern at all; if the first sound is a vowel sound, use an, and if the first sound is consonant, use a. Since the h in hour is silent, an hour is correct, and a hour is incorrect. We also say an honor \/ an honour an heir an honest man There are cases where the h may or may not be silent depending on the local dialect, as with history, herb, or hotel, in which case you should follow the local style."}
{"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\nExample: That man is as tired as a [...] donkey. I thought of the word overridden but I think it means something else.","question":"Example: That man is as tired as a [...] donkey. I thought of the word overridden but I think it means something else.","answer":"If you don't mind using a term usually confined to British English, try knackered. From TheFreeDictionaryOnline.com: knackered adj 1. exhausted; tired out 2. worn out; no longer working, esp after long or hard use","output":"If you don't mind using a term usually confined to British English, try knackered. From TheFreeDictionaryOnline.com: knackered adj 1. exhausted; tired out 2. worn out; no longer working, esp after long or hard use"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"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 am looking for a word similar to pompous or haughty. I thought of it for a while, and could not find a word that fit that description. It's also similar to tooting your own horn too much.","question":"I am looking for a word similar to pompous or haughty. I thought of it for a while, and could not find a word that fit that description. It's also similar to tooting your own horn too much.","answer":"Consider showboating a \u200bslightly \u200bannoying \u200bform of \u200bbehaviour, \u200bespecially in \u200bsport, that is \u200bintended to \u200battract \u200battention or \u200badmiration because it is very \u200bskilful: When he \u200bscored his fourth \u200bgoal of the \u200bafternoon, we were \u200bforced to \u200bforgive his showboating and other \u200bantics. Cambridge Dictionaries Online Also parading. One of the definitions in American Heritage of parade is To exhibit ostentatiously; flaunt: paraded their wealth.","output":"Consider showboating a \u200bslightly \u200bannoying \u200bform of \u200bbehaviour, \u200bespecially in \u200bsport, that is \u200bintended to \u200battract \u200battention or \u200badmiration because it is very \u200bskilful: When he \u200bscored his fourth \u200bgoal of the \u200bafternoon, we were \u200bforced to \u200bforgive his showboating and other \u200bantics. Cambridge Dictionaries Online Also parading. One of the definitions in American Heritage of parade is To exhibit ostentatiously; flaunt: paraded their wealth."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"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":"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":"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 can say: By that time, I will have taken ten tests. I want to know, can I in Present Perfect substitute will with be going to? By that time, I am going to have taken ten tests.","question":"I can say: By that time, I will have taken ten tests. I want to know, can I in Present Perfect substitute will with be going to? By that time, I am going to have taken ten tests.","answer":"There is nothing to prohibit this construction, and if you use it it will neither raise eyebrows nor be misunderstood. Here are a couple of examples: A lot of people graduating with an MPH are going to have taken the same classes, so you'll have an advantage if you can show that you have been responsible for data analysis. \u2014 Beth Seltzer, 101 Careers in Public Health, 2010 And if, like Nick, you were in the front line and not merely a blanket stacker stuck back at base, then of course it's going to have taken its toll. \u2014Jan Evans, A Maid of Kent: A Novel Set Against the Backdrop of the Falklands War, 2011 But this is a very rare usage. Outside of formal texts on linguistics, those are the only two instances of \"going to have taken\" actually reported by Google Books. If you run across it, you will know what it means; but there is no need to incorporate it in your working vocabulary.","output":"There is nothing to prohibit this construction, and if you use it it will neither raise eyebrows nor be misunderstood. Here are a couple of examples: A lot of people graduating with an MPH are going to have taken the same classes, so you'll have an advantage if you can show that you have been responsible for data analysis. \u2014 Beth Seltzer, 101 Careers in Public Health, 2010 And if, like Nick, you were in the front line and not merely a blanket stacker stuck back at base, then of course it's going to have taken its toll. \u2014Jan Evans, A Maid of Kent: A Novel Set Against the Backdrop of the Falklands War, 2011 But this is a very rare usage. Outside of formal texts on linguistics, those are the only two instances of \"going to have taken\" actually reported by Google Books. If you run across it, you will know what it means; but there is no need to incorporate it in your working vocabulary."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat's the (slightly pejorative) word for the way some websites provide content tailored to the \"interests\" (belief systems, etc.) of users, thereby preventing them (or at least greatly diminishing the opportunities) to discover other points of view? Google does it. Twitter does it. I regularly receives emails from Twitter, with suggestions and the latest \"activity on the network\" and it usually right on the money, introducing me to tweets on human rights, activism, social issues. My problem with it is that those who need to hear of such things (the very people to whom I, as an activist, would like to reach) are those who, by the very same algorithm used by such web sites, would be prevented from coming across it. I once saw a specific term for such an algorithm for \"tailored\" content. Somehow the following questions feels connected to the feeling behind my question: Has the term \u2018weapons of mass distraction\u2019 gotten currency as a metonym for web sites and lowbrow mass media contents?","question":"What's the (slightly pejorative) word for the way some websites provide content tailored to the \"interests\" (belief systems, etc.) of users, thereby preventing them (or at least greatly diminishing the opportunities) to discover other points of view? Google does it. Twitter does it. I regularly receives emails from Twitter, with suggestions and the latest \"activity on the network\" and it usually right on the money, introducing me to tweets on human rights, activism, social issues. My problem with it is that those who need to hear of such things (the very people to whom I, as an activist, would like to reach) are those who, by the very same algorithm used by such web sites, would be prevented from coming across it. I once saw a specific term for such an algorithm for \"tailored\" content. Somehow the following questions feels connected to the feeling behind my question: Has the term \u2018weapons of mass distraction\u2019 gotten currency as a metonym for web sites and lowbrow mass media contents?","answer":"Filter Bubble Wikipedia says: A filter bubble is a result of a personalized search in which a website algorithm selectively guesses what information a user would like to see based on information about the user (such as location, past click behavior and search history) and, as a result, users become separated from information that disagrees with their viewpoints, effectively isolating them in their own cultural or ideological bubbles.","output":"Filter Bubble Wikipedia says: A filter bubble is a result of a personalized search in which a website algorithm selectively guesses what information a user would like to see based on information about the user (such as location, past click behavior and search history) and, as a result, users become separated from information that disagrees with their viewpoints, effectively isolating them in their own cultural or ideological bubbles."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nDoes 'but for' mean: 'If we had X (but we didn't), Y would have been the consequence'? Or can it also mean; because we had X, as a result Y happened? Some different examples of but for: (Case 1) But for a cup coffee, it was to be a productive day of writing. Unfortunately, I'd run out, and spent the day craving. (Case 2) But for the glass of wine I had dinner, the house work didn't get done. (Case 3) But for the glass of wine I had for dinner, I would have got the house work done What is the correct usage of \"but for\"?","question":"Does 'but for' mean: 'If we had X (but we didn't), Y would have been the consequence'? Or can it also mean; because we had X, as a result Y happened? Some different examples of but for: (Case 1) But for a cup coffee, it was to be a productive day of writing. Unfortunately, I'd run out, and spent the day craving. (Case 2) But for the glass of wine I had dinner, the house work didn't get done. (Case 3) But for the glass of wine I had for dinner, I would have got the house work done What is the correct usage of \"but for\"?","answer":"The preposition But for x be expanded as: if x had not existed or if x had not happened This makes but for the equivalent of the third (remote) conditional where the main clause contains the would have construction. On this basis your third case is correct: But for (If I hadn't drunk) the glass of wine I had for dinner, I would have got the house work done. A related sense of but for is with the exception of: But for (with the exception of) the wine, everything about the meal was perfect. Neither of the above senses of but for works in your case 1 and 2 sentences.","output":"The preposition But for x be expanded as: if x had not existed or if x had not happened This makes but for the equivalent of the third (remote) conditional where the main clause contains the would have construction. On this basis your third case is correct: But for (If I hadn't drunk) the glass of wine I had for dinner, I would have got the house work done. A related sense of but for is with the exception of: But for (with the exception of) the wine, everything about the meal was perfect. Neither of the above senses of but for works in your case 1 and 2 sentences."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"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 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":"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\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"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 heard the clock strike ten. Why is strike in the simple present in this sentence? What are the conditions for using a simple present verb after a past tense verb to talk about the past?","question":"I heard the clock strike ten. Why is strike in the simple present in this sentence? What are the conditions for using a simple present verb after a past tense verb to talk about the past?","answer":"VERBS OF PERCEPTION can take a clause with the verb in the infinitive or plain form. Verbs of perception are verbs about how our bodies detect things in the world. Some examples are: hear, listen, see, watch, look, taste, feel, sense If these clauses take a verb in the plain form, then the pronoun before the verb will always be accusative (an 'object' pronoun). It does not matter what tense the verb of perception is in: I heard her leave the building I listened to her tell her story. I saw him jump over the elephant. I 'll be watching them clean the building. Look at him run! I could literally literally taste it go sour as I drank it. I felt her touch my arm. I sensed him move the table sightly. Hope this helps!","output":"VERBS OF PERCEPTION can take a clause with the verb in the infinitive or plain form. Verbs of perception are verbs about how our bodies detect things in the world. Some examples are: hear, listen, see, watch, look, taste, feel, sense If these clauses take a verb in the plain form, then the pronoun before the verb will always be accusative (an 'object' pronoun). It does not matter what tense the verb of perception is in: I heard her leave the building I listened to her tell her story. I saw him jump over the elephant. I 'll be watching them clean the building. Look at him run! I could literally literally taste it go sour as I drank it. I felt her touch my arm. I sensed him move the table sightly. Hope this helps!"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nlive adjective 5. (informal) full of life and energySource: Collins Dictionary \u2013 definition of \"live\" For the meaning above, which of the following usages is correct? Which one would you use? A live person An alive person I think \"live\" is for plants, animals or things where their life is not noticeable.","question":"live adjective 5. (informal) full of life and energySource: Collins Dictionary \u2013 definition of \"live\" For the meaning above, which of the following usages is correct? Which one would you use? A live person An alive person I think \"live\" is for plants, animals or things where their life is not noticeable.","answer":"The sense of \u201clive\" that you've pulled from Collins is a very specific use. The only example I can think of for that specific sense is in the informal fixed phrase \u201clive wire\u201d: live wire noun (informal) an energetic or enterprising person a wire carrying an electric currentSource: Collins Dictionary \u2013 definition of \u201clive wire\u201d Generally speaking, if you want to say someone is \u201cfull of life\u201d (unusually energetic), you'll be better off with \u201clively\u201d. For example: \u201cHe's just this great old guy \u2014 he's confined to a wheelchair, but he's so lively. He's ninety-five years old, yet you wouldn't know it to talk to him.\u201dSource: Jelly's Gold, by David Housewright If you want to use \u201clive\u201d in its usual sense of specifying whether or not someone or something is dead, pay attention to the first definition of the adjective: live adjective (prenominal) showing the characteristics of life Source: Collins Dictionary \u2013 definition of \u201clive\u201d \u201cPrenominal\u201d means that this adjective is used before the subject. Therefore \u201ca live person\u201d is correct, and means that the person is not dead, is not a robot, is not a recorded voice on the phone, or, as in the following example, is not plastic in the shape of a person. Plastic mannequins are helpful for this kind of work, but the clients usually prefer a \u201clive\u201d fit or showroom model so they can see how the fabric moves with the person, and they are able to ask questions about how an article of clothing Feels. A live person also gives a more genuine feel as to how the fabric is going to drape. Or if an outfit is pulling somewhere that just does not feel right, a person (as opposed to a mannequin) can say something about it.Source: Break into Modeling for Under $20, by Judy Goss \u201cAn alive person\u201d is not correct, because \u201calive\u201d is postpositive, i.e. placed after the word that it refers to. That means you would want to say \u201cA person [who is] alive\u201d. This syntax will require you to include a being verb in order to name the state of the person. This usage is usually less metaphorical, and is generally restricted to cases were there are two options: alive or dead. For example: Burden of proving that [a] person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years. \u2014 Provided that when the question is whether a [person] is alive or dead, and it is proved that [the person] has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of [the person] if [the person] had been alive, the burden of proving that [the person] is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it.Source: Of the Burden of Proof, \u00a7108 in The Law of Evidence by M. Monir","output":"The sense of \u201clive\" that you've pulled from Collins is a very specific use. The only example I can think of for that specific sense is in the informal fixed phrase \u201clive wire\u201d: live wire noun (informal) an energetic or enterprising person a wire carrying an electric currentSource: Collins Dictionary \u2013 definition of \u201clive wire\u201d Generally speaking, if you want to say someone is \u201cfull of life\u201d (unusually energetic), you'll be better off with \u201clively\u201d. For example: \u201cHe's just this great old guy \u2014 he's confined to a wheelchair, but he's so lively. He's ninety-five years old, yet you wouldn't know it to talk to him.\u201dSource: Jelly's Gold, by David Housewright If you want to use \u201clive\u201d in its usual sense of specifying whether or not someone or something is dead, pay attention to the first definition of the adjective: live adjective (prenominal) showing the characteristics of life Source: Collins Dictionary \u2013 definition of \u201clive\u201d \u201cPrenominal\u201d means that this adjective is used before the subject. Therefore \u201ca live person\u201d is correct, and means that the person is not dead, is not a robot, is not a recorded voice on the phone, or, as in the following example, is not plastic in the shape of a person. Plastic mannequins are helpful for this kind of work, but the clients usually prefer a \u201clive\u201d fit or showroom model so they can see how the fabric moves with the person, and they are able to ask questions about how an article of clothing Feels. A live person also gives a more genuine feel as to how the fabric is going to drape. Or if an outfit is pulling somewhere that just does not feel right, a person (as opposed to a mannequin) can say something about it.Source: Break into Modeling for Under $20, by Judy Goss \u201cAn alive person\u201d is not correct, because \u201calive\u201d is postpositive, i.e. placed after the word that it refers to. That means you would want to say \u201cA person [who is] alive\u201d. This syntax will require you to include a being verb in order to name the state of the person. This usage is usually less metaphorical, and is generally restricted to cases were there are two options: alive or dead. For example: Burden of proving that [a] person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years. \u2014 Provided that when the question is whether a [person] is alive or dead, and it is proved that [the person] has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of [the person] if [the person] had been alive, the burden of proving that [the person] is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it.Source: Of the Burden of Proof, \u00a7108 in The Law of Evidence by M. Monir"}
{"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 many times use the verb \"subselect\". For example: I subselected all individuals with age below 35 in the sample. Apparently, this usage of the verb is correct. However, after using it today, I thought, why not simply use \"select\"? I selected all individuals with age below 35 in the sample. I see no practical difference between the two. Is there any difference between these two verbs? For parsimonious reasons, should I simply not use \"subselect\" anymore?","question":"I many times use the verb \"subselect\". For example: I subselected all individuals with age below 35 in the sample. Apparently, this usage of the verb is correct. However, after using it today, I thought, why not simply use \"select\"? I selected all individuals with age below 35 in the sample. I see no practical difference between the two. Is there any difference between these two verbs? For parsimonious reasons, should I simply not use \"subselect\" anymore?","answer":"The sub in subselect is there because the word refers to selecting within an existing selection. Just using select is ambiguous in that case as it could mean deselecting the previous selection, then selecting a new item, or it could refer to selecting within the existing selection. In many cases the context could make it clear which meaning is appropriate, so the sub could be omitted.","output":"The sub in subselect is there because the word refers to selecting within an existing selection. Just using select is ambiguous in that case as it could mean deselecting the previous selection, then selecting a new item, or it could refer to selecting within the existing selection. In many cases the context could make it clear which meaning is appropriate, so the sub could be omitted."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nFor example, I'm playing a game where it costs $5 to upgrade one of my weapons. Thus I have an \"upgrade cost\" of $5. When I want to downgrade my weapon and I only get $3 back for it, what would be the opposite word for cost? Upgrade cost of $5 Downgrade X of $3","question":"For example, I'm playing a game where it costs $5 to upgrade one of my weapons. Thus I have an \"upgrade cost\" of $5. When I want to downgrade my weapon and I only get $3 back for it, what would be the opposite word for cost? Upgrade cost of $5 Downgrade X of $3","answer":"I think what you are looking for is a refund.","output":"I think what you are looking for is a refund."}
{"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\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"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\nWhy can we say: It is worth more than. . . . but not: It is expensive more than. . . . It\u2019s the position of more which I find so confusing. Also, is worth an adjective in both these cases?","question":"Why can we say: It is worth more than. . . . but not: It is expensive more than. . . . It\u2019s the position of more which I find so confusing. Also, is worth an adjective in both these cases?","answer":"Worth is a difficult word. For example \"The categorial status of worth is a matter of some dispute. It has variously been claimed to be a preposition and an adjective (cf. Maling 1983 and McCawley 1985). If it is a preposition, then it must have a homophonous derived noun, since phrases like the worth of the book are common enough. On the other hand, if it is an adjective, then it must be transitive, since it has a complement; this is surely unusual -- or even impossible, according to some theories of grammatical categories. \"Let it stand that no matter what category worth may belong to, it is an atypical example of the category.\" In this particular case, worth is behaving transitively, since it has a complement with a comparative construction: more than . . . . Expensive, on the other hand, is an ordinary adjective and has to be either a predicate adjective That necklace is more expensive than she can afford. or an attributive adjective She didn't buy that expensive necklace. And the comparative construction places adjectives after more, not before more.","output":"Worth is a difficult word. For example \"The categorial status of worth is a matter of some dispute. It has variously been claimed to be a preposition and an adjective (cf. Maling 1983 and McCawley 1985). If it is a preposition, then it must have a homophonous derived noun, since phrases like the worth of the book are common enough. On the other hand, if it is an adjective, then it must be transitive, since it has a complement; this is surely unusual -- or even impossible, according to some theories of grammatical categories. \"Let it stand that no matter what category worth may belong to, it is an atypical example of the category.\" In this particular case, worth is behaving transitively, since it has a complement with a comparative construction: more than . . . . Expensive, on the other hand, is an ordinary adjective and has to be either a predicate adjective That necklace is more expensive than she can afford. or an attributive adjective She didn't buy that expensive necklace. And the comparative construction places adjectives after more, not before more."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nDo these sentences use 'anymore\/any more' correctly? We won't be trying any more of those products. We won't be trying those products anymore. Spotlight's on him now, he won't be trying anymore funny business; for a while anyway. Note: I made up Sentence 1 & 2. Sentence 3, which I don't feel certain about, was found on Google Books. Thank you.","question":"Do these sentences use 'anymore\/any more' correctly? We won't be trying any more of those products. We won't be trying those products anymore. Spotlight's on him now, he won't be trying anymore funny business; for a while anyway. Note: I made up Sentence 1 & 2. Sentence 3, which I don't feel certain about, was found on Google Books. Thank you.","answer":"Any more (two words) can be used as: (A) an adverb about quantities or numbers - is there any more beer? Have you seen any more birds? Used like this, it means roughly the same as 'some more'. (B) also an adverb, meaning 'no longer' or 'in the past but not now'. In this meaning, we use it in the end position - I don't drink tea any more, bus tickets are not cheap any more, I won't be seeing Mary any more. 'Anymore' (one word) is a mainly US English variation for meaning (B). In your sentences, (1) is correct (meaning A), 2 is correct (meaning B) and (3) is incorrect (should be 'any more funny business' - meaning A). Any more or anymore?","output":"Any more (two words) can be used as: (A) an adverb about quantities or numbers - is there any more beer? Have you seen any more birds? Used like this, it means roughly the same as 'some more'. (B) also an adverb, meaning 'no longer' or 'in the past but not now'. In this meaning, we use it in the end position - I don't drink tea any more, bus tickets are not cheap any more, I won't be seeing Mary any more. 'Anymore' (one word) is a mainly US English variation for meaning (B). In your sentences, (1) is correct (meaning A), 2 is correct (meaning B) and (3) is incorrect (should be 'any more funny business' - meaning A). Any more or anymore?"}
{"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\nAccording to the context, which definition of \"aspect\" is appropriate here? The scapula forms the posterior located part of the shoulder girdle. In humans, it is a flat bone, roughly triangular in shape, placed on a posterolateral aspect of the thoracic cage. Definitions: a particular part or feature of a situation, an idea, a problem, etc; a way in which it may be considered. the direction in which a building, window, piece of land, etc. faces; the side of a building that faces a particular direction.","question":"According to the context, which definition of \"aspect\" is appropriate here? The scapula forms the posterior located part of the shoulder girdle. In humans, it is a flat bone, roughly triangular in shape, placed on a posterolateral aspect of the thoracic cage. Definitions: a particular part or feature of a situation, an idea, a problem, etc; a way in which it may be considered. the direction in which a building, window, piece of land, etc. faces; the side of a building that faces a particular direction.","answer":"Sense 2. Translated into the vernacular, \"The shoulderblade is the back part of the shoulder girdle. In humans, it's a flat triangular bone set on one side of the back of the ribcage.\"","output":"Sense 2. Translated into the vernacular, \"The shoulderblade is the back part of the shoulder girdle. In humans, it's a flat triangular bone set on one side of the back of the ribcage.\""}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI know that \"an ace up your sleeve \" is an idiom . However , I don't understand the meaning of the term when our manager says to our data scientist : \"You produced what you always produce - a report on structured data, but you really didn\u2019t prove any additional value.\" Data scientist: are either also indifferent and just go back to what you have always done... or you have an ace up your sleeve...","question":"I know that \"an ace up your sleeve \" is an idiom . However , I don't understand the meaning of the term when our manager says to our data scientist : \"You produced what you always produce - a report on structured data, but you really didn\u2019t prove any additional value.\" Data scientist: are either also indifferent and just go back to what you have always done... or you have an ace up your sleeve...","answer":"The idiom's definition is: to have an advantage that other people do not know about In this case, the manager seems to be commenting that the data scientist is either turning in lackluster work or is keeping whatever is special about his work hidden for now, possibly to appear more impressive later.","output":"The idiom's definition is: to have an advantage that other people do not know about In this case, the manager seems to be commenting that the data scientist is either turning in lackluster work or is keeping whatever is special about his work hidden for now, possibly to appear more impressive later."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhich is your most favourite subject in school ? What is your most favourite subject in school ? Which one is acceptable? If both are acceptable, do they have any difference in meaning?","question":"Which is your most favourite subject in school ? What is your most favourite subject in school ? Which one is acceptable? If both are acceptable, do they have any difference in meaning?","answer":"In short, when the interrogative pronoun which is used, it is asking about something among a group of things. Note: which can also be used as a determiner.","output":"In short, when the interrogative pronoun which is used, it is asking about something among a group of things. Note: which can also be used as a determiner."}
{"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 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\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\"In regards to\" is something I use constantly. I use that to refer back to a specific subject or object. For example: A: Is it too expensive? Also, would I be able to make an appointment? B: It is not that expensive in comparison to other services. In regards to the appointment, yes! You will be able to make one whenever you're ready. I have found that other alternatives include: As regards Regarding With regards to In regard Are all of those, including \"in regards to\", grammatically correct?","question":"\"In regards to\" is something I use constantly. I use that to refer back to a specific subject or object. For example: A: Is it too expensive? Also, would I be able to make an appointment? B: It is not that expensive in comparison to other services. In regards to the appointment, yes! You will be able to make one whenever you're ready. I have found that other alternatives include: As regards Regarding With regards to In regard Are all of those, including \"in regards to\", grammatically correct?","answer":"Regard is tricky. The \u2018rules\u2019 below are those observed in formal writing; you may safely ignore them in conversation. When used as a noun to express your attention to a particular topic, it should be used in the singular: In regard to the appointment, yes! ... not regards. With regard to the appointment, yes! ... not regards. This is often confused, even (or perhaps particularly) by native speakers with the related phrase as regards: As regards the appointment, yes! This is not a plural, however, but a 3d person singular verb; the sense is that your discourse now regards (\u201clooks back to\u201d, \u201ccontemplates\u201d) the noun or NP which follows. The verb sense is also used in the present participle regarding: Regarding the appointment, yes! The plural noun regards is used only in the sense \u201cexpression of esteem or affection\u201d. In this sense the plural varies freely with the singular. Please convey my very sincere regards [or regard] to your mother. \u201cGive my Regards to Broadway\u201d \u2014song by George M. Cohan In the sense of \u201cesteem, honor, opinion\u201d, however, only the singular is ordinarily employed. I hold him in the highest regard. Respect, which also acts as both a noun and a verb, works exactly the same way in these senses. With respect to ... With regard to ... As respects ... Respecting ... Convey my respects to ... Both words have other senses, however, in which their use varies.","output":"Regard is tricky. The \u2018rules\u2019 below are those observed in formal writing; you may safely ignore them in conversation. When used as a noun to express your attention to a particular topic, it should be used in the singular: In regard to the appointment, yes! ... not regards. With regard to the appointment, yes! ... not regards. This is often confused, even (or perhaps particularly) by native speakers with the related phrase as regards: As regards the appointment, yes! This is not a plural, however, but a 3d person singular verb; the sense is that your discourse now regards (\u201clooks back to\u201d, \u201ccontemplates\u201d) the noun or NP which follows. The verb sense is also used in the present participle regarding: Regarding the appointment, yes! The plural noun regards is used only in the sense \u201cexpression of esteem or affection\u201d. In this sense the plural varies freely with the singular. Please convey my very sincere regards [or regard] to your mother. \u201cGive my Regards to Broadway\u201d \u2014song by George M. Cohan In the sense of \u201cesteem, honor, opinion\u201d, however, only the singular is ordinarily employed. I hold him in the highest regard. Respect, which also acts as both a noun and a verb, works exactly the same way in these senses. With respect to ... With regard to ... As respects ... Respecting ... Convey my respects to ... Both words have other senses, however, in which their use varies."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have heard some people spell double letters individually, e.g. \"B-B\", \"C-C\", or \"D-D\". But I have also heard others use the word double instead. Is there any dialectical preference? Is there any such thing as American vs. British in this case?","question":"I have heard some people spell double letters individually, e.g. \"B-B\", \"C-C\", or \"D-D\". But I have also heard others use the word double instead. Is there any dialectical preference? Is there any such thing as American vs. British in this case?","answer":"It is absolutely standard in British English to use \"double\" for repeated letters when spelling words, and sounds odd not to do so. It is also common for repeated digits when reciting numbers digit by digit. My observation is that the usage is much less common in American English, and may indeed be misheard as \"W\".","output":"It is absolutely standard in British English to use \"double\" for repeated letters when spelling words, and sounds odd not to do so. It is also common for repeated digits when reciting numbers digit by digit. My observation is that the usage is much less common in American English, and may indeed be misheard as \"W\"."}
{"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\nSource: http:\/\/thefreethoughtproject.com\/cop-shoots-mans-service-dog-9-year-sons-birthday\/#WyU0h1jKvjFGLaLT.01 A dog is dead, and its owner is alleging trigger-happy police work after a Filer officer shot the animal Saturday outside his home. What is a Filer officer?","question":"Source: http:\/\/thefreethoughtproject.com\/cop-shoots-mans-service-dog-9-year-sons-birthday\/#WyU0h1jKvjFGLaLT.01 A dog is dead, and its owner is alleging trigger-happy police work after a Filer officer shot the animal Saturday outside his home. What is a Filer officer?","answer":"An officer from (well, employed by the police department of) Filer, Idaho, where the incident took place.","output":"An officer from (well, employed by the police department of) Filer, Idaho, where the incident took place."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhy is 'crooked' pronounced \/'kr\u028ak.\u026ad\/ and not \/kr\u028ak\/d\/? Is there any available explanation for why 'crooked' is pronounced as \/'kr\u028ak.\u026ad\/' not \/kr\u028ak\/d\/? Or is it just one of the exceptions for '-ed' ending words and it is what it is?","question":"Why is 'crooked' pronounced \/'kr\u028ak.\u026ad\/ and not \/kr\u028ak\/d\/? Is there any available explanation for why 'crooked' is pronounced as \/'kr\u028ak.\u026ad\/' not \/kr\u028ak\/d\/? Or is it just one of the exceptions for '-ed' ending words and it is what it is?","answer":"There is a comprehensive answer to this question on the English Language & Usage sister site. Basically, the answer boils down to the fact that the adjective \"crooked\" is not derived from a verb, and so it doesn't follow the typical -ed pronunciation rules for past participles. On the other hand, \"to crook\" is a verb and has a past participle \"crooked,\" as in \"He crooked his finger.\" This word, although spelled the same as the adjective, is pronounced as a single syllable, like \"looked.\" This same situation also arises in some other words like \"blessed.\"","output":"There is a comprehensive answer to this question on the English Language & Usage sister site. Basically, the answer boils down to the fact that the adjective \"crooked\" is not derived from a verb, and so it doesn't follow the typical -ed pronunciation rules for past participles. On the other hand, \"to crook\" is a verb and has a past participle \"crooked,\" as in \"He crooked his finger.\" This word, although spelled the same as the adjective, is pronounced as a single syllable, like \"looked.\" This same situation also arises in some other words like \"blessed.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHere, you may find a call to arms of sorts by the Swedish most prominent telco. I was born Russian, and I live in Sweden, so English is just about my third language. And so the following line does not sound right in my head: Leadership is our drive. What's your? Well, I want to say, what's yours? but that doesn't seem to go with implied drive. But for some reason it sounds really wrong to me. I think it's idiomatic in inspiro-speak to leave out the drive-part, so I'm not complaining about omitted subjects and fragmentation. So is this wrong? And if it's not \u2014 why do I feel like ending the punchline with what's your? sounds much worse than ending it with what's yours? ..?","question":"Here, you may find a call to arms of sorts by the Swedish most prominent telco. I was born Russian, and I live in Sweden, so English is just about my third language. And so the following line does not sound right in my head: Leadership is our drive. What's your? Well, I want to say, what's yours? but that doesn't seem to go with implied drive. But for some reason it sounds really wrong to me. I think it's idiomatic in inspiro-speak to leave out the drive-part, so I'm not complaining about omitted subjects and fragmentation. So is this wrong? And if it's not \u2014 why do I feel like ending the punchline with what's your? sounds much worse than ending it with what's yours? ..?","answer":"You're correct, it should be \"What's yours?\" not \"What's your?\". Your is a possessive adjective, and needs to be accompanied by a noun \u2014 so \"What's your drive?\" would be correct. Without the noun, you should use the possessive pronoun, \"yours\". POSSESSIVE POSSESSIVE PRONOUN ADJECTIVE PRONOUN I my mine you your yours he his his she her hers it its its we our ours they their theirs (from http:\/\/www.easyenglish.com\/lesson.asp?whose.txt) I would also take issue with the first sentence; it should be \"Leadership is our driver\". When used as a noun, drive isn't something you're driven by, it's something you drive on. So the corrected slogan would read: Leadership is our driver. What's yours?","output":"You're correct, it should be \"What's yours?\" not \"What's your?\". Your is a possessive adjective, and needs to be accompanied by a noun \u2014 so \"What's your drive?\" would be correct. Without the noun, you should use the possessive pronoun, \"yours\". POSSESSIVE POSSESSIVE PRONOUN ADJECTIVE PRONOUN I my mine you your yours he his his she her hers it its its we our ours they their theirs (from http:\/\/www.easyenglish.com\/lesson.asp?whose.txt) I would also take issue with the first sentence; it should be \"Leadership is our driver\". When used as a noun, drive isn't something you're driven by, it's something you drive on. So the corrected slogan would read: Leadership is our driver. What's yours?"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAs for the British English it's always taught - compel, compelled, compelling Some of the books\/dictionaries say that in American English you say compel, compeled, compeling instead, you simply don't double that l. Moreover, Merriam Webster (11th Collegiate) doesn't mention \"compeled\" at all. With counsel - both options are listed. Interestingly, ngram doesn't indicate much usage of \"compeled\". On the other hand, \"counseled\" is more popular than \"counselled\" in AmE How is it really in American English?","question":"As for the British English it's always taught - compel, compelled, compelling Some of the books\/dictionaries say that in American English you say compel, compeled, compeling instead, you simply don't double that l. Moreover, Merriam Webster (11th Collegiate) doesn't mention \"compeled\" at all. With counsel - both options are listed. Interestingly, ngram doesn't indicate much usage of \"compeled\". On the other hand, \"counseled\" is more popular than \"counselled\" in AmE How is it really in American English?","answer":"You won't find compeled in the American Heritage Dictionary, Webster's New World College Dictionary, or ODO's US English corpus, either. The Corpus of Contemporary American English, which samples published texts from 1990\u20132012, returns zero matches for compeled versus 2651 for compelled. For that matter, it also returns zero results for expeled (vs. 2057 for expelled), zero for repeled (425 for repelled), and zero for impeled (367, impelled). There is one result for propeled, but that is almost certainly a typographical error, as propelled is used in every other instance by the same publication (the San Francisco Chronicle), and a total of 1648 times in the corpus. The Google NGram for these forms suggest the double-L version has always predominated in American English, so it is not even a matter of one form losing popularity over time. Either your books are wrong or you have misinterpreted them.","output":"You won't find compeled in the American Heritage Dictionary, Webster's New World College Dictionary, or ODO's US English corpus, either. The Corpus of Contemporary American English, which samples published texts from 1990\u20132012, returns zero matches for compeled versus 2651 for compelled. For that matter, it also returns zero results for expeled (vs. 2057 for expelled), zero for repeled (425 for repelled), and zero for impeled (367, impelled). There is one result for propeled, but that is almost certainly a typographical error, as propelled is used in every other instance by the same publication (the San Francisco Chronicle), and a total of 1648 times in the corpus. The Google NGram for these forms suggest the double-L version has always predominated in American English, so it is not even a matter of one form losing popularity over time. Either your books are wrong or you have misinterpreted them."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\"Hard to help a boy who's vanished off the face of the earth,\" said Dirk. \"Listen, the fact that they haven't caught him yet's one hell of an achievement,\" said Ted. \"I'd take tips from him gladly. It's what we're trying to do, stay free, isn't it?\" Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Is 'yet's' \"yet is\"? Is it a normal contraction?","question":"\"Hard to help a boy who's vanished off the face of the earth,\" said Dirk. \"Listen, the fact that they haven't caught him yet's one hell of an achievement,\" said Ted. \"I'd take tips from him gladly. It's what we're trying to do, stay free, isn't it?\" Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Is 'yet's' \"yet is\"? Is it a normal contraction?","answer":"Yes, it is a contraction for \"yet is\" (with \"yet\" concluding the subject clause and \"is\" being the main verb). It is not a \"canned\" contraction that you can find in a dictionary. Rather, the vowel sound is dropped from \"is\" and the \"s\" sound is tacked onto the end of the preceding word for words where this is comfortable to pronounce. This kind of contraction is common in spoken English, but unusual in writing unless, as here, the writing represents spoken dialogue. Other simple examples: \"The ball's red.\" (The ball is red.) \"Who's going to the store?\" (Who is...?) \"Bob's at home today.\" (Bob is...) This can also be done with other simple verbs like \"will\" (drop the \"wi-\" sound and tack the \"L\" sound to the end of the preceding word) and so on.","output":"Yes, it is a contraction for \"yet is\" (with \"yet\" concluding the subject clause and \"is\" being the main verb). It is not a \"canned\" contraction that you can find in a dictionary. Rather, the vowel sound is dropped from \"is\" and the \"s\" sound is tacked onto the end of the preceding word for words where this is comfortable to pronounce. This kind of contraction is common in spoken English, but unusual in writing unless, as here, the writing represents spoken dialogue. Other simple examples: \"The ball's red.\" (The ball is red.) \"Who's going to the store?\" (Who is...?) \"Bob's at home today.\" (Bob is...) This can also be done with other simple verbs like \"will\" (drop the \"wi-\" sound and tack the \"L\" sound to the end of the preceding word) and so on."}
{"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\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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe phrase \u201cTwenty-Three Skidoo\u201d has a very interesting and mysterious history described very thoroughly by the wikipedia article on the phrase. However, this article seems to indicate it\u2019s usually used as a phrase to mean \u201cLet\u2019s get out of here in a hurry!\u201d The place where I have heard this expression used first, and most firmly in my memory, is from an episode of \u201cHey Arnold!\u201d, involving the passing of a comet, and the declaration, upon seeing it, of said phrase. This confuses me, and a number of my friends who have seen this show, since it seems to suggest a very positive or excited expression, when the actual expression seems to be one of fear or distress. So where does this more positive use of the phrase come from? And is there a more definite origin of \u201cTwenty-Three Skidoo\u201d that goes unmentioned by the wiki article?","question":"The phrase \u201cTwenty-Three Skidoo\u201d has a very interesting and mysterious history described very thoroughly by the wikipedia article on the phrase. However, this article seems to indicate it\u2019s usually used as a phrase to mean \u201cLet\u2019s get out of here in a hurry!\u201d The place where I have heard this expression used first, and most firmly in my memory, is from an episode of \u201cHey Arnold!\u201d, involving the passing of a comet, and the declaration, upon seeing it, of said phrase. This confuses me, and a number of my friends who have seen this show, since it seems to suggest a very positive or excited expression, when the actual expression seems to be one of fear or distress. So where does this more positive use of the phrase come from? And is there a more definite origin of \u201cTwenty-Three Skidoo\u201d that goes unmentioned by the wiki article?","answer":"There was a mechanical three-wheeled twelve-column number puzzle vintage 1905 printed on a card titled \"SKIDOO 23 PUZZLE\" where the wheels would have to be aligned so that all columns would add up to the number '23'. Maybe this bit of information can help crack the mystery of the elusive phrase: \"23 SKIDOO\". Unless I'm missing something, there appears to be no solution to this puzzle. The closest solution is when you line up \"12\" on the outermost wheel, with \"0\" at the middle wheel, and \"12\" at the innermost wheel. No other combinations of the outermost and innermost wheel sum to 23, with a \"0\" at the middle wheel. You end up with 10 of the 12 columns summing to 23, and two that sum to 17. About as much of a mystery as the origin of \"23 skidoo\" itself.","output":"There was a mechanical three-wheeled twelve-column number puzzle vintage 1905 printed on a card titled \"SKIDOO 23 PUZZLE\" where the wheels would have to be aligned so that all columns would add up to the number '23'. Maybe this bit of information can help crack the mystery of the elusive phrase: \"23 SKIDOO\". Unless I'm missing something, there appears to be no solution to this puzzle. The closest solution is when you line up \"12\" on the outermost wheel, with \"0\" at the middle wheel, and \"12\" at the innermost wheel. No other combinations of the outermost and innermost wheel sum to 23, with a \"0\" at the middle wheel. You end up with 10 of the 12 columns summing to 23, and two that sum to 17. About as much of a mystery as the origin of \"23 skidoo\" itself."}
{"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 am looking for the right word(s) to describe a person who lies and invents stories\/scenarios to elicit sympathy in order to manipulate and further their own advancement at the cost of others. Think along the lines of a psychopathic social climber, consumed by bitterness. Highly vindictive and vengeful due to an invented notion of unrequited love. Someone who has taken a twisted private fantasy and used it to try and gain both attention and allies against their perceived rival, regardless of that person's actual innocence. Thanks in advance for any input.","question":"I am looking for the right word(s) to describe a person who lies and invents stories\/scenarios to elicit sympathy in order to manipulate and further their own advancement at the cost of others. Think along the lines of a psychopathic social climber, consumed by bitterness. Highly vindictive and vengeful due to an invented notion of unrequited love. Someone who has taken a twisted private fantasy and used it to try and gain both attention and allies against their perceived rival, regardless of that person's actual innocence. Thanks in advance for any input.","answer":"Such a person likely has Munchausen syndrome: Munchausen syndrome is a factitious disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves.","output":"Such a person likely has Munchausen syndrome: Munchausen syndrome is a factitious disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it correct and natural to refer to a bar of soap as a \"bath accessory\"? If not, what would you call it? I'm considering a sentence like: The hotel offers free bath accessories\/bathing products. I'd appreciate your help.","question":"Is it correct and natural to refer to a bar of soap as a \"bath accessory\"? If not, what would you call it? I'm considering a sentence like: The hotel offers free bath accessories\/bathing products. I'd appreciate your help.","answer":"\"bath accessories\" suggests towel holders, soap dishes and similar items. In British English, \"complimentary toiletries\" would be used. An invigorating hotel toiletries range that includes a selection of shampoo, soap, body lotion and shower gel. https:\/\/www.hotel-complimentary-products.co.uk\/hotel-toiletries Things like sewing kit or shoe polish might be amenities. Cole & Lewis Deluxe Toiletries & Amenities Welcome Pack https:\/\/www.outofeden.co.uk\/products\/1234\/cole-and-lewis-deluxe-toiletries-and-amenities-welcome-pack Hotel Guest Amenities and Accessories https:\/\/www.outofeden.co.uk\/category\/amenities-and-accessories","output":"\"bath accessories\" suggests towel holders, soap dishes and similar items. In British English, \"complimentary toiletries\" would be used. An invigorating hotel toiletries range that includes a selection of shampoo, soap, body lotion and shower gel. https:\/\/www.hotel-complimentary-products.co.uk\/hotel-toiletries Things like sewing kit or shoe polish might be amenities. Cole & Lewis Deluxe Toiletries & Amenities Welcome Pack https:\/\/www.outofeden.co.uk\/products\/1234\/cole-and-lewis-deluxe-toiletries-and-amenities-welcome-pack Hotel Guest Amenities and Accessories https:\/\/www.outofeden.co.uk\/category\/amenities-and-accessories"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThere is a phrase said by Alex the lion in the Madagascar 3 cartoon movie when he looks at the miniatures of himself and other animals: Look, there is a little me and little all of uses! Is this phrase grammatically correct? UPDATE: The emphasis is on \"uses\".","question":"There is a phrase said by Alex the lion in the Madagascar 3 cartoon movie when he looks at the miniatures of himself and other animals: Look, there is a little me and little all of uses! Is this phrase grammatically correct? UPDATE: The emphasis is on \"uses\".","answer":"Structurally\/semantically, it's a bit \"quirky\", and the final word is definitely somewhat \"iffy\", but (and I can't be sure without seeing\/hearing it) I imagine Alex is saying... \"There's a little me and little all of youses!\" What he means is... \"I see a little version of me, and little versions of all of you!\" Strictly speaking, \"youses\" isn't a valid form in the first place - but although it might seem almost incomprehensible to a learner, it's instantly accessible to young native speakers. Particularly when they've been \"primed\" by a little me, and they're probably watching something that makes it blindingly obvious Alex is seeing small versions of himself and everyone he's speaking to. Note that what Alex has done is take the entire phrase all of you (mangled into youses to emphasise that each one is to be considered separately) and modify it with little. Grammatically (for adults, and learners who want to speak English above the level of very young children) this is completely unacceptable. But since it is valid with a single (pro)noun such as me, you, John, etc., Alex just does it anyway. It's also worth noting @Damkerng's comment that perhaps Alex said And little all of us's! - particularly if we parse that as a separate sentence. We can then see it as an utterance that replaces, or goes beyond what was previously said. In which case it's not impossible to interpret it as a fairly radical revision... \"I see a little version of me! No, wait! I see little versions of all of us!\" The logic whereby you is (ungrammatically) transposed into youses can just as easily turn us into uses (pronounced us + -iz, not the orthographically identical uses = utilises, that adults use all the time). TL;DR: It's really just an example of \"baby-speak\". Don't copy it. But here's an example that's fine... The top of the cake sported a little me and a little Steve. (bride & groom models on a wedding cake)","output":"Structurally\/semantically, it's a bit \"quirky\", and the final word is definitely somewhat \"iffy\", but (and I can't be sure without seeing\/hearing it) I imagine Alex is saying... \"There's a little me and little all of youses!\" What he means is... \"I see a little version of me, and little versions of all of you!\" Strictly speaking, \"youses\" isn't a valid form in the first place - but although it might seem almost incomprehensible to a learner, it's instantly accessible to young native speakers. Particularly when they've been \"primed\" by a little me, and they're probably watching something that makes it blindingly obvious Alex is seeing small versions of himself and everyone he's speaking to. Note that what Alex has done is take the entire phrase all of you (mangled into youses to emphasise that each one is to be considered separately) and modify it with little. Grammatically (for adults, and learners who want to speak English above the level of very young children) this is completely unacceptable. But since it is valid with a single (pro)noun such as me, you, John, etc., Alex just does it anyway. It's also worth noting @Damkerng's comment that perhaps Alex said And little all of us's! - particularly if we parse that as a separate sentence. We can then see it as an utterance that replaces, or goes beyond what was previously said. In which case it's not impossible to interpret it as a fairly radical revision... \"I see a little version of me! No, wait! I see little versions of all of us!\" The logic whereby you is (ungrammatically) transposed into youses can just as easily turn us into uses (pronounced us + -iz, not the orthographically identical uses = utilises, that adults use all the time). TL;DR: It's really just an example of \"baby-speak\". Don't copy it. But here's an example that's fine... The top of the cake sported a little me and a little Steve. (bride & groom models on a wedding cake)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was watching some cartoon show with a bunch of rugrats over the weekend and the term clockwork toy was used. It seemed to be referencing a wind-up toy. Is there any part of the English speaking world that uses clockwork more commonly than wind-up? What is the normal term outside the US? Example: I could walk into a toy store in my area and ask if they have any wind-ups? It might take the kid working there a few seconds to process it but he would understand wind-up toy. If I walked into a store and asked if they had any clockworks, I am positive they would take me to some clocks\/alarm clocks. I want to know where the term clockworks is common enough to be used without major context.","question":"I was watching some cartoon show with a bunch of rugrats over the weekend and the term clockwork toy was used. It seemed to be referencing a wind-up toy. Is there any part of the English speaking world that uses clockwork more commonly than wind-up? What is the normal term outside the US? Example: I could walk into a toy store in my area and ask if they have any wind-ups? It might take the kid working there a few seconds to process it but he would understand wind-up toy. If I walked into a store and asked if they had any clockworks, I am positive they would take me to some clocks\/alarm clocks. I want to know where the term clockworks is common enough to be used without major context.","answer":"Anything mechanical in nature, especially one that relies on a complex series of gears, can be referred to as a \"clockwork.\" In your particular case, I would think that \"wind-up toy\" and \"clockwork toy\" would be synonymous. However, at least for an American English speaker, \"clockwork toy\" sounds a bit old-fashioned, whereas \"wind-up toy\" is more modern. In extreme cases, I could see \"mechanical toy\" and \"clockwork toy\" being synonymous to a layperson, but clockwork toys would be a strict subset of mechanical toys.","output":"Anything mechanical in nature, especially one that relies on a complex series of gears, can be referred to as a \"clockwork.\" In your particular case, I would think that \"wind-up toy\" and \"clockwork toy\" would be synonymous. However, at least for an American English speaker, \"clockwork toy\" sounds a bit old-fashioned, whereas \"wind-up toy\" is more modern. In extreme cases, I could see \"mechanical toy\" and \"clockwork toy\" being synonymous to a layperson, but clockwork toys would be a strict subset of mechanical toys."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"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\nWhat's the difference in using practise instead of practice and advise instead of advice? I always get confused when using them in sentences or essays..","question":"What's the difference in using practise instead of practice and advise instead of advice? I always get confused when using them in sentences or essays..","answer":"Your post\u2019s title is misleading. The meaning of \u201cpractice\u201d and \u201cpractise\u201d is the same; it\u2019s just the spelling that\u2019s different. \u201cPractice\u201d is the American spelling; \u201cpractise\u201d is the British\/Commonwealth spelling. EDIT: According to Smock, \u201cpractise\u201d is a verb in the UK but \u201cpractice\u201d is a noun. In the US we use \u201cpractice\u201d as both a verb and noun. These two words sound the same. \u201cAdvice\u201d and \u201cadvise\u201d do not sound the same. The former is a noun and is pronounced with a voiceless consonant at the end (\u201cs\u201d sound). The latter is a verb and is pronounced with a voiced consonant at the end (\u201cz\u201d sound).","output":"Your post\u2019s title is misleading. The meaning of \u201cpractice\u201d and \u201cpractise\u201d is the same; it\u2019s just the spelling that\u2019s different. \u201cPractice\u201d is the American spelling; \u201cpractise\u201d is the British\/Commonwealth spelling. EDIT: According to Smock, \u201cpractise\u201d is a verb in the UK but \u201cpractice\u201d is a noun. In the US we use \u201cpractice\u201d as both a verb and noun. These two words sound the same. \u201cAdvice\u201d and \u201cadvise\u201d do not sound the same. The former is a noun and is pronounced with a voiceless consonant at the end (\u201cs\u201d sound). The latter is a verb and is pronounced with a voiced consonant at the end (\u201cz\u201d sound)."}
{"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":"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":"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\nAs far as your English variety goes, is it OK to substitute vagrancy for vagary in such a phrase as the vagaries of (fashion, mind, etc.)? E.g. Its popularity waxed and waned with the vagaries of fashion... She had no time -- or money -- to follow the silly vagrancies of fashion... ...in the Earth's magnetic fields or the vagrancies of the weather... ...but it was the vagrancies of the market... Kenya is highly vulnerable to the vagrancies of unreliable rainfall... ...they could reduce the vagrancies of English orthography...","question":"As far as your English variety goes, is it OK to substitute vagrancy for vagary in such a phrase as the vagaries of (fashion, mind, etc.)? E.g. Its popularity waxed and waned with the vagaries of fashion... She had no time -- or money -- to follow the silly vagrancies of fashion... ...in the Earth's magnetic fields or the vagrancies of the weather... ...but it was the vagrancies of the market... Kenya is highly vulnerable to the vagrancies of unreliable rainfall... ...they could reduce the vagrancies of English orthography...","answer":"You have it backwards, \"vagrancies of fashion\" is a malapropism of \"vagaries of fashion\". \"Vagaries\" are unpredictable changes. \"Vagrancy\" is the condition of being a homeless and jobless wanderer, and is not normally made plural. The two words are cognate; deriving from a Latin word meaning \"to wander\". \"Vagrancies of fashion\" might be used as an ironic way of commenting on fashion, but this would be an intentional breaking of the normal rules of English for effect.","output":"You have it backwards, \"vagrancies of fashion\" is a malapropism of \"vagaries of fashion\". \"Vagaries\" are unpredictable changes. \"Vagrancy\" is the condition of being a homeless and jobless wanderer, and is not normally made plural. The two words are cognate; deriving from a Latin word meaning \"to wander\". \"Vagrancies of fashion\" might be used as an ironic way of commenting on fashion, but this would be an intentional breaking of the normal rules of English for effect."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen turning nouns to adjectives, what is the rule for using the suffixes -ous or -ful? Why do pain\/harm became painful\/harmful and not painous or harmous? Why do glory\/nerve become glorious\/nervous and gloryful\/nerveful?","question":"When turning nouns to adjectives, what is the rule for using the suffixes -ous or -ful? Why do pain\/harm became painful\/harmful and not painous or harmous? Why do glory\/nerve become glorious\/nervous and gloryful\/nerveful?","answer":"There are a variety of small differences, but I can't think of any simple ones. The suffix -ful comes from English's native inherited Germanic vocabulary (\"Germanic\" here refers to a group of languages; English is not descended from the modern language called \"German\"), and the suffix -ous comes from Latin through French. There are a lot of words that got established with these affixes before these two sets of vocabulary mixed. For example: glorious can be traced back to Latin gloriosus; Latin did not have the -ful suffix. The adjective glorious entered the English language as an entire word around the same time as the noun glory; it was not created from the English word glory + the English suffix -ous (even though it can be analyzed that way if we ignore the history and look at it in an abstract, timeless sense). The significance of this is that when we already have a derived word for something, we're less likely to coin a new, synonymous derived word. This is called blocking. In this case, it is not absolute, but it still has had an effect. However, there are also many words that were coined in English after these two suffixes became productive, and in these we quite happily blend Germanic root-words and French\/Latin suffixes, or vice versa. Some mixed words are painful, delightful, righteous, thunderous. So in many cases, origin is not useful for determining which suffix to use, even if you can figure out the origin of the root word. I think you'll just have to memorize it; sorry I can't offer better advice!","output":"There are a variety of small differences, but I can't think of any simple ones. The suffix -ful comes from English's native inherited Germanic vocabulary (\"Germanic\" here refers to a group of languages; English is not descended from the modern language called \"German\"), and the suffix -ous comes from Latin through French. There are a lot of words that got established with these affixes before these two sets of vocabulary mixed. For example: glorious can be traced back to Latin gloriosus; Latin did not have the -ful suffix. The adjective glorious entered the English language as an entire word around the same time as the noun glory; it was not created from the English word glory + the English suffix -ous (even though it can be analyzed that way if we ignore the history and look at it in an abstract, timeless sense). The significance of this is that when we already have a derived word for something, we're less likely to coin a new, synonymous derived word. This is called blocking. In this case, it is not absolute, but it still has had an effect. However, there are also many words that were coined in English after these two suffixes became productive, and in these we quite happily blend Germanic root-words and French\/Latin suffixes, or vice versa. Some mixed words are painful, delightful, righteous, thunderous. So in many cases, origin is not useful for determining which suffix to use, even if you can figure out the origin of the root word. I think you'll just have to memorize it; sorry I can't offer better advice!"}
{"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow could one describe an animal that is neither male nor female, because it has no sex organs? But it could choose which sex organs to develop based on the environmental needs. Not hermaphroditic because that means having both sets of sex organs, and not androgynous because (I believe) that describes solely appearance. The _______ toad is...","question":"How could one describe an animal that is neither male nor female, because it has no sex organs? But it could choose which sex organs to develop based on the environmental needs. Not hermaphroditic because that means having both sets of sex organs, and not androgynous because (I believe) that describes solely appearance. The _______ toad is...","answer":"That depends on the exact meaning(s) that you want to convey. You might use \"asexual or non-sexual\" or something similar like \"neuter or neutral\". Specifically, as far as \"having no sex organs\" goes, I think \"neuter or neutered\" comes closest to your meaning. The \"neuter\" character is... https:\/\/www.thefreedictionary.com\/asexual https:\/\/www.thefreedictionary.com\/neuter I also found \"genderless\" and a number of other interesting possibilities here: https:\/\/nonbinary.miraheze.org\/wiki\/Agender","output":"That depends on the exact meaning(s) that you want to convey. You might use \"asexual or non-sexual\" or something similar like \"neuter or neutral\". Specifically, as far as \"having no sex organs\" goes, I think \"neuter or neutered\" comes closest to your meaning. The \"neuter\" character is... https:\/\/www.thefreedictionary.com\/asexual https:\/\/www.thefreedictionary.com\/neuter I also found \"genderless\" and a number of other interesting possibilities here: https:\/\/nonbinary.miraheze.org\/wiki\/Agender"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nActually, I'm confused about the structure:\"have to be\" As the title mentioned, Can anybody explain for me the such difference.","question":"Actually, I'm confused about the structure:\"have to be\" As the title mentioned, Can anybody explain for me the such difference.","answer":"In this context \"have to be\" is synonymous with \"must be\". \"Have to aware\" makes no sense.","output":"In this context \"have to be\" is synonymous with \"must be\". \"Have to aware\" makes no sense."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI always use the two expressions interchangeably; well indeed I'm mostly prone to use \"in accordance with\" in an academic context instead of \"according to.\" Is that correct? What would you recommend me to use instead? Additional context (sorry for ignoring this part): The modern sensibilities about museums have altered remarkably in accordance with\/according to the growing interest in the post-post-structural scholarly trends.","question":"I always use the two expressions interchangeably; well indeed I'm mostly prone to use \"in accordance with\" in an academic context instead of \"according to.\" Is that correct? What would you recommend me to use instead? Additional context (sorry for ignoring this part): The modern sensibilities about museums have altered remarkably in accordance with\/according to the growing interest in the post-post-structural scholarly trends.","answer":"According (to) and Accordance (with) are two different words\/phrases. They clearly have the same root (Accord, meaning agreement) but they cannot be used interchangeably. According to means \"as stated by\". Accordance with means \"in compliance\" or \"in agreement\"","output":"According (to) and Accordance (with) are two different words\/phrases. They clearly have the same root (Accord, meaning agreement) but they cannot be used interchangeably. According to means \"as stated by\". Accordance with means \"in compliance\" or \"in agreement\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat do I need to do, when I have run out of credit for my cell phone?","question":"What do I need to do, when I have run out of credit for my cell phone?","answer":"In most of the world I think top up is well understood. Where I've been in Asia and Africa, the booth attendant or store clerk will also understand if you ask to add units. \"Top up\" is known in the U.S., being the terminology used by MetroPCS, Boost Mobile, NET10, and of course Virgin Mobile. The major prepaid providers, however\u2014 T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon Wireless\u2014 all use refill. Because pre-paid mobile plans are not as prevalent in the U.S., I would always specify that it is your phone whether you are topping up, refilling, adding credit, or adding minutes. Note that in the U.S. one can top off, but this refers to filling something completely that was already mostly full, for example when fueling up your car.","output":"In most of the world I think top up is well understood. Where I've been in Asia and Africa, the booth attendant or store clerk will also understand if you ask to add units. \"Top up\" is known in the U.S., being the terminology used by MetroPCS, Boost Mobile, NET10, and of course Virgin Mobile. The major prepaid providers, however\u2014 T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon Wireless\u2014 all use refill. Because pre-paid mobile plans are not as prevalent in the U.S., I would always specify that it is your phone whether you are topping up, refilling, adding credit, or adding minutes. Note that in the U.S. one can top off, but this refers to filling something completely that was already mostly full, for example when fueling up your car."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've been trying to come up with a phrase that means \"something a hipster would like\" in the modern context. Cool and hip seem kind of dated, so what would be a good recommendation for a more modern phrase (that a hipster would use?) Downvotes only make this hipster post more valid!","question":"I've been trying to come up with a phrase that means \"something a hipster would like\" in the modern context. Cool and hip seem kind of dated, so what would be a good recommendation for a more modern phrase (that a hipster would use?) Downvotes only make this hipster post more valid!","answer":"Possibly, cutting edge or bleeding edge. It seems like hipsters like a lot of indie (independent movies, music, etc.) stuff too, even though the word itself doesn't necessarily convey that something is hipster. Why did the hipster burn his tongue? Because he tried drinking coffee before it was cool.","output":"Possibly, cutting edge or bleeding edge. It seems like hipsters like a lot of indie (independent movies, music, etc.) stuff too, even though the word itself doesn't necessarily convey that something is hipster. Why did the hipster burn his tongue? Because he tried drinking coffee before it was cool."}
{"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"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\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSo today we're here to talk about the two second rule. And what the two second rule is, is a way of you to know whether or not you've got proper distance between yourself and the vehicle that is traveling ahead of you. And what you do with the two second rule is you pick a standing object on the roadway. So let's say you're going to pick a tree, which might be right here. Or an overhead sign. And what you do is, you watch the car ahead of you. And when the car ahead of you becomes even with that object, whether it be that tree or that overhead sign, at that point you start to count to yourself to two seconds. I need to explain this to someone who is a beginner and does not know the grammar use of that. A simplified equivalent I need.","question":"So today we're here to talk about the two second rule. And what the two second rule is, is a way of you to know whether or not you've got proper distance between yourself and the vehicle that is traveling ahead of you. And what you do with the two second rule is you pick a standing object on the roadway. So let's say you're going to pick a tree, which might be right here. Or an overhead sign. And what you do is, you watch the car ahead of you. And when the car ahead of you becomes even with that object, whether it be that tree or that overhead sign, at that point you start to count to yourself to two seconds. I need to explain this to someone who is a beginner and does not know the grammar use of that. A simplified equivalent I need.","answer":"The phrase \"you're going to\" has two meanings that I can think of: The first is that you are going to a location in the future, or currently are going: \"You're going to the fair? Me too!\" The second is that you are about to do something in the future: \"You're going to eat an apple.\" As with lots of things in the English language, it depends on the context. Consider if the speaker is talking about a location, or an action.","output":"The phrase \"you're going to\" has two meanings that I can think of: The first is that you are going to a location in the future, or currently are going: \"You're going to the fair? Me too!\" The second is that you are about to do something in the future: \"You're going to eat an apple.\" As with lots of things in the English language, it depends on the context. Consider if the speaker is talking about a location, or an action."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nFew would nominate Fistful of Dynamite as Leone's greatest film, though many might herald it as his most underrated. Leone did not intend to direct it and did not bring the same concentration to the film that he did the others. By this time Leone had entered the last phase of his career, a 20-year Puccini-like period of vacillation during which he found it very difficult to settle on a project and pursue it with confidence and efficiency. (Source) Can you tell me why the past perfect is used in my excerpt. Leone entered the last phase of his career after the mentioned movie (Fistful of Dynamite) having been realized. Could it be sufficient just the simple past?","question":"Few would nominate Fistful of Dynamite as Leone's greatest film, though many might herald it as his most underrated. Leone did not intend to direct it and did not bring the same concentration to the film that he did the others. By this time Leone had entered the last phase of his career, a 20-year Puccini-like period of vacillation during which he found it very difficult to settle on a project and pursue it with confidence and efficiency. (Source) Can you tell me why the past perfect is used in my excerpt. Leone entered the last phase of his career after the mentioned movie (Fistful of Dynamite) having been realized. Could it be sufficient just the simple past?","answer":"'Reference Time' (RT)\u2014the time the author is talking about\u2014is the time at which Leone directed Fistful of Dynamite. The author's use of the past perfect signifies that at RT Leone had already entered the last phase of his career: that phase began before he directed Fistful of Dynamite. Leone died in '89, and Dynamite was released in '71, so the author appears to consider Leone's last phase as having begun after the release of Once Upon a Time in the West in '68.","output":"'Reference Time' (RT)\u2014the time the author is talking about\u2014is the time at which Leone directed Fistful of Dynamite. The author's use of the past perfect signifies that at RT Leone had already entered the last phase of his career: that phase began before he directed Fistful of Dynamite. Leone died in '89, and Dynamite was released in '71, so the author appears to consider Leone's last phase as having begun after the release of Once Upon a Time in the West in '68."}
{"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\nExamples: \"Towards a new agenda for transforming war economies\" \"Towards a new agenda for Japanese telecommunications\" \"Towards a new age in the treatment of multiple myeloma\" As I mentioned in the comments, \"It would be nice to know the initial use because it would give me some insight into the language and trends that either birthed the phrase or required its invention.\" I ask out of curiosity. As a sub-question, are there any papers or books that cover the history and evolution of academic terminology and writing?","question":"Examples: \"Towards a new agenda for transforming war economies\" \"Towards a new agenda for Japanese telecommunications\" \"Towards a new age in the treatment of multiple myeloma\" As I mentioned in the comments, \"It would be nice to know the initial use because it would give me some insight into the language and trends that either birthed the phrase or required its invention.\" I ask out of curiosity. As a sub-question, are there any papers or books that cover the history and evolution of academic terminology and writing?","answer":"The earliest example I can discover of an academic work whose title included the phrase towards a new is George Berkeley's An essay towards a new theory of vision, published in 1709. However, this seems to be a general instance of 17th\u201319th century authors who started their publications with the phrase An essay towards. For example, we have An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances, Thomas Bayes, 1763; An essay towards an history of dancing ... by John Weaver, 1712; An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language, John Wilkins, 1668. An essay, in its older sense, meant \"an attempt to do something\" (see Merriam-Webster, noun sense 2; and to \"make an essay towards\" something meant simply \"to attempt to do or accomplish\" it. For example, in an article about the completion of the Erie Canal titled Facts and Observations In Relation to the Origin and Completion of the Erie Canal, published by a John Rutherford or Rutherfurd in 1825, we see that \"in the year 1785 the Legislature appropriated $135, to enable Mr. Colles to make an essay towards effecting the object [the removal of obstructions in the Mohawk River].\" It appears from this that the multiple titles starting \"An Essay Towards ...\" might be rephrased as \"An Attempt To Create ...\" (with the appropriate change from gerund to infinitive), and simply represent a common use of language. The question, of course, becomes whether titling a work Toward[s] a ... is in fact an abbreviation of the older An essay towards a... . It seems the most reasonable assumption, but I don't know how one would go about assembling a proof.","output":"The earliest example I can discover of an academic work whose title included the phrase towards a new is George Berkeley's An essay towards a new theory of vision, published in 1709. However, this seems to be a general instance of 17th\u201319th century authors who started their publications with the phrase An essay towards. For example, we have An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances, Thomas Bayes, 1763; An essay towards an history of dancing ... by John Weaver, 1712; An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language, John Wilkins, 1668. An essay, in its older sense, meant \"an attempt to do something\" (see Merriam-Webster, noun sense 2; and to \"make an essay towards\" something meant simply \"to attempt to do or accomplish\" it. For example, in an article about the completion of the Erie Canal titled Facts and Observations In Relation to the Origin and Completion of the Erie Canal, published by a John Rutherford or Rutherfurd in 1825, we see that \"in the year 1785 the Legislature appropriated $135, to enable Mr. Colles to make an essay towards effecting the object [the removal of obstructions in the Mohawk River].\" It appears from this that the multiple titles starting \"An Essay Towards ...\" might be rephrased as \"An Attempt To Create ...\" (with the appropriate change from gerund to infinitive), and simply represent a common use of language. The question, of course, becomes whether titling a work Toward[s] a ... is in fact an abbreviation of the older An essay towards a... . It seems the most reasonable assumption, but I don't know how one would go about assembling a proof."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCan one say He accidentally opened the door enough that they could see inside the office. He accidentally opened the door enough so they could see inside the office. He accidentally opened the door enough so that they could see inside the office. He accidentally opened the door enough for them to see inside the office. ? He didn't intend them to see inside the office... It was an accident... Many thanks.","question":"Can one say He accidentally opened the door enough that they could see inside the office. He accidentally opened the door enough so they could see inside the office. He accidentally opened the door enough so that they could see inside the office. He accidentally opened the door enough for them to see inside the office. ? He didn't intend them to see inside the office... It was an accident... Many thanks.","answer":"The first and the fourth sentences are the most correct. The fourth seems the most natural to me. The problem with the second and third sentences is that the use of so implies that the man intentionally opened the door to let people see inside, which contradicts the use of accidentally to describe the action.","output":"The first and the fourth sentences are the most correct. The fourth seems the most natural to me. The problem with the second and third sentences is that the use of so implies that the man intentionally opened the door to let people see inside, which contradicts the use of accidentally to describe the action."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhich one is grammatically correct? a. The fence collapsed during a strong storm. b. The fence was collapsed during a strong storm. My teacher said it's b. but I'm having doubts...","question":"Which one is grammatically correct? a. The fence collapsed during a strong storm. b. The fence was collapsed during a strong storm. My teacher said it's b. but I'm having doubts...","answer":"Both sentences are grammatical, but they have different meanings. a means that the fence went from being upright to collapsed while the storm was in progress. b means that the fence was in the collapsed state during the time of the storm. When the collapsing occurred relative to the the storm is not specifically stated, it might have been before the start of the storm (someone might have collapsed it to prevent it from blowing away). A variation of b would restore the implication that the collapse occurred during the storm: The fence was collapsed by the wind during a storm. Adding an agent that caused the collapse makes it refer to a specific event, rather than a state of being. This is just a rearrangement of The wind collapsed the fence during the storm. from the active to the passive voice. In practice, collapse is not usually used transitively like this at all. It would be more common to use knocked down for this, as in The wind knocked down the fence during the storm. knocked down also tends to refer to a specific event rather than an ongoing state, so The fence was knocked down during the storm. means that it fell while the storm was ongoing, but doesn't specifically name the agent that caused it.","output":"Both sentences are grammatical, but they have different meanings. a means that the fence went from being upright to collapsed while the storm was in progress. b means that the fence was in the collapsed state during the time of the storm. When the collapsing occurred relative to the the storm is not specifically stated, it might have been before the start of the storm (someone might have collapsed it to prevent it from blowing away). A variation of b would restore the implication that the collapse occurred during the storm: The fence was collapsed by the wind during a storm. Adding an agent that caused the collapse makes it refer to a specific event, rather than a state of being. This is just a rearrangement of The wind collapsed the fence during the storm. from the active to the passive voice. In practice, collapse is not usually used transitively like this at all. It would be more common to use knocked down for this, as in The wind knocked down the fence during the storm. knocked down also tends to refer to a specific event rather than an ongoing state, so The fence was knocked down during the storm. means that it fell while the storm was ongoing, but doesn't specifically name the agent that caused it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSOURCE (one of dozens) I have some confusion in this sentence: Rather, it is a complex art in that thoughts and idioms which have no obvious analogues from tongue to tongue - or words which have multiple meanings - must quickly be transformed in many a way that the message is clearly and accurately expressing to the listener. I found some mistakes in this one, then I searched on the Net for the answers. The correct answers are \"in that\" -> \"in which\", \"many\" -> \"such\", \"expressing\" -> \"expressed\". This is a cleft sentence, so its structure is \"It is + N + that +....\". And they also use a relative clause in this. I used to be taught that if we use \"which\", we have to put a preposition ahead it. And if we use \"that\", we have to put preposition behind. However, my teacher also says that we can only use \"that\" in the cleft sentence. Plus, they also have \"such a way that\" which means \"so that\", so I think \"that\" here is not used for the cleft sentence. Therefore, I was very confused and wondered why the correct answer was \"in which\". Thanks in advance for any helps or advice.","question":"SOURCE (one of dozens) I have some confusion in this sentence: Rather, it is a complex art in that thoughts and idioms which have no obvious analogues from tongue to tongue - or words which have multiple meanings - must quickly be transformed in many a way that the message is clearly and accurately expressing to the listener. I found some mistakes in this one, then I searched on the Net for the answers. The correct answers are \"in that\" -> \"in which\", \"many\" -> \"such\", \"expressing\" -> \"expressed\". This is a cleft sentence, so its structure is \"It is + N + that +....\". And they also use a relative clause in this. I used to be taught that if we use \"which\", we have to put a preposition ahead it. And if we use \"that\", we have to put preposition behind. However, my teacher also says that we can only use \"that\" in the cleft sentence. Plus, they also have \"such a way that\" which means \"so that\", so I think \"that\" here is not used for the cleft sentence. Therefore, I was very confused and wondered why the correct answer was \"in which\". Thanks in advance for any helps or advice.","answer":"in that is not necessarily an error. It could be taken as justification of the word complex. expressing is clearly an error. The passive (and the predicate adjective formed therefrom) requires the past participle. P.S. You should include the previous sentence, so that we know the antecedent of it in \"it is a complex art\". This is not a cleft sentence. P.P.S. A cleft would be: It is a complex undertaking, to translate speech in real-time. With a cleft, It (so-called \"dummy 'it'\") stands as a proxy for the actual nominal subject: To translate speech in real time is a complex undertaking.","output":"in that is not necessarily an error. It could be taken as justification of the word complex. expressing is clearly an error. The passive (and the predicate adjective formed therefrom) requires the past participle. P.S. You should include the previous sentence, so that we know the antecedent of it in \"it is a complex art\". This is not a cleft sentence. P.P.S. A cleft would be: It is a complex undertaking, to translate speech in real-time. With a cleft, It (so-called \"dummy 'it'\") stands as a proxy for the actual nominal subject: To translate speech in real time is a complex undertaking."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nOED sense 6 of the adjective close, relates to the weather. and is the opposite of fresh. Why do we describe warm and slightly oppressively humid weather as \"close\"? It has been the case since the sixteenth century. Of the atmosphere or weather: Like that of a closed up room; confined, stifling, without free circulation; the opposite of fresh. [1533 J. Heywood Play of Wether sig. Diiii Wynde rayne nor froste nor sonshyne wold she haue But fayre close wether her beautye to saue.] 1591 R. Percyvall Bibliotheca Hispanica Dict. at Bochorno A close hot weather. 1599 T. Moffett Silkewormes 48 Keepe them not in roomes too hot and close. 1748 B. Robins & R. Walter Voy. round World by Anson ii. vii. 213 We had now for several days together close and sultry weather. 1834 F. Marryat Jacob Faithful I. i. 5 The little cabin being so unpleasantly close. 1855 A. Bain Senses & Intellect i. ii. 165 The opposite of freshness is shown in the close or suffocating odours.","question":"OED sense 6 of the adjective close, relates to the weather. and is the opposite of fresh. Why do we describe warm and slightly oppressively humid weather as \"close\"? It has been the case since the sixteenth century. Of the atmosphere or weather: Like that of a closed up room; confined, stifling, without free circulation; the opposite of fresh. [1533 J. Heywood Play of Wether sig. Diiii Wynde rayne nor froste nor sonshyne wold she haue But fayre close wether her beautye to saue.] 1591 R. Percyvall Bibliotheca Hispanica Dict. at Bochorno A close hot weather. 1599 T. Moffett Silkewormes 48 Keepe them not in roomes too hot and close. 1748 B. Robins & R. Walter Voy. round World by Anson ii. vii. 213 We had now for several days together close and sultry weather. 1834 F. Marryat Jacob Faithful I. i. 5 The little cabin being so unpleasantly close. 1855 A. Bain Senses & Intellect i. ii. 165 The opposite of freshness is shown in the close or suffocating odours.","answer":"Without any source to back me up, I presume this specific use of \"close\" may have started as a simile, comparing hot and stuffy weather to a warm and closed room where there is no ventilation whatever. As the OP has mentioned, this use of close goes back several centuries.","output":"Without any source to back me up, I presume this specific use of \"close\" may have started as a simile, comparing hot and stuffy weather to a warm and closed room where there is no ventilation whatever. As the OP has mentioned, this use of close goes back several centuries."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMay I ask if the following sentence is grammatical? Our remit is to conduct research on customer's requirements. In my understanding, as 'customer' is a countable noun, so the plural form 'customers''' should be used instead for this general reference (without specification of certain customers). However, I know that we can say 'traveller's cheques' - e.g., Traveller's cheques are available at the bank. In this sense, actually can we say 'customer's requirements' in the first case?","question":"May I ask if the following sentence is grammatical? Our remit is to conduct research on customer's requirements. In my understanding, as 'customer' is a countable noun, so the plural form 'customers''' should be used instead for this general reference (without specification of certain customers). However, I know that we can say 'traveller's cheques' - e.g., Traveller's cheques are available at the bank. In this sense, actually can we say 'customer's requirements' in the first case?","answer":"At the thread Is it correct to say 'I write children books' ... not using the possessive case? one finds There is a move away from the use of the apostrophe in the 'adjectival' (rather than the 'true possessive') sense you mention here. However, the tendency is to just drop the apostrophe rather than switch to an unusual-sounding singular modifying noun: Childrens Home Dogs Home Travellers Rest Working Mens Club Mens Clothing Department. It's interesting that the aid to driving invented by Percy Shaw of Halifax (UK) was called the cat's eye, plural cat's eyes, but that nowadays the modern forms cats eye \/ cats eyes are usually used. Correspondingly, the unapostrophised travellers cheques is the more modern usage, as can be found say at Editex. Though many dictionaries still give the older traveller's cheques. (This may seem the less logical possessive choice, meaning 'cheques for travellers' as it does, but corresponds to 'cheques for the average traveller'.) However, customers' requirements is by no means so fossilised (travellers cheque\/s has achieved compound noun status). But the modern trend would require the attributive noun usage customer requirements (using the singular-form attributive noun, as is the usual case). This is supported by these Google Ngrams (which also show the near-equality in the use of customer's requirements and customers' requirements ... though they fail to distinguish the generic and the non-generic usages of both customer's requirements and customers' requirements).","output":"At the thread Is it correct to say 'I write children books' ... not using the possessive case? one finds There is a move away from the use of the apostrophe in the 'adjectival' (rather than the 'true possessive') sense you mention here. However, the tendency is to just drop the apostrophe rather than switch to an unusual-sounding singular modifying noun: Childrens Home Dogs Home Travellers Rest Working Mens Club Mens Clothing Department. It's interesting that the aid to driving invented by Percy Shaw of Halifax (UK) was called the cat's eye, plural cat's eyes, but that nowadays the modern forms cats eye \/ cats eyes are usually used. Correspondingly, the unapostrophised travellers cheques is the more modern usage, as can be found say at Editex. Though many dictionaries still give the older traveller's cheques. (This may seem the less logical possessive choice, meaning 'cheques for travellers' as it does, but corresponds to 'cheques for the average traveller'.) However, customers' requirements is by no means so fossilised (travellers cheque\/s has achieved compound noun status). But the modern trend would require the attributive noun usage customer requirements (using the singular-form attributive noun, as is the usual case). This is supported by these Google Ngrams (which also show the near-equality in the use of customer's requirements and customers' requirements ... though they fail to distinguish the generic and the non-generic usages of both customer's requirements and customers' requirements)."}
{"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 lampau:\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\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAs far as I am concerned. As far as the economic problems here are concerned. And As far as I know. My perception: All these are incorrect. Because we just use \" As far as I am concerned\" to mean \" In my opinion\" . Therefore it does not actually make sense saying: \" in the economic problems's opinion.\" \" I can say my opinion\" \" I know my opinion\" and so forth.","question":"As far as I am concerned. As far as the economic problems here are concerned. And As far as I know. My perception: All these are incorrect. Because we just use \" As far as I am concerned\" to mean \" In my opinion\" . Therefore it does not actually make sense saying: \" in the economic problems's opinion.\" \" I can say my opinion\" \" I know my opinion\" and so forth.","answer":"I think you are mistakenly generalizing on a single instance. As far as I am concerned may be used in contexts where it has approximately the same effect as saying in my opinion; but it does not mean in my opinion. Examine the actual construction of the expression as far as X is concerned: as far as means to the extent or degree that X is concerned means X is involved or relevant Consequently, as far as I am concerned only has the effect of saying in my opinion when it is used to introduce an opinion. As far as I am concerned, Bob\u2019s a jerk. \u2014This means \u201cMy concern in this matter does not go beyond recognizing that Bob\u2019s a jerk; I am not interested in any subtler analysis of his behavior.\u201d But in other contexts as far as X is concerned takes on quite different meanings: As far as the economic problems here are concerned ... \u2014This means \u201cTo the extent that our discourse involves the economic problems here [I have this to say] ...\u201d Similarly, as far as I know means to the extent that my knowledge reaches\u2014that is, \u201cI do not claim to know everything about this topic, but what I do know is this ...\u201d","output":"I think you are mistakenly generalizing on a single instance. As far as I am concerned may be used in contexts where it has approximately the same effect as saying in my opinion; but it does not mean in my opinion. Examine the actual construction of the expression as far as X is concerned: as far as means to the extent or degree that X is concerned means X is involved or relevant Consequently, as far as I am concerned only has the effect of saying in my opinion when it is used to introduce an opinion. As far as I am concerned, Bob\u2019s a jerk. \u2014This means \u201cMy concern in this matter does not go beyond recognizing that Bob\u2019s a jerk; I am not interested in any subtler analysis of his behavior.\u201d But in other contexts as far as X is concerned takes on quite different meanings: As far as the economic problems here are concerned ... \u2014This means \u201cTo the extent that our discourse involves the economic problems here [I have this to say] ...\u201d Similarly, as far as I know means to the extent that my knowledge reaches\u2014that is, \u201cI do not claim to know everything about this topic, but what I do know is this ...\u201d"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI know that in Western culture, when there is a cake, mom will cut it in half and give them to her 2 sons each. So, the big brother will get one and the little brother will get one. But in other cultures, mom will cut it into 2 pieces. One is big and one is small. She will give the big one to the little brother and smaller one to the big brother. Is it correct to say \"a bigger brother should concede a bigger piece of cake to his younger brother\" in everyday English? Or, \"a bigger brother should give away a bigger piece of cake to his younger brother\"?","question":"I know that in Western culture, when there is a cake, mom will cut it in half and give them to her 2 sons each. So, the big brother will get one and the little brother will get one. But in other cultures, mom will cut it into 2 pieces. One is big and one is small. She will give the big one to the little brother and smaller one to the big brother. Is it correct to say \"a bigger brother should concede a bigger piece of cake to his younger brother\" in everyday English? Or, \"a bigger brother should give away a bigger piece of cake to his younger brother\"?","answer":"Both your options are grammatically correct, but neither of them is phrased how a native English speaker would phrase it, though the second one is closer than the first. It would be more colloquial as something like \u201cA big brother should let his younger brother have the larger slice of cake\u201d.","output":"Both your options are grammatically correct, but neither of them is phrased how a native English speaker would phrase it, though the second one is closer than the first. It would be more colloquial as something like \u201cA big brother should let his younger brother have the larger slice of cake\u201d."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"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\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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAs per the question, I might have spelt cleanly wrong...","question":"As per the question, I might have spelt cleanly wrong...","answer":"'Cleanly' meaning (of a person) 'habitually clean and careful to avoid dirt' is archaic, and should be used with care, e.g. in poetry or period dialogue. ADJECTIVE archaic Habitually clean and careful to avoid dirt. \u2018some plain but cleanly country maid\u2019 Cleanly (Oxford Dictionaries)","output":"'Cleanly' meaning (of a person) 'habitually clean and careful to avoid dirt' is archaic, and should be used with care, e.g. in poetry or period dialogue. ADJECTIVE archaic Habitually clean and careful to avoid dirt. \u2018some plain but cleanly country maid\u2019 Cleanly (Oxford Dictionaries)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI just finished reading Cornell Woolrich\u2019s Rendezvous in Black (1948) and 2x in the book he has a character say he\u2019s having \u201ca martini for the rent\u201d. I didn\u2019t note the page numbers unfortunately so I can\u2019t produce the exact context but I believe they were drinks ordered in a bar. I\u2019m not finding any other uses of the phrase and I can\u2019t guess at the meaning...except maybe because gin was once a very cheap, lower-class alcohol (though certainly not but the time of publication of this book)? Maybe it was a cute way of ordering a dry martini because vermouth is the pricier ingredient? Anyone have any ideas?","question":"I just finished reading Cornell Woolrich\u2019s Rendezvous in Black (1948) and 2x in the book he has a character say he\u2019s having \u201ca martini for the rent\u201d. I didn\u2019t note the page numbers unfortunately so I can\u2019t produce the exact context but I believe they were drinks ordered in a bar. I\u2019m not finding any other uses of the phrase and I can\u2019t guess at the meaning...except maybe because gin was once a very cheap, lower-class alcohol (though certainly not but the time of publication of this book)? Maybe it was a cute way of ordering a dry martini because vermouth is the pricier ingredient? Anyone have any ideas?","answer":"Nevermind. Skimmed the book for an occurrence and it was actually \u201cA man came in and stood up at the bar and ordered a Martini, just to pay his rent.\u201d So he ordered a cocktail he didn\u2019t intend to drink as \u201crent\u201d for his seat at the bar.","output":"Nevermind. Skimmed the book for an occurrence and it was actually \u201cA man came in and stood up at the bar and ordered a Martini, just to pay his rent.\u201d So he ordered a cocktail he didn\u2019t intend to drink as \u201crent\u201d for his seat at the bar."}
{"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":"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\nSay there is a glass of water, and someone drank it (dipping their lips, i.e. not from a distance pouring water into their mouth). Now the glass of water is (somewhat) impure, containing the saliva of the person. What is the word in English that denotes the water is impure in the sense that the water has been drunk by someone?","question":"Say there is a glass of water, and someone drank it (dipping their lips, i.e. not from a distance pouring water into their mouth). Now the glass of water is (somewhat) impure, containing the saliva of the person. What is the word in English that denotes the water is impure in the sense that the water has been drunk by someone?","answer":"\"Has backwash\" I'm not sure how widely used this term is, but on road trips as a child in New Zealand I remember our father admonishing us for poor technique in drinking straight out of a shared soda bottle, causing backwash of spit into the bottle. Wiktionary has it as the 4th definition: The saliva, spit or food particles that have flowed back into a drink after someone has drunk from it. I wouldn't use it in a very formal situation however. It's a step further from explicitly talking about saliva but still close enough to be a bit crass.","output":"\"Has backwash\" I'm not sure how widely used this term is, but on road trips as a child in New Zealand I remember our father admonishing us for poor technique in drinking straight out of a shared soda bottle, causing backwash of spit into the bottle. Wiktionary has it as the 4th definition: The saliva, spit or food particles that have flowed back into a drink after someone has drunk from it. I wouldn't use it in a very formal situation however. It's a step further from explicitly talking about saliva but still close enough to be a bit crass."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI came across that sentence while watching martin mystery --link of the episode below-- \" if you think I am so naive is to be fooled by another one of your tricks!\" At first I was going to ask about \"is to be\" because I couldn't get the grammar behind it in this sentence but once i crossed out \"so naive\" it got clear and now I am wondering how could \"so naive\" fit like that in the middle of the sentence, it sounds really weird to me. https:\/\/youtu.be\/o9ZBwpyERhA Sentence said between minute 9:42 and 9:48 Edit: I changed \"very\" to \"so\" to be more convenient with what said in the video","question":"I came across that sentence while watching martin mystery --link of the episode below-- \" if you think I am so naive is to be fooled by another one of your tricks!\" At first I was going to ask about \"is to be\" because I couldn't get the grammar behind it in this sentence but once i crossed out \"so naive\" it got clear and now I am wondering how could \"so naive\" fit like that in the middle of the sentence, it sounds really weird to me. https:\/\/youtu.be\/o9ZBwpyERhA Sentence said between minute 9:42 and 9:48 Edit: I changed \"very\" to \"so\" to be more convenient with what said in the video","answer":"It's much more likely the piece of dialogue is as follows: ... if you think I am really so naive as to be fooled by another one of your tricks! Meaning: ... If you think I am so naive that I would be fooled by another one of your tricks! In fact, I just listened to it and my take is correct.","output":"It's much more likely the piece of dialogue is as follows: ... if you think I am really so naive as to be fooled by another one of your tricks! Meaning: ... If you think I am so naive that I would be fooled by another one of your tricks! In fact, I just listened to it and my take is correct."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"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\nIn the Terry Pratchett's book, 'Reaper Man', there is a passage: Most species do their own evolving, making it up as they go along, which is the way Nature intended. And this is all very natural and organic and in tune with mysterious cycles of the cosmos, which believes that there's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone. This is probably fine from the species' point of view, but from the perspective of the actual individuals it can be a real pig, or at least a small pink root-eating reptile that might one day evolve into a real pig. I'm reading this book in English, in Polish and in Russian at the same time. And I didn't really think of this phrase while reading in English, but then I noticed that translators understood it differently. The Russian one took it literally. But the Polish one translated this bold phrase as something like a 'dirty trick'. I couldn't find anything about this being an idiom, though. What do you think? Is one of the translators wrong or is it just possible to understand it in both ways? Thanks for any help.","question":"In the Terry Pratchett's book, 'Reaper Man', there is a passage: Most species do their own evolving, making it up as they go along, which is the way Nature intended. And this is all very natural and organic and in tune with mysterious cycles of the cosmos, which believes that there's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone. This is probably fine from the species' point of view, but from the perspective of the actual individuals it can be a real pig, or at least a small pink root-eating reptile that might one day evolve into a real pig. I'm reading this book in English, in Polish and in Russian at the same time. And I didn't really think of this phrase while reading in English, but then I noticed that translators understood it differently. The Russian one took it literally. But the Polish one translated this bold phrase as something like a 'dirty trick'. I couldn't find anything about this being an idiom, though. What do you think? Is one of the translators wrong or is it just possible to understand it in both ways? Thanks for any help.","answer":"Although I can give you a bunch of links showing it being explained or used, I unfortunately can't find an \"official\" one explaining the meaning or origin. Here are the links I was able to find: The Curious Incident 13 - Genius Yahoo Answers question referencing the book The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, which also used the idiom. Forum thread asking about idiom meanings, including this one. Essentially, it's a British English idiom, and is a slightly shortened form of \"a real pig of a day\" essentially meaning a day which was utterly terrible. In the context Pratchett is using it here, it's saying something along the lines of \"a really, really bad thing.\" Edit: As NVZ pointed out, this is a general idiom of \"a pig of [something]\" meaning \"a difficult or unpleasant thing or task\". (Oxford Learners)","output":"Although I can give you a bunch of links showing it being explained or used, I unfortunately can't find an \"official\" one explaining the meaning or origin. Here are the links I was able to find: The Curious Incident 13 - Genius Yahoo Answers question referencing the book The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, which also used the idiom. Forum thread asking about idiom meanings, including this one. Essentially, it's a British English idiom, and is a slightly shortened form of \"a real pig of a day\" essentially meaning a day which was utterly terrible. In the context Pratchett is using it here, it's saying something along the lines of \"a really, really bad thing.\" Edit: As NVZ pointed out, this is a general idiom of \"a pig of [something]\" meaning \"a difficult or unpleasant thing or task\". (Oxford Learners)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am curious about the precise meaning of for one in the expression \"I, for one, don't know.\" This came up in a discussion about the amount of social efforts society should be willing to put in reducing CO2 emissions. In essence, my interlocutor said something like \" given the limited precision of complex climate models, the uncertainties about future technological progress, and the doubts about the exact damages that would be caused by climate change if it were to happen as predicted, how much should we be willing to invest in reducing carbon emissions by say 1 ton? I, for one, don't know.\" In this context, is the meaning \"I, for one, don't know.\" closer from \"As far as I am concerned, I would no dare saying that I have an answer to that question\" or \"In this case, I cannot answer this question\", with for one indicating that the person has an answer to many other questions but not this one?","question":"I am curious about the precise meaning of for one in the expression \"I, for one, don't know.\" This came up in a discussion about the amount of social efforts society should be willing to put in reducing CO2 emissions. In essence, my interlocutor said something like \" given the limited precision of complex climate models, the uncertainties about future technological progress, and the doubts about the exact damages that would be caused by climate change if it were to happen as predicted, how much should we be willing to invest in reducing carbon emissions by say 1 ton? I, for one, don't know.\" In this context, is the meaning \"I, for one, don't know.\" closer from \"As far as I am concerned, I would no dare saying that I have an answer to that question\" or \"In this case, I cannot answer this question\", with for one indicating that the person has an answer to many other questions but not this one?","answer":"for one is an interesting idiom. It is used in several ways, predominantly to say that you believe your opinion or action is right, even if others do not The rest of you may disagree, but I, for one, think we should proceed with the plan. It can also indicate a particular one of several possibilities I, for one, am not upset or ashamed; in fact, I feel very grateful. or, as one example, even if the only one And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords! This last use (first uttered in The Simpsons) has become mimetic, and was used to honor Watson, IBM's artificially intelligent computer system capable of answering questions posed in natural language.","output":"for one is an interesting idiom. It is used in several ways, predominantly to say that you believe your opinion or action is right, even if others do not The rest of you may disagree, but I, for one, think we should proceed with the plan. It can also indicate a particular one of several possibilities I, for one, am not upset or ashamed; in fact, I feel very grateful. or, as one example, even if the only one And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords! This last use (first uttered in The Simpsons) has become mimetic, and was used to honor Watson, IBM's artificially intelligent computer system capable of answering questions posed in natural language."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have appended something to the end of something else, but I don't know the word to describe the what has been appended. Even after it is one big \"something\", I was wondering if there was a word that described the piece that was not always there before. \"Append\" is the verb I am looking to convert. \"Appension\" and \"appendee\" are not real words as far as I know. Edit: I have not considered \"appendix\" since it seems to imply being at the end specifically, rather than something that was added (anywhere) to something else. @V0ight suggested affix, which seems by its definition to be much closer to what I had in mind!","question":"I have appended something to the end of something else, but I don't know the word to describe the what has been appended. Even after it is one big \"something\", I was wondering if there was a word that described the piece that was not always there before. \"Append\" is the verb I am looking to convert. \"Appension\" and \"appendee\" are not real words as far as I know. Edit: I have not considered \"appendix\" since it seems to imply being at the end specifically, rather than something that was added (anywhere) to something else. @V0ight suggested affix, which seems by its definition to be much closer to what I had in mind!","answer":"After reading through all the comments I'd like to propose addendum. Although mainly associated with publications it also serves in other area's. something that is added; especially : a section of a book that is added to the main or original text","output":"After reading through all the comments I'd like to propose addendum. Although mainly associated with publications it also serves in other area's. something that is added; especially : a section of a book that is added to the main or original text"}
{"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 had never heard the term \"first moon party\" until I watched this video, which has gone viral over the past 2 weeks. Was the phrase just recently coined by HelloFlo's ad, or has the phrase been in use prior to that to refer to a celebration of a girl's first period? (assuming that people even have celebrations for a girl's first period...)","question":"I had never heard the term \"first moon party\" until I watched this video, which has gone viral over the past 2 weeks. Was the phrase just recently coined by HelloFlo's ad, or has the phrase been in use prior to that to refer to a celebration of a girl's first period? (assuming that people even have celebrations for a girl's first period...)","answer":"It wasn't coined for the ad. Oldest reference on Google books seems to be from a novel Catching Heaven by Sands Hall from 2000. \"And I am not giving Hannah a First Moon party, or whatever it's called, when her period comes. She'd die of embarrassment.\" Jeep shrugged. \"Maybe.\" There's also this product from 1998: First Moon: Passage to Womanhood A ceremonial kit containing complete instructions and the elements to stage a celebration ceremony to welcome the young woman to womanhood.","output":"It wasn't coined for the ad. Oldest reference on Google books seems to be from a novel Catching Heaven by Sands Hall from 2000. \"And I am not giving Hannah a First Moon party, or whatever it's called, when her period comes. She'd die of embarrassment.\" Jeep shrugged. \"Maybe.\" There's also this product from 1998: First Moon: Passage to Womanhood A ceremonial kit containing complete instructions and the elements to stage a celebration ceremony to welcome the young woman to womanhood."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThere is a sentence: While Mary was writing a letter, the children were playing outside. Since \u201cwhile\u201d means \u201cduring the time\u201d, can I replace \u201cwhile\u201d with \u201cwhen\u201d? If not, please explain.","question":"There is a sentence: While Mary was writing a letter, the children were playing outside. Since \u201cwhile\u201d means \u201cduring the time\u201d, can I replace \u201cwhile\u201d with \u201cwhen\u201d? If not, please explain.","answer":"Yes, you can replace while with when. If there's a difference at all, it's a very minor one: while can connote a longer span of time, and the word when can refer to a single moment in time. Consider: I was reading in the library when I heard the alarm go off. I was reading in the library while I heard the alarm going off. The first sentence points to a specific moment in time \u2013 that moment when the alarm went off. The second sentence refers to a longer span of time \u2013 it could be interpreted as: \"I heard the alarm go off, and then I kept hearing the alarm go off while I stayed in the library.\" So, if you wanted to emphasize how Mary was letter-writing and the children were playing over a certain span of time, while might be the better word to use. In your example, the use of the progressive verb tense \u2013 that is, was writing instead of wrote \u2013 makes while the better word to use, in my opinion. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that when would be awkward or incorrect. Like many subtle nuances of English, this one can get tricky: While Mary was writing a writing a letter, the phone rang. This emphasizes how Mary was in the process of writing a letter, and she was interrupted by the phone ringing. Mary was writing a letter when the phone rang. This says the same thing, but \"when\" points to the moment when the phone rang. Mary was writing a letter while the phone kept ringing. This emphasizes how the phone was ringing for some period of time.","output":"Yes, you can replace while with when. If there's a difference at all, it's a very minor one: while can connote a longer span of time, and the word when can refer to a single moment in time. Consider: I was reading in the library when I heard the alarm go off. I was reading in the library while I heard the alarm going off. The first sentence points to a specific moment in time \u2013 that moment when the alarm went off. The second sentence refers to a longer span of time \u2013 it could be interpreted as: \"I heard the alarm go off, and then I kept hearing the alarm go off while I stayed in the library.\" So, if you wanted to emphasize how Mary was letter-writing and the children were playing over a certain span of time, while might be the better word to use. In your example, the use of the progressive verb tense \u2013 that is, was writing instead of wrote \u2013 makes while the better word to use, in my opinion. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that when would be awkward or incorrect. Like many subtle nuances of English, this one can get tricky: While Mary was writing a writing a letter, the phone rang. This emphasizes how Mary was in the process of writing a letter, and she was interrupted by the phone ringing. Mary was writing a letter when the phone rang. This says the same thing, but \"when\" points to the moment when the phone rang. Mary was writing a letter while the phone kept ringing. This emphasizes how the phone was ringing for some period of time."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSelf-aggrandizing is a word that I have in mind, but it doesn't seem suitable to describe one who laughs at their own joke, even when nobody else does. He's a _______, a person who cannot help but laugh at his own jokes","question":"Self-aggrandizing is a word that I have in mind, but it doesn't seem suitable to describe one who laughs at their own joke, even when nobody else does. He's a _______, a person who cannot help but laugh at his own jokes","answer":"He's someone who cannot keep a straight face to manage to stop yourself from smiling or laughing: She tried to keep a straight face but, unable to contain herself, burst into laughter.","output":"He's someone who cannot keep a straight face to manage to stop yourself from smiling or laughing: She tried to keep a straight face but, unable to contain herself, burst into laughter."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAfter planking, owling and leisure dive, now there is the trend which is called \"Batmanning\". Obviously it is a made-up word. Is there a proper substitute for it? What is the verb that defines the act when a bat hangs from somewhere?","question":"After planking, owling and leisure dive, now there is the trend which is called \"Batmanning\". Obviously it is a made-up word. Is there a proper substitute for it? What is the verb that defines the act when a bat hangs from somewhere?","answer":"\"Planking\" is just as incorrect as \"Batmanning\" other than the spellchecker is okay with it for unrelated reasons. If the masses of the internet feel like coining a term that compares 'hanging like a bat' to 'planking' then so be it. The same goes for \"owling\". Assuming you meant a word that just means, \"hanging upside down\": roost perch hang suspend dangle There isn't usually a way to distinguish \"upside down\" from \"upright\" positions with these but context generally helps: He hung from the rafters.","output":"\"Planking\" is just as incorrect as \"Batmanning\" other than the spellchecker is okay with it for unrelated reasons. If the masses of the internet feel like coining a term that compares 'hanging like a bat' to 'planking' then so be it. The same goes for \"owling\". Assuming you meant a word that just means, \"hanging upside down\": roost perch hang suspend dangle There isn't usually a way to distinguish \"upside down\" from \"upright\" positions with these but context generally helps: He hung from the rafters."}
{"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\nMy teacher believes that every sentence has a verb but I want to prove her wrong. (My teacher told the class that whoever can find a sentence with no verb she will give them a prize.) Does anyone know and example of a sentence that has no verb?","question":"My teacher believes that every sentence has a verb but I want to prove her wrong. (My teacher told the class that whoever can find a sentence with no verb she will give them a prize.) Does anyone know and example of a sentence that has no verb?","answer":"Many sentences without an explicit verb still have an implicit verb\u2014a verb that has merely been elided. Answers to questions often work like this. For example: \"What's your name?\" \"Verena.\" That is, \"My name is Verena.\" I'm not sure those should count. These sentences, however, really do follow syntactic structures for a full sentence that inherently do not contain a verb: The more, the merrier. Off with her head! Out with the old and in with the new. The first one is explained in more detail here. It's an important sentence structure for an ESL learner to know, and it's important to understand that it really has no verb lurking in it, not even implicitly. Also, interjections stand as full sentences without a verb: Hello. Oh no! Gosh! Ouch! D'ohh!!!","output":"Many sentences without an explicit verb still have an implicit verb\u2014a verb that has merely been elided. Answers to questions often work like this. For example: \"What's your name?\" \"Verena.\" That is, \"My name is Verena.\" I'm not sure those should count. These sentences, however, really do follow syntactic structures for a full sentence that inherently do not contain a verb: The more, the merrier. Off with her head! Out with the old and in with the new. The first one is explained in more detail here. It's an important sentence structure for an ESL learner to know, and it's important to understand that it really has no verb lurking in it, not even implicitly. Also, interjections stand as full sentences without a verb: Hello. Oh no! Gosh! Ouch! D'ohh!!!"}
{"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\n! Is the following sentence from Wikipedia poor style or even ungrammatical? The 2010 United States Census reported that San Jose had a population of 945,942. The population density was 5,256.2 people per square mile (2,029.4\/km\u00b2). The racial makeup of San Jose was 404,437 (42.8%) White, 303,138 (32.0%) Asian (10.4% Vietnamese, 6.7% Chinese, 5.6% Filipino, 4.6% Indian, 1.2% Korean, 1.2% Japanese, 0.3% Cambodian, 0.2% Thai, 0.2% Pakistani, 0.2% Laotian), 30,242 (3.2%) African American, 8,297 (0.9%) Native American, 4,017 (0.4%) Pacific Islander, 148,749 (15.7%) from other races, and 47,062 (5.0%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race WERE 313,636 persons (33.2%). Among the Hispanic population, 28.2% are Mexican, 0.7% Salvadoran, 0.5% Puerto Rican, and 0.3% Nicaraguan. Non-Hispanic Whites were 28.7% of the population in 2010, down from 60.4% in 1970.\" Would replacing were with numbered be better?","question":"! Is the following sentence from Wikipedia poor style or even ungrammatical? The 2010 United States Census reported that San Jose had a population of 945,942. The population density was 5,256.2 people per square mile (2,029.4\/km\u00b2). The racial makeup of San Jose was 404,437 (42.8%) White, 303,138 (32.0%) Asian (10.4% Vietnamese, 6.7% Chinese, 5.6% Filipino, 4.6% Indian, 1.2% Korean, 1.2% Japanese, 0.3% Cambodian, 0.2% Thai, 0.2% Pakistani, 0.2% Laotian), 30,242 (3.2%) African American, 8,297 (0.9%) Native American, 4,017 (0.4%) Pacific Islander, 148,749 (15.7%) from other races, and 47,062 (5.0%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race WERE 313,636 persons (33.2%). Among the Hispanic population, 28.2% are Mexican, 0.7% Salvadoran, 0.5% Puerto Rican, and 0.3% Nicaraguan. Non-Hispanic Whites were 28.7% of the population in 2010, down from 60.4% in 1970.\" Would replacing were with numbered be better?","answer":"The sentence is grammatical, but awkward. To put it in context, here's the original paragraph, with links and footnote references removed, and your sentence emphasized: The 2010 United States Census reported that San Jose had a population of 945,942. The population density was 5,256.2 people per square mile (2,029.4\/km\u00b2). The racial makeup of San Jose was 404,437 (42.8%) White, 303,138 (32.0%) Asian (10.4% Vietnamese, 6.7% Chinese, 5.6% Filipino, 4.6% Indian, 1.2% Korean, 1.2% Japanese, 0.3% Cambodian, 0.2% Thai, 0.2% Pakistani, 0.2% Laotian), 30,242 (3.2%) African American, 8,297 (0.9%) Native American, 4,017 (0.4%) Pacific Islander, 148,749 (15.7%) from other races, and 47,062 (5.0%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 313,636 persons (33.2%). Among the Hispanic population, 28.2% are Mexican, 0.7% Salvadoran, 0.5% Puerto Rican, and 0.3% Nicaraguan. Non-Hispanic Whites were 28.7% of the population in 2010, down from 60.4% in 1970. The problem which underlies a text of this sort is that it shouldn't really be presented as text at all: the information it provides would be much more intelligible and useful in a table. But if you're going to present it as text, it's very important to maintain a consistent syntax, providing the numbers and labels in the same format every time. The sentence you're asking about fails to do this: instead of the \u201c#(%) Label\u201d format which the reader has gotten used to, the author flips the label to the front. There's a very good reason why the author does this: to mark the shift from \u201cracial makeup\u201d to ethnic makeup requires a new sentence. But fronting the label creates just the awkward construction that draws your attention. We're now dealing with a Census-defined label in the singular which must be complemented with a number, to which the author feels a need to attach a plural noun, persons. It would have been somewhat more graceful, and easier to follow, if the author had written something along the lines of The ethnic makeup was ###,### (28.7%) Non-Hispanic White (down from 60.4% in 1970) and 313,636 (33.2%) Hispanic or Latino of any race; these Hispanics were 28.2% Mexican, 0.7% Salvadoran, 0.5% Puerto Rican, and 0.3% Nicaraguan. I've de-pluralized \u201cNon-Hispanic Whites\u201d on the assumption that the Census label is parallel with the others. If it isn't, it should be.","output":"The sentence is grammatical, but awkward. To put it in context, here's the original paragraph, with links and footnote references removed, and your sentence emphasized: The 2010 United States Census reported that San Jose had a population of 945,942. The population density was 5,256.2 people per square mile (2,029.4\/km\u00b2). The racial makeup of San Jose was 404,437 (42.8%) White, 303,138 (32.0%) Asian (10.4% Vietnamese, 6.7% Chinese, 5.6% Filipino, 4.6% Indian, 1.2% Korean, 1.2% Japanese, 0.3% Cambodian, 0.2% Thai, 0.2% Pakistani, 0.2% Laotian), 30,242 (3.2%) African American, 8,297 (0.9%) Native American, 4,017 (0.4%) Pacific Islander, 148,749 (15.7%) from other races, and 47,062 (5.0%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 313,636 persons (33.2%). Among the Hispanic population, 28.2% are Mexican, 0.7% Salvadoran, 0.5% Puerto Rican, and 0.3% Nicaraguan. Non-Hispanic Whites were 28.7% of the population in 2010, down from 60.4% in 1970. The problem which underlies a text of this sort is that it shouldn't really be presented as text at all: the information it provides would be much more intelligible and useful in a table. But if you're going to present it as text, it's very important to maintain a consistent syntax, providing the numbers and labels in the same format every time. The sentence you're asking about fails to do this: instead of the \u201c#(%) Label\u201d format which the reader has gotten used to, the author flips the label to the front. There's a very good reason why the author does this: to mark the shift from \u201cracial makeup\u201d to ethnic makeup requires a new sentence. But fronting the label creates just the awkward construction that draws your attention. We're now dealing with a Census-defined label in the singular which must be complemented with a number, to which the author feels a need to attach a plural noun, persons. It would have been somewhat more graceful, and easier to follow, if the author had written something along the lines of The ethnic makeup was ###,### (28.7%) Non-Hispanic White (down from 60.4% in 1970) and 313,636 (33.2%) Hispanic or Latino of any race; these Hispanics were 28.2% Mexican, 0.7% Salvadoran, 0.5% Puerto Rican, and 0.3% Nicaraguan. I've de-pluralized \u201cNon-Hispanic Whites\u201d on the assumption that the Census label is parallel with the others. If it isn't, it should be."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI would like a polite (formal) way to say: The changes you intend to make will not do us any good. or should I say \"intend on making\"?","question":"I would like a polite (formal) way to say: The changes you intend to make will not do us any good. or should I say \"intend on making\"?","answer":"You could say: \"We feel that the intended changes will be of little benefit.\" This avoids directly saying \"you\", which could come across as impolite. Although not quite the same, you could also use \"the proposed changes\".","output":"You could say: \"We feel that the intended changes will be of little benefit.\" This avoids directly saying \"you\", which could come across as impolite. Although not quite the same, you could also use \"the proposed changes\"."}
{"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\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow to name a category of tall objects that are designed to stand on the floor as opposed to standing on a table? The tabletop objects are shorter than the freestanding objects and I cannot use \"freestanding\".","question":"How to name a category of tall objects that are designed to stand on the floor as opposed to standing on a table? The tabletop objects are shorter than the freestanding objects and I cannot use \"freestanding\".","answer":"As Chatkillah notes in the comments, floor-standing is used for things that are designed to stand on the floor. For example, the tall speakers that rest on the floor in home theatres are called floor-standing speakers.","output":"As Chatkillah notes in the comments, floor-standing is used for things that are designed to stand on the floor. For example, the tall speakers that rest on the floor in home theatres are called floor-standing speakers."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHere are my constructions: While carrying out his engineering project, he prepared the design of wired and wireless network infrastructure and developed the new architectural plans of the building. While carrying out his engineering project, he designed wired and wireless network infrastructure and developed the new architectural plans of the building. So my question is, should I use 'he prepared the design' or 'he designed'?","question":"Here are my constructions: While carrying out his engineering project, he prepared the design of wired and wireless network infrastructure and developed the new architectural plans of the building. While carrying out his engineering project, he designed wired and wireless network infrastructure and developed the new architectural plans of the building. So my question is, should I use 'he prepared the design' or 'he designed'?","answer":"While carrying out his engineering project, he prepared the design of wired and wireless network infrastructure and developed the new architectural plans of the building. Comparing the noun and verb definitions of design, the expression prepared the design tends to limit his participation to the drawing aspect of the project: design noun 1.0 A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made: design verb [WITH OBJECT] 1.0 Decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), by making a detailed drawing of it: 1.1 Do or plan (something) with a specific purpose in mind: ODO The sentence below, can denote the same meaning, but it can also suggest his design involvement in wired and wireless infrastructure was deeper than just drawings for this building: While carrying out his engineering project, he designed wired and wireless network infrastructure and developed the new architectural plans of the building. The broader meaning is reinforced by an omitted determiner. Adding another the would suggest his design activity was limited to the specific architectural plans of the building, as opposed to a broader development of wired and wireless network infrastructure: While carrying out his engineering project, he designed the wired and wireless network infrastructure and developed the new architectural plans of the building. If the intention is to credit the man for broader development of wired and wireless network infrastructure, it might read more smoothly as: While carrying out his engineering project, he designed wireless and wired network infrastructure and developed the new architectural plans of the building.","output":"While carrying out his engineering project, he prepared the design of wired and wireless network infrastructure and developed the new architectural plans of the building. Comparing the noun and verb definitions of design, the expression prepared the design tends to limit his participation to the drawing aspect of the project: design noun 1.0 A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made: design verb [WITH OBJECT] 1.0 Decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), by making a detailed drawing of it: 1.1 Do or plan (something) with a specific purpose in mind: ODO The sentence below, can denote the same meaning, but it can also suggest his design involvement in wired and wireless infrastructure was deeper than just drawings for this building: While carrying out his engineering project, he designed wired and wireless network infrastructure and developed the new architectural plans of the building. The broader meaning is reinforced by an omitted determiner. Adding another the would suggest his design activity was limited to the specific architectural plans of the building, as opposed to a broader development of wired and wireless network infrastructure: While carrying out his engineering project, he designed the wired and wireless network infrastructure and developed the new architectural plans of the building. If the intention is to credit the man for broader development of wired and wireless network infrastructure, it might read more smoothly as: While carrying out his engineering project, he designed wireless and wired network infrastructure and developed the new architectural plans of the building."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhich is correct in modern day grammar (email context)? I am reviewing this, now. I am reviewing this now.","question":"Which is correct in modern day grammar (email context)? I am reviewing this, now. I am reviewing this now.","answer":"I think both are correct. It depends on how you want the reader to interpret this sentence. A comma in writing acts the same way as a pause in speech; consequently, if you want to add emphasis to the word \"now\" you can put a comma before it. Notice that every time you put a comma before a word or phrase, it interrupts the normal progression of the sentence.","output":"I think both are correct. It depends on how you want the reader to interpret this sentence. A comma in writing acts the same way as a pause in speech; consequently, if you want to add emphasis to the word \"now\" you can put a comma before it. Notice that every time you put a comma before a word or phrase, it interrupts the normal progression of the sentence."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"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\nCan I use \"I sensed\" meaning \"I noticed\" as synonyms in this phrase? Example: I noticed\/sensed something was going on when my father said that my mother wasn't going to come home that night. Here's the meaning of both words according to www.dictionary.com: Sense a feeling or perception produced through the organs of touch, taste, etc., or resulting from a particular condition of some part of the body Notice to perceive; become aware of Sense and Notice have very close meanings in many contexts, but sometimes they are completely different from each other depending on context. I just need to know whether it is possible to use both words interchangeably in the example phrase I wrote.","question":"Can I use \"I sensed\" meaning \"I noticed\" as synonyms in this phrase? Example: I noticed\/sensed something was going on when my father said that my mother wasn't going to come home that night. Here's the meaning of both words according to www.dictionary.com: Sense a feeling or perception produced through the organs of touch, taste, etc., or resulting from a particular condition of some part of the body Notice to perceive; become aware of Sense and Notice have very close meanings in many contexts, but sometimes they are completely different from each other depending on context. I just need to know whether it is possible to use both words interchangeably in the example phrase I wrote.","answer":"They are mostly interchangeable, however there is a slight but subtle difference. 'To notice' is more likely to be used in cases where there are physical clues that help you to guess something, for example: I noticed there was something wrong when I walked into the room and saw the frown on her face. In this sentence the physical clue is her frown. 'To sense' is more likely to be used in cases where there are no physical clues. I sensed there was something wrong when I walked into the room. In this sentence there are no obvious, physical clues. 'To sense' is more likely to be seen in literature, and is generally considered quite poetic. A near exact synonym would be 'to detect'. In this sentence: I noticed\/sensed something was going on when my father said that my mother wasn't going to come home that night. you would me more likely to say sensed because there aren't any physical clues. If the sentence said this: I noticed\/sensed something was going on when my mother didn't come home that night. you would be more likely to say noticed, because there was the physical clue of your mother not coming home. If you are ever unsure which one to use in a sentence, you could use the verb 'to realize': I realized something was going on when my father said that my mother wasn't going to come home that night. I realized something was going on when my mother didn't come home that night.","output":"They are mostly interchangeable, however there is a slight but subtle difference. 'To notice' is more likely to be used in cases where there are physical clues that help you to guess something, for example: I noticed there was something wrong when I walked into the room and saw the frown on her face. In this sentence the physical clue is her frown. 'To sense' is more likely to be used in cases where there are no physical clues. I sensed there was something wrong when I walked into the room. In this sentence there are no obvious, physical clues. 'To sense' is more likely to be seen in literature, and is generally considered quite poetic. A near exact synonym would be 'to detect'. In this sentence: I noticed\/sensed something was going on when my father said that my mother wasn't going to come home that night. you would me more likely to say sensed because there aren't any physical clues. If the sentence said this: I noticed\/sensed something was going on when my mother didn't come home that night. you would be more likely to say noticed, because there was the physical clue of your mother not coming home. If you are ever unsure which one to use in a sentence, you could use the verb 'to realize': I realized something was going on when my father said that my mother wasn't going to come home that night. I realized something was going on when my mother didn't come home that night."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSource: http:\/\/rt.com\/news\/171188-russian-hacker-kidnapped-america\/ The US has a record of taking drastic steps when it wants people held in custody. The methods may vary from the widely-criticized practice of \u201cextraordinary rendition,\u201d or the blatant kidnappings of terror suspects during the Bush era, to putting pressure on foreign governments to allow American agents a free hand on their soil. What would you refer to held in custody as? Can it be thought of as an adverbial construction that describes how the US wants people? The answer, I suppose, could be: it wants them held in custody. Could you please give me some more examples of this pattern?","question":"Source: http:\/\/rt.com\/news\/171188-russian-hacker-kidnapped-america\/ The US has a record of taking drastic steps when it wants people held in custody. The methods may vary from the widely-criticized practice of \u201cextraordinary rendition,\u201d or the blatant kidnappings of terror suspects during the Bush era, to putting pressure on foreign governments to allow American agents a free hand on their soil. What would you refer to held in custody as? Can it be thought of as an adverbial construction that describes how the US wants people? The answer, I suppose, could be: it wants them held in custody. Could you please give me some more examples of this pattern?","answer":"Held in custody here is not a modifier at all, neither an adjectival nor an adverbial. It is the predicate of a passive infinitive clause which has been \u2018reduced\u2019 by omitting the infinitive to be. That has a lot of technical terms you may not be familiar with, so let\u2019s look at how the clause \u201cIt wants people held in custody\u201d is built, step by step. First: the head clause here is ... it wants X. X, the Direct Object or \u2018object complement\u2019\u2014what it wants\u2014may be represented by an independent clause in the passive voice: People are held in custody. In this particular context, want \u2018licenses\u2019 (permits) two ways of \u2018complementizing\u2019 this clause\u2014turning it into a form which can act as an object complement of the verb want. You must turn it into an infinitive clause with a verb cast into the marked infinitive form, but the clause may or may not be headed with the \u2018complementizer\u2019 (traditionally called a \u2018subordinating conjunction\u2019) for: ... people to be held in custody OR ... for people to be held in custody In this case, the author has selected the infinitive clause without for (the for form is actually pretty rare with want): ... people to be held in custody ... The final step is \u2018reducing\u2019 the clause. In this subordinate clause the to be piece may be omitted from to be VERBed ... people held in custody... This is married to the head clause as X, the Direct Object: ... it wants people held in custody ... And now that is integrated into the sentence as a when clause: ... when it wants people held in custody.","output":"Held in custody here is not a modifier at all, neither an adjectival nor an adverbial. It is the predicate of a passive infinitive clause which has been \u2018reduced\u2019 by omitting the infinitive to be. That has a lot of technical terms you may not be familiar with, so let\u2019s look at how the clause \u201cIt wants people held in custody\u201d is built, step by step. First: the head clause here is ... it wants X. X, the Direct Object or \u2018object complement\u2019\u2014what it wants\u2014may be represented by an independent clause in the passive voice: People are held in custody. In this particular context, want \u2018licenses\u2019 (permits) two ways of \u2018complementizing\u2019 this clause\u2014turning it into a form which can act as an object complement of the verb want. You must turn it into an infinitive clause with a verb cast into the marked infinitive form, but the clause may or may not be headed with the \u2018complementizer\u2019 (traditionally called a \u2018subordinating conjunction\u2019) for: ... people to be held in custody OR ... for people to be held in custody In this case, the author has selected the infinitive clause without for (the for form is actually pretty rare with want): ... people to be held in custody ... The final step is \u2018reducing\u2019 the clause. In this subordinate clause the to be piece may be omitted from to be VERBed ... people held in custody... This is married to the head clause as X, the Direct Object: ... it wants people held in custody ... And now that is integrated into the sentence as a when clause: ... when it wants people held in custody."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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\nI was writing a post for my company's blog talking about Open source, and wanted to wrap it up with Let's make waves. I was pretty sure that the expression meant something like Let's replicate this, and amplify it in every new replication. Like the fact of doing something small but nice, so others join, do something else that's small too, but summing all that you end up with something big. But a couple of colleagues told me they didn't know that phrase at all, and I couldn't find any reference to it myself. Have I made that whole definition up from nothing? Is it a known expression? Could I have translated it from another language?","question":"I was writing a post for my company's blog talking about Open source, and wanted to wrap it up with Let's make waves. I was pretty sure that the expression meant something like Let's replicate this, and amplify it in every new replication. Like the fact of doing something small but nice, so others join, do something else that's small too, but summing all that you end up with something big. But a couple of colleagues told me they didn't know that phrase at all, and I couldn't find any reference to it myself. Have I made that whole definition up from nothing? Is it a known expression? Could I have translated it from another language?","answer":"\"Make waves\" is a well-known English idiom, and it can have several meanings, but I don't think it fits the described context: make waves: to cause problems by making suggestions or criticisms (Macmillan English Dictionary) makes waves: to disturb the status quo (Webster's Unabridged) make waves: create a significant impression he has already made waves as a sculptor (Oxford Dictionaries) UPDATE: At the moment I cannot think of a suitable idiom for your intended meaning. I think Edwin's \"ripple effect\" captures one aspect of it, but I'm not sure \"let's create a ripple effect\" sounds like a good motivational line, which seems to be important. You mentioned the end result of the open-source community effort would be \"something big\" (i.e. a popular, successful open source project or initiative.) Let me suggest a different water-related idiom that basically means \"make famous\" or \"attract attention\": make a splash. attract a great deal of attention (Oxford Dictionary) Take a look at the open source rookies that made a splash in the past year (infoworld.com) If this fits your purpose, you could end the post with \"Let's make a splash together!\"","output":"\"Make waves\" is a well-known English idiom, and it can have several meanings, but I don't think it fits the described context: make waves: to cause problems by making suggestions or criticisms (Macmillan English Dictionary) makes waves: to disturb the status quo (Webster's Unabridged) make waves: create a significant impression he has already made waves as a sculptor (Oxford Dictionaries) UPDATE: At the moment I cannot think of a suitable idiom for your intended meaning. I think Edwin's \"ripple effect\" captures one aspect of it, but I'm not sure \"let's create a ripple effect\" sounds like a good motivational line, which seems to be important. You mentioned the end result of the open-source community effort would be \"something big\" (i.e. a popular, successful open source project or initiative.) Let me suggest a different water-related idiom that basically means \"make famous\" or \"attract attention\": make a splash. attract a great deal of attention (Oxford Dictionary) Take a look at the open source rookies that made a splash in the past year (infoworld.com) If this fits your purpose, you could end the post with \"Let's make a splash together!\""}
{"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 negatif:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am a bit confused about the proper tense for the following situation. I try to make an example: A couple of weeks ago I talked to someone. We have not talked or communicated in any way again since then. So this action is completed and lies in the past. This talk lead to an action that takes place right now. So it is ongoing and in the present. Which form is grammatically correct: After a talk with Y, I write this sentence. After having a talk with Y, I write this sentence. After a talk with Y, I am writing this sentence. After having a talk with Y, I am writing this sentence. or even After having had a talk with Y, I write \/ am writing this sentence. After I had a talk with Y, I write \/ am writing this sentence. Thank you very much in advance for your answer!","question":"I am a bit confused about the proper tense for the following situation. I try to make an example: A couple of weeks ago I talked to someone. We have not talked or communicated in any way again since then. So this action is completed and lies in the past. This talk lead to an action that takes place right now. So it is ongoing and in the present. Which form is grammatically correct: After a talk with Y, I write this sentence. After having a talk with Y, I write this sentence. After a talk with Y, I am writing this sentence. After having a talk with Y, I am writing this sentence. or even After having had a talk with Y, I write \/ am writing this sentence. After I had a talk with Y, I write \/ am writing this sentence. Thank you very much in advance for your answer!","answer":"That unqualified use of after will always make people think it means directly after, so all of those are more confusing than things that are more explicit: I talked with X a few weeks back, but am only just now writing about it. Having talked with X a couple weeks ago, I\u2019m now writing about what I learned then. You can also use had in many narrative styles: I had talked with X about all this two week ago; now I\u2019m finally getting around to writing about what I learned during our talk.","output":"That unqualified use of after will always make people think it means directly after, so all of those are more confusing than things that are more explicit: I talked with X a few weeks back, but am only just now writing about it. Having talked with X a couple weeks ago, I\u2019m now writing about what I learned then. You can also use had in many narrative styles: I had talked with X about all this two week ago; now I\u2019m finally getting around to writing about what I learned during our talk."}
{"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\nRecently I read a book, since I'm not a native English speaker, this passage of sentence confuse me: If his face betrayed any hint of his disappointment at the explanation, .... What's \"betrayed\" mean at this sentence? My interpretation is that it means his face \"shows\" hint of disappointment. Is it okay to interpret it like that?","question":"Recently I read a book, since I'm not a native English speaker, this passage of sentence confuse me: If his face betrayed any hint of his disappointment at the explanation, .... What's \"betrayed\" mean at this sentence? My interpretation is that it means his face \"shows\" hint of disappointment. Is it okay to interpret it like that?","answer":"Yes, \"revealed\" or \"showed\" as you said is the best interpretation but using \"betrayed\" gives a sense that it was out of the persons control and something that they didn't mean or want to do.","output":"Yes, \"revealed\" or \"showed\" as you said is the best interpretation but using \"betrayed\" gives a sense that it was out of the persons control and something that they didn't mean or want to do."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen I am solving English tests. I came across with would like in passive voice. So the question is: Mr. Brown said he'd like...by Wednesday if that's possible a) have finished the report b) the report will be finished c) the report finished I thought variant B(the report will be finished) is correct because the first part of the sentence indicates future tense. But the answer is C(the report finished). As you see in variant C(the report finished) there is no to be that is required by the passive voice. I didn't understand why it accepted as a correct answer. Could someone explain to me the reason for that?","question":"When I am solving English tests. I came across with would like in passive voice. So the question is: Mr. Brown said he'd like...by Wednesday if that's possible a) have finished the report b) the report will be finished c) the report finished I thought variant B(the report will be finished) is correct because the first part of the sentence indicates future tense. But the answer is C(the report finished). As you see in variant C(the report finished) there is no to be that is required by the passive voice. I didn't understand why it accepted as a correct answer. Could someone explain to me the reason for that?","answer":"Be is not always required to mark passive voice. There are other constructions like the one in the example given where the passive is not marked by be (CaGEL p1245): i Most of the sense verbs I heard the window broken. ii Get and have: She got\/had the house painted. I had my wallet stolen. iii Like, want, report,fear and order; here the past-participial is an alternant of a passive to-infinitival: He\u2019d like\/wants them (to be)killed humanely; The captain was reported(to have been)killed; They are feared (to have been)abducted; He ordered it (to be)destroyed. iv Need and want, as an alternant of the concealed passive: He needs\/wants his hair cut In order to select the correct complement to the verb like, all we need do is consider what complementation patterns are allowed. Like can take objects, predicative complements, gerund-participial clauses, to-infinitival clauses, expanded declarative content clauses (that-clauses) and past participial clauses: Billy likes ice-cream. [object] Billy like his ice-cream cold. [object + PC] Billy likes his ice-cream to be served in a cone. [object + to-infinitival] Billy likes eating cold ice-cream. [gerund-participial] Billy likes me serving him ice-cream. [object + gerund-participial] Billy likes his ice-cream served in a cone. [object + past-participial] Billy likes for his ice-cream to be served in a cone. [to-infinitival] Billy likes that his ice-cream always comes in a cone. [that-clause] Given these choices for the complementation of like, we can now choose the correct answer. All three options have multiple possible interpretations depending on context: a) have finished the report plain infinitival I will have finished the report. plain present I have finished the report. b) the report will be finished declarative main clause The report will be finished. bare declarative content clause (no that) He said the report will be finished. c) the report finished declarative main clause The report finished. object + past-participial We got the report finished. We see that the only one which fits the allowed complementation patterns for like is (C).","output":"Be is not always required to mark passive voice. There are other constructions like the one in the example given where the passive is not marked by be (CaGEL p1245): i Most of the sense verbs I heard the window broken. ii Get and have: She got\/had the house painted. I had my wallet stolen. iii Like, want, report,fear and order; here the past-participial is an alternant of a passive to-infinitival: He\u2019d like\/wants them (to be)killed humanely; The captain was reported(to have been)killed; They are feared (to have been)abducted; He ordered it (to be)destroyed. iv Need and want, as an alternant of the concealed passive: He needs\/wants his hair cut In order to select the correct complement to the verb like, all we need do is consider what complementation patterns are allowed. Like can take objects, predicative complements, gerund-participial clauses, to-infinitival clauses, expanded declarative content clauses (that-clauses) and past participial clauses: Billy likes ice-cream. [object] Billy like his ice-cream cold. [object + PC] Billy likes his ice-cream to be served in a cone. [object + to-infinitival] Billy likes eating cold ice-cream. [gerund-participial] Billy likes me serving him ice-cream. [object + gerund-participial] Billy likes his ice-cream served in a cone. [object + past-participial] Billy likes for his ice-cream to be served in a cone. [to-infinitival] Billy likes that his ice-cream always comes in a cone. [that-clause] Given these choices for the complementation of like, we can now choose the correct answer. All three options have multiple possible interpretations depending on context: a) have finished the report plain infinitival I will have finished the report. plain present I have finished the report. b) the report will be finished declarative main clause The report will be finished. bare declarative content clause (no that) He said the report will be finished. c) the report finished declarative main clause The report finished. object + past-participial We got the report finished. We see that the only one which fits the allowed complementation patterns for like is (C)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAnd in those 10 years I can say that I may have learned a thing or twelve. What's the meaning of \"learned a thing or twelve\"? Is it an idiom?","question":"And in those 10 years I can say that I may have learned a thing or twelve. What's the meaning of \"learned a thing or twelve\"? Is it an idiom?","answer":"The phrase learned a thing or twelve isn't an idiom. A thing or two is a common way of saying one or two things (or less precisely a few things). The author has tweaked that phrase, replacing two with twelve. This not only increases the meaning from a few things to several things or many things, but by altering a more common phrase, it draws attention to the increase by differing from what a reader familiar with the original phrase might have anticipated. So to sum up, you could reword your original sentence as: And in those 10 years I can say that I may have learned several (or many) things.","output":"The phrase learned a thing or twelve isn't an idiom. A thing or two is a common way of saying one or two things (or less precisely a few things). The author has tweaked that phrase, replacing two with twelve. This not only increases the meaning from a few things to several things or many things, but by altering a more common phrase, it draws attention to the increase by differing from what a reader familiar with the original phrase might have anticipated. So to sum up, you could reword your original sentence as: And in those 10 years I can say that I may have learned several (or many) things."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"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 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\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm trying to find a word or phrase for describing a situation where learning one skill doesn't help you in another area. My instinct was to use parallel or perpendicular, but I'm not actually sure which would be right, which indicates to me that neither actually conveys the meaning I want. I could use \"unrelated\", but thats not as descriptive as I would like, especially since the skills may be \"related\" in some way that isn't \"how they're learned\". Basically I want to say something like \"Software development skills are to engineering management skills. Learning one doesn't help you learn the other.\"","question":"I'm trying to find a word or phrase for describing a situation where learning one skill doesn't help you in another area. My instinct was to use parallel or perpendicular, but I'm not actually sure which would be right, which indicates to me that neither actually conveys the meaning I want. I could use \"unrelated\", but thats not as descriptive as I would like, especially since the skills may be \"related\" in some way that isn't \"how they're learned\". Basically I want to say something like \"Software development skills are to engineering management skills. Learning one doesn't help you learn the other.\"","answer":"When factors are independent, they can be called orthogonal, fancy for a 90-degree relationship (right angled). They don't feed each other, they don't interact, they don't conflict. Statistically independent: mental ability may be classified into several orthogonal \u2026 factors \u2014 O. D. Duncan - Merriam-Webster dictionary online Use this word abstractly when you want to say \"I'm not fighting you. Our opinions differ, that's all. They're orthogonal.\"","output":"When factors are independent, they can be called orthogonal, fancy for a 90-degree relationship (right angled). They don't feed each other, they don't interact, they don't conflict. Statistically independent: mental ability may be classified into several orthogonal \u2026 factors \u2014 O. D. Duncan - Merriam-Webster dictionary online Use this word abstractly when you want to say \"I'm not fighting you. Our opinions differ, that's all. They're orthogonal.\""}
{"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\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn scientific writing, I always feel the need to logically connect all my sentences to have a clear logical path between beginning and end of a paragraph, else it is just feels like a list of random phrases to me and not a complete argument. However, more often than not, the only fitting connector is \"however\", as \"but\" is informal. Is it acceptable to use \"however\" very often or is that bad style and in the latter case, how can I improve it? An example Blue data is better than red data. Standard algorithms, however, are all written with red data in mind and don't work on blue data. Violet algorithms handle blue data as well as red data, however they are very slow. Blue-only algorithms can process blue data really fast, however most blue data is mixed with a small percentage of red data.","question":"In scientific writing, I always feel the need to logically connect all my sentences to have a clear logical path between beginning and end of a paragraph, else it is just feels like a list of random phrases to me and not a complete argument. However, more often than not, the only fitting connector is \"however\", as \"but\" is informal. Is it acceptable to use \"however\" very often or is that bad style and in the latter case, how can I improve it? An example Blue data is better than red data. Standard algorithms, however, are all written with red data in mind and don't work on blue data. Violet algorithms handle blue data as well as red data, however they are very slow. Blue-only algorithms can process blue data really fast, however most blue data is mixed with a small percentage of red data.","answer":"Possible fixes: Blue data is better than red data. Standard algorithms, on the other hand, are all written with red data in mind and don't work on blue data. Violet algorithms handle blue data as well as red data, yet they are very slow. Blue-only algorithms can process blue data really fast, even though most blue data is mixed with a small percentage of red data. Also, consider the alternatives: Synonyms for however adv still, nevertheless, nonetheless, notwithstanding, withal, yet, after all, all the same, anyhow, be that as it may, but, despite, for all that, howbeit, in spite of, on the other hand, per contra, though [Sorry, Lucky, I didn't see your link at the time of editing; you were earlier]","output":"Possible fixes: Blue data is better than red data. Standard algorithms, on the other hand, are all written with red data in mind and don't work on blue data. Violet algorithms handle blue data as well as red data, yet they are very slow. Blue-only algorithms can process blue data really fast, even though most blue data is mixed with a small percentage of red data. Also, consider the alternatives: Synonyms for however adv still, nevertheless, nonetheless, notwithstanding, withal, yet, after all, all the same, anyhow, be that as it may, but, despite, for all that, howbeit, in spite of, on the other hand, per contra, though [Sorry, Lucky, I didn't see your link at the time of editing; you were earlier]"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\"Once upon a time\" is the traditional way to start a fairy tale using the English language. But how traditional is it? I'm trying to find the first uses of this expression with this purpose. So far I have found a text from 1672 using Ngram that says: Could Mistriss Mopsa her self have furnished you with a more pleasant and worshipful Tale? It wants nothing of perfection, but that it doth not begin with Once upon a time? So by the 17th century it already was a traditional expression for beginning tales. But I would like to know how far does that tradition go. What are the first English texts that reflect the use of \"once upon a time\" to start a tale? When were those texts written? Are there any older versions of the idiom that could be the origin of this one?","question":"\"Once upon a time\" is the traditional way to start a fairy tale using the English language. But how traditional is it? I'm trying to find the first uses of this expression with this purpose. So far I have found a text from 1672 using Ngram that says: Could Mistriss Mopsa her self have furnished you with a more pleasant and worshipful Tale? It wants nothing of perfection, but that it doth not begin with Once upon a time? So by the 17th century it already was a traditional expression for beginning tales. But I would like to know how far does that tradition go. What are the first English texts that reflect the use of \"once upon a time\" to start a tale? When were those texts written? Are there any older versions of the idiom that could be the origin of this one?","answer":"This expression and similar are found under definition 8a(g) in the MED: in phrases freq. introducing a narrative: ones on a time, in (on, upon) a time, in (on) on time, etc., once upon a time, once; also, in adv. constructions without prep.: o (on) time, on a certain occasion, once Coincidentally, you can also see \"on a time\" in this free OED page. One of the first examples is from c1225(?c1200) from \u00dee Liflade of St. Juliana. Although it's only in the third paragraph, it still serves to start off the rest of the story: Wes i\u00feon [Roy: bi \u00feon] time as \u00fee redunge telle\u00f0 \u00fee modi Maximien keiser irome... This translates as: In that time, as the legend tells, the proud emperor Maximian was in Rome... St. Katherine also from circa 1225 has a similar line: Constantin ant Maxence weren on ane time [c1225 Bodl. on a time] as in keiseres stude hehest irome. Which translates (according to me) as: Constantine and Maxentius were on a time... There's also Speculum Guy, c1330: A tale i wole \u021dou telle Off an eorl..Gy of Warwyk was his name, Hou on a time he stod in \u00feouht. A tale I wish to tell you of an earl... Guy of Warwick was his name, how on a time he stood in thought. (translation mine) Chaucer, in his Knight's Tale, uses the wording \"ones on a time\", but this happens in the middle of the story. It seems the wording with upon came later: Galien seith and tellith \u00feat vp-on a tyme he sey a child \u00feat had \u00fee fallyng evell. Galien says and tells that upon a time he... (translation mine) A Middle English Translation of Macer Floridus de Viribus Herbarum, a1450 Also related is \"once upon a day\", which dates back to circa 1380: Onys..oppon a day..he slow kynges three. Sir Ferumbras","output":"This expression and similar are found under definition 8a(g) in the MED: in phrases freq. introducing a narrative: ones on a time, in (on, upon) a time, in (on) on time, etc., once upon a time, once; also, in adv. constructions without prep.: o (on) time, on a certain occasion, once Coincidentally, you can also see \"on a time\" in this free OED page. One of the first examples is from c1225(?c1200) from \u00dee Liflade of St. Juliana. Although it's only in the third paragraph, it still serves to start off the rest of the story: Wes i\u00feon [Roy: bi \u00feon] time as \u00fee redunge telle\u00f0 \u00fee modi Maximien keiser irome... This translates as: In that time, as the legend tells, the proud emperor Maximian was in Rome... St. Katherine also from circa 1225 has a similar line: Constantin ant Maxence weren on ane time [c1225 Bodl. on a time] as in keiseres stude hehest irome. Which translates (according to me) as: Constantine and Maxentius were on a time... There's also Speculum Guy, c1330: A tale i wole \u021dou telle Off an eorl..Gy of Warwyk was his name, Hou on a time he stod in \u00feouht. A tale I wish to tell you of an earl... Guy of Warwick was his name, how on a time he stood in thought. (translation mine) Chaucer, in his Knight's Tale, uses the wording \"ones on a time\", but this happens in the middle of the story. It seems the wording with upon came later: Galien seith and tellith \u00feat vp-on a tyme he sey a child \u00feat had \u00fee fallyng evell. Galien says and tells that upon a time he... (translation mine) A Middle English Translation of Macer Floridus de Viribus Herbarum, a1450 Also related is \"once upon a day\", which dates back to circa 1380: Onys..oppon a day..he slow kynges three. Sir Ferumbras"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn my understanding the phrases \"as regards\" and \"in regard to\" are interchangeable, but an editor once corrected the former to the latter in my writing. May I ask what is the difference? The sentence in my writing was as follows: (original ver) As regards your proposal submitted last week, our team has formed some opinions which are summarised here (corrected ver) In regard to your proposal submitted last week, our team has formed some opinions which are summarised here","question":"In my understanding the phrases \"as regards\" and \"in regard to\" are interchangeable, but an editor once corrected the former to the latter in my writing. May I ask what is the difference? The sentence in my writing was as follows: (original ver) As regards your proposal submitted last week, our team has formed some opinions which are summarised here (corrected ver) In regard to your proposal submitted last week, our team has formed some opinions which are summarised here","answer":"Use in regard to when refering to a new subject. Use as regards when continuing from a previous related section, when contrasting with the foregoing, or when adding on something less important. In the instant case, it may be that the text is the beginning of a message, which should not use as regards. HTH.","output":"Use in regard to when refering to a new subject. Use as regards when continuing from a previous related section, when contrasting with the foregoing, or when adding on something less important. In the instant case, it may be that the text is the beginning of a message, which should not use as regards. HTH."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn Gossip Girl Season 4 Episode 19 \"Petty in pink,\" Blair says the following sentence to Serena's cousin Charlie after she tried to explain to both of them about her plan. I'm only grandfathering you in because of Serena. What this \"grandfather\" mean here? It looks like a verb, but I can't find it in any dictionary.","question":"In Gossip Girl Season 4 Episode 19 \"Petty in pink,\" Blair says the following sentence to Serena's cousin Charlie after she tried to explain to both of them about her plan. I'm only grandfathering you in because of Serena. What this \"grandfather\" mean here? It looks like a verb, but I can't find it in any dictionary.","answer":"Piskvor offered the relevant link, which can tell you more about the history of the expression. \"Grandfathering\" means that an exception is made because something existed before the rules were changed. I don't know what the context is in the example you've given, but here's an example: My company recently began requiring us to write our documentation in Google docs. My current project is grandfathered; I can still use the old file sharing system because that's what I used when I started documenting, before the change was made. I hope that clears things up. Oh, and I think \"grandfathering you in\" sounds odd. This doesn't strike me as a normal way to use the phrase.","output":"Piskvor offered the relevant link, which can tell you more about the history of the expression. \"Grandfathering\" means that an exception is made because something existed before the rules were changed. I don't know what the context is in the example you've given, but here's an example: My company recently began requiring us to write our documentation in Google docs. My current project is grandfathered; I can still use the old file sharing system because that's what I used when I started documenting, before the change was made. I hope that clears things up. Oh, and I think \"grandfathering you in\" sounds odd. This doesn't strike me as a normal way to use the phrase."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI would like to find a way to express the meaning of \"at some time\". For example: I think everyone has his study or working rhythm at a time. This rhythm varies for different person, and may be different at a different time for the same person. Especially it can change over time as he becomes more experienced. So pacing them at a pre-fixed pace may not work well. At a time sounds awkward to me. What do you think?","question":"I would like to find a way to express the meaning of \"at some time\". For example: I think everyone has his study or working rhythm at a time. This rhythm varies for different person, and may be different at a different time for the same person. Especially it can change over time as he becomes more experienced. So pacing them at a pre-fixed pace may not work well. At a time sounds awkward to me. What do you think?","answer":"You're right; it is awkward. I would use at any given time: I think everyone has his own study or working rhythm at any given time. This rhythm varies between different people, and may be different at different times for the same person. I changed at a different time to the plural, since the rhythm can't be different at a single time.","output":"You're right; it is awkward. I would use at any given time: I think everyone has his own study or working rhythm at any given time. This rhythm varies between different people, and may be different at different times for the same person. I changed at a different time to the plural, since the rhythm can't be different at a single time."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"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\nI am writing an academic text, and I want to describe an important book as \"seminal\", since it has made a profound impact on the field. However, the first entry on the dictionary.com page is \"pertaining to, containing, or consisting of semen\". Entry number 4, \"highly original and influencing the development of future events\" is the meaning I want to convey. Should I be worried about people confusing the two?","question":"I am writing an academic text, and I want to describe an important book as \"seminal\", since it has made a profound impact on the field. However, the first entry on the dictionary.com page is \"pertaining to, containing, or consisting of semen\". Entry number 4, \"highly original and influencing the development of future events\" is the meaning I want to convey. Should I be worried about people confusing the two?","answer":"In the context of an academic paper, I think you'll be safe. The word should be readily properly understood by your audience, as groundbreaking papers and research are often labeled as seminal works. No one will be \"confused.\" For what it's worth, NOAD lists as its first meaning: seminal (adj): 1) (of a work, event, moment, or figure) strongly influencing later developments and lists the other meaning as a secondary meaning.","output":"In the context of an academic paper, I think you'll be safe. The word should be readily properly understood by your audience, as groundbreaking papers and research are often labeled as seminal works. No one will be \"confused.\" For what it's worth, NOAD lists as its first meaning: seminal (adj): 1) (of a work, event, moment, or figure) strongly influencing later developments and lists the other meaning as a secondary meaning."}
{"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\nNot just English Why are pronouns when conjugating verbs always given in the same order. I You He She We You Plural They (or he's and she's depending on the language) Does anyone know?","question":"Not just English Why are pronouns when conjugating verbs always given in the same order. I You He She We You Plural They (or he's and she's depending on the language) Does anyone know?","answer":"It is the same in all other Indo-European languages I know. The perspective of any human being is with himself in the center: I. In any conversation, which is where language is important, there must be another human being present to whom I speak: you. Then we might discuss someone else: he\/she\/it. The second set of pronouns is the same but in plural: I as an individual am a more basic, more important unit to myself than my group, we, which consists of several people. It is only logical to use the same order with plural pronouns as the one that is used with singular pronouns. In Latin, there is a set of demonstrative pronouns for each of the three perspectives: Hic = that which is closer to myself than to any of the other persons Iste = that which is closest to you Ille = that which closest to him This is how they were originally used, when pointing to objects in the physical world (\"deictically\"); but they have acquired different nuances and their meanings have shifted a bit. In English, we only have two of those: This = that which is closest to me or to you-and-I That = that which is closest to you or him Their meanings have shifted a bit as well.","output":"It is the same in all other Indo-European languages I know. The perspective of any human being is with himself in the center: I. In any conversation, which is where language is important, there must be another human being present to whom I speak: you. Then we might discuss someone else: he\/she\/it. The second set of pronouns is the same but in plural: I as an individual am a more basic, more important unit to myself than my group, we, which consists of several people. It is only logical to use the same order with plural pronouns as the one that is used with singular pronouns. In Latin, there is a set of demonstrative pronouns for each of the three perspectives: Hic = that which is closer to myself than to any of the other persons Iste = that which is closest to you Ille = that which closest to him This is how they were originally used, when pointing to objects in the physical world (\"deictically\"); but they have acquired different nuances and their meanings have shifted a bit. In English, we only have two of those: This = that which is closest to me or to you-and-I That = that which is closest to you or him Their meanings have shifted a bit as well."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nKim frequently exhibited her vast knowledge of baseball before complete strangers. Before is usually used to depict a time line, so this use is confusing for me.","question":"Kim frequently exhibited her vast knowledge of baseball before complete strangers. Before is usually used to depict a time line, so this use is confusing for me.","answer":"Before means in front of here. Other examples: Kneel before the King! He didn't have any experience of appearing before a large audience. Before you is a list of topics we will discuss today. This meaning of before is rather formal.","output":"Before means in front of here. Other examples: Kneel before the King! He didn't have any experience of appearing before a large audience. Before you is a list of topics we will discuss today. This meaning of before is rather formal."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nConsider United States of America or United Kindgom. While using these, it is customary to add the before it. Eg. I'm travelling to the United Kingdom However, when I use the abbreviation, it doesn't seem right to add the before UK. It will usually be sans the the, like, I'm travelling to UK. Is it because when I use UK, I treat it as a proper noun, and in case of United Kingdom, it is mainly used to denote a cluster of kingdoms, and not treated a proper noun? Is skipping the the correct usage?","question":"Consider United States of America or United Kindgom. While using these, it is customary to add the before it. Eg. I'm travelling to the United Kingdom However, when I use the abbreviation, it doesn't seem right to add the before UK. It will usually be sans the the, like, I'm travelling to UK. Is it because when I use UK, I treat it as a proper noun, and in case of United Kingdom, it is mainly used to denote a cluster of kingdoms, and not treated a proper noun? Is skipping the the correct usage?","answer":"Perhaps it's a regional thing, but here (midwestern US), most people would use \"the\" in either case- \"I'm flying to the United Kingdom from the US\". Leaving the \"the\" out in either case sounds strange. However, this is one of those situations where there may not be an absolute right or wrong.","output":"Perhaps it's a regional thing, but here (midwestern US), most people would use \"the\" in either case- \"I'm flying to the United Kingdom from the US\". Leaving the \"the\" out in either case sounds strange. However, this is one of those situations where there may not be an absolute right or wrong."}
{"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs \"I like dogs but cats\" a valid sentence? This question comes from a debate with my friend. She says this sentence must be valid and gives an example of the Visual Studio string: \"Close all but this\". I think the Visual Studio string makes sense since we are excluding a subgroup of a generalized group. However I can't really tell what is the exact meaning of but here and whether we can use it to exclude anything.","question":"Is \"I like dogs but cats\" a valid sentence? This question comes from a debate with my friend. She says this sentence must be valid and gives an example of the Visual Studio string: \"Close all but this\". I think the Visual Studio string makes sense since we are excluding a subgroup of a generalized group. However I can't really tell what is the exact meaning of but here and whether we can use it to exclude anything.","answer":"Not in the sense you mean. But, is used here as a preposition meaning \"except\". What Visual Studio is saying: Close all tabs except this. What your friend is saying: I like dogs except cats. That is wrong. Except only makes sense when you're talking about a subgroup of a group, not two different groups. You could say, for instance: I like all animals but skunks.","output":"Not in the sense you mean. But, is used here as a preposition meaning \"except\". What Visual Studio is saying: Close all tabs except this. What your friend is saying: I like dogs except cats. That is wrong. Except only makes sense when you're talking about a subgroup of a group, not two different groups. You could say, for instance: I like all animals but skunks."}
{"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\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe employer did not transfer all my wage this month because he miscounted. Which is correct? $150 lacks in my wage. or I am missing $150 of my wage.","question":"The employer did not transfer all my wage this month because he miscounted. Which is correct? $150 lacks in my wage. or I am missing $150 of my wage.","answer":"The first one certainly isn't correct. If A lacks B, then A is missing B, not the other way around. The way your first option is phrased right now, the $150 lacks in your wage...which doesn't make much sense. Even if we were to fix the ordering issue and make it, \"My wage lacks $150,\" that sounds unnatural in English. It is technically correct, but doesn't sound great. Your second option is much better: I am missing $150 of my wages. Note that the dollar sign goes BEFORE the numerical value. Even though we say \"150 dollars,\" we write \"$150.\" Though for politeness' sake, I would go with a slightly wordier phrasing: I think I may be missing $150 of my wages. I was supposed to get paid $___ this month, but only received $____ in my bank account.","output":"The first one certainly isn't correct. If A lacks B, then A is missing B, not the other way around. The way your first option is phrased right now, the $150 lacks in your wage...which doesn't make much sense. Even if we were to fix the ordering issue and make it, \"My wage lacks $150,\" that sounds unnatural in English. It is technically correct, but doesn't sound great. Your second option is much better: I am missing $150 of my wages. Note that the dollar sign goes BEFORE the numerical value. Even though we say \"150 dollars,\" we write \"$150.\" Though for politeness' sake, I would go with a slightly wordier phrasing: I think I may be missing $150 of my wages. I was supposed to get paid $___ this month, but only received $____ in my bank account."}
{"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\nContext (Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address), I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, ...","question":"Context (Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address), I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, ...","answer":"\"Suit\" here means the case broguht before the court -- a \"lawsuit\".","output":"\"Suit\" here means the case broguht before the court -- a \"lawsuit\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI wrote the following sentence, but I am not sure whether \"is modification\" should be changed to \"is modifying.\" In such cases, what word should be placed after is? Is there any rule? The best solution is modification of the graph, for example, {1,2,1,3,4,5,4,6,1} into {1,2,3,5,4,6,1} by utilizing the concave cover along the outer border.","question":"I wrote the following sentence, but I am not sure whether \"is modification\" should be changed to \"is modifying.\" In such cases, what word should be placed after is? Is there any rule? The best solution is modification of the graph, for example, {1,2,1,3,4,5,4,6,1} into {1,2,3,5,4,6,1} by utilizing the concave cover along the outer border.","answer":"Either is acceptable. Modifying in this context is a \"gerund\", the -ing form of the verb acting as a noun. The only difference is that a \"gerund\" acts simultaneously as a verb and takes objects, so you don't need the preposition of: The best solution is modifying the graph ... You may also employ the marked infinitive to modify in the same way: The best solution is to modify the graph. FOR LAGNIAPPE: In all these instances your \"for example\" needs work. The following phrase should have its own verb\u2014the implied construction \"modify X into Y\" is not idiomatic. It should be set off with something stronger than a comma. I don't know enough about what you're discussing to be sure how the last pieces are related, but one or the other of these should be right: ... graph; for example, transforming {1,2,1,3,4,5,4,6,1} into {1,2,3,5,4,6,1} by utilizing the concave cover along the outer border. -This assumes that the transformation is accomplished by utilizing the cover. ... graph (for example, by transforming {1,2,1,3,4,5,4,6,1} into {1,2,3,5,4,6,1}) by utilizing the concave cover along the outer border. -This assumes that the graph is modified by utilizing the cover. If this is the case you would do better to set the parenthetical example after the \"utilizing\" clause.","output":"Either is acceptable. Modifying in this context is a \"gerund\", the -ing form of the verb acting as a noun. The only difference is that a \"gerund\" acts simultaneously as a verb and takes objects, so you don't need the preposition of: The best solution is modifying the graph ... You may also employ the marked infinitive to modify in the same way: The best solution is to modify the graph. FOR LAGNIAPPE: In all these instances your \"for example\" needs work. The following phrase should have its own verb\u2014the implied construction \"modify X into Y\" is not idiomatic. It should be set off with something stronger than a comma. I don't know enough about what you're discussing to be sure how the last pieces are related, but one or the other of these should be right: ... graph; for example, transforming {1,2,1,3,4,5,4,6,1} into {1,2,3,5,4,6,1} by utilizing the concave cover along the outer border. -This assumes that the transformation is accomplished by utilizing the cover. ... graph (for example, by transforming {1,2,1,3,4,5,4,6,1} into {1,2,3,5,4,6,1}) by utilizing the concave cover along the outer border. -This assumes that the graph is modified by utilizing the cover. If this is the case you would do better to set the parenthetical example after the \"utilizing\" clause."}
{"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\nA proverb that is common enough here and whose origin I'm not aware of, literally goes like: If you are a cock, crow aloud at daybreak; and if you are a hen, then lay your egg and shut up! I would use it, for example, on an arrogant person who promises to destroy me. It goes along the lines of \"if you are a real man, show us what you can do, or else shut up.\" How can I express this idea, preferably with an idiom or proverb, in English?","question":"A proverb that is common enough here and whose origin I'm not aware of, literally goes like: If you are a cock, crow aloud at daybreak; and if you are a hen, then lay your egg and shut up! I would use it, for example, on an arrogant person who promises to destroy me. It goes along the lines of \"if you are a real man, show us what you can do, or else shut up.\" How can I express this idea, preferably with an idiom or proverb, in English?","answer":"You could consider \"put up or shut up\": put up or shut up put up or shut up informal If you say someone should put up or shut up, you mean that they should either take action in order to do what they have been talking about, or stop talking about it: You keep saying you're going to ask her out. Well, put up or shut up. (Cambridge Dictionary) put up or shut up idiom Definition of put up or shut up informal \u2014used to tell someone in a somewhat rude way to start doing something or to stop talking about it \/\/ You've complained long enough. It's time to put up or shut up. (M-W) Put up or shut up! Inf. a command to prove something or stop talking about it; Do something or stop promising to do it! I'm tired of your telling everyone how fast you can run. Now, do it! Put up or shut up! Now's your chance to show us that you can run as fast as you can talk. Put up or shut up! (TFD) As the entries suggest, it's somewhat rude and can even sound aggressive. You might say this when you're sick of listening to someone talk or complain about something, and you want them to take action. In your case, it can be used as a challenge, like in the third entry. You keep saying that you'll destroy me. Well, now's your chance. Put up or shut up!","output":"You could consider \"put up or shut up\": put up or shut up put up or shut up informal If you say someone should put up or shut up, you mean that they should either take action in order to do what they have been talking about, or stop talking about it: You keep saying you're going to ask her out. Well, put up or shut up. (Cambridge Dictionary) put up or shut up idiom Definition of put up or shut up informal \u2014used to tell someone in a somewhat rude way to start doing something or to stop talking about it \/\/ You've complained long enough. It's time to put up or shut up. (M-W) Put up or shut up! Inf. a command to prove something or stop talking about it; Do something or stop promising to do it! I'm tired of your telling everyone how fast you can run. Now, do it! Put up or shut up! Now's your chance to show us that you can run as fast as you can talk. Put up or shut up! (TFD) As the entries suggest, it's somewhat rude and can even sound aggressive. You might say this when you're sick of listening to someone talk or complain about something, and you want them to take action. In your case, it can be used as a challenge, like in the third entry. You keep saying that you'll destroy me. Well, now's your chance. Put up or shut up!"}
{"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":"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 would use respectively in either one of the following ways: \"Figures 1 to 3 are respectively front, top and bottom views of the object\", \"Figures 1 to 3 are front, top and bottom views of the object respectively\" (with a strong preference for the former). But I am presented it as: \"Figures 1 to 3 respectively are front, top and bottom views of the object\". Is the later form a more formal (such as when used in official documents, patents, literature) use of respectively or is it incorrect?","question":"I would use respectively in either one of the following ways: \"Figures 1 to 3 are respectively front, top and bottom views of the object\", \"Figures 1 to 3 are front, top and bottom views of the object respectively\" (with a strong preference for the former). But I am presented it as: \"Figures 1 to 3 respectively are front, top and bottom views of the object\". Is the later form a more formal (such as when used in official documents, patents, literature) use of respectively or is it incorrect?","answer":"Using respectively at the end of the sentence is the normal structure: \"Figures 1 to 3 are front, top and bottom views of the object, respectively.\" However, respectively can be placed parenthetically in the middle of the sentence as in the other two forms. All are acceptable. Note, however, that a parenthetical needs to be separated by commas on both sides: \"Figures 1 to 3 are, respectively, front, top and bottom views of the object.\" \"Figures 1 to 3, respectively, are front, top and bottom views of the object.\"","output":"Using respectively at the end of the sentence is the normal structure: \"Figures 1 to 3 are front, top and bottom views of the object, respectively.\" However, respectively can be placed parenthetically in the middle of the sentence as in the other two forms. All are acceptable. Note, however, that a parenthetical needs to be separated by commas on both sides: \"Figures 1 to 3 are, respectively, front, top and bottom views of the object.\" \"Figures 1 to 3, respectively, are front, top and bottom views of the object.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm aware they are synonyms, but all the same I'm interested in knowing if one word is usually used more in one particular context, for example, or reserved for such a context. Or whether either one of the verbs connotes a stronger action than the other. Any information\/comments would be appreciated. Thanks.","question":"I'm aware they are synonyms, but all the same I'm interested in knowing if one word is usually used more in one particular context, for example, or reserved for such a context. Or whether either one of the verbs connotes a stronger action than the other. Any information\/comments would be appreciated. Thanks.","answer":"illtreat means treating badly, but mistreat means treating wrongly.","output":"illtreat means treating badly, but mistreat means treating wrongly."}
{"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 lampau:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nDoes the placement of an adverb affect its meaning or application? Does each paired sentence here mean the same as the other? 1.1 Mobile technology progress has largely been consumer-driven rather than enterprise-driven. 1.2 Mobile technology progress has been largely consumer-driven rather than enterprise-driven. 2.1 Mobile technology progress has largely been shaped by consumers. 2.2 Mobile technology progress has been largely shaped by consumers.","question":"Does the placement of an adverb affect its meaning or application? Does each paired sentence here mean the same as the other? 1.1 Mobile technology progress has largely been consumer-driven rather than enterprise-driven. 1.2 Mobile technology progress has been largely consumer-driven rather than enterprise-driven. 2.1 Mobile technology progress has largely been shaped by consumers. 2.2 Mobile technology progress has been largely shaped by consumers.","answer":"Both variations you give are grammatical, but their meanings are slightly different. In both cases, you have a complex verbal form, a perfect passive, which consists of three verbal forms: A finite auxiliary have (here in the third singular present, has), marking the perfect; A past participle of the auxiliary be, marking the passive in conjunction with \u2013 A past participle of the main verb (driven and shaped, respectively). (A similar structure has a plain adjective in 3., in which case the sense is not passive, but simply describes with an adjective a state or situation that has been ongoing up until now.) The adverb largely (meaning \u2018most of the time\u2019 or \u2018in most cases\u2019 here) modifies different things depending on where it is put. If placed between 1. and 2., it modifies the perfective, temporal aspect of the verb (basically, it modifies 1. and 2. taken together); if placed between 2. and 3., it modifies 3. only. In plainer terms: Mobile technology progress has largely been consumer-driven rather than enterprise-driven. Mobile technology progress has largely been shaped by consumers. These sentences mean that mobile technology progress has been driven by consumers most of the time, but sometimes by enterprises, and that it has been shaped by consumers most of the time, but not all the time. It is the aspect of has been that is being modified: sometimes this, sometimes that. Mobile technology progress has been largely consumer-driven rather than enterprise-driven. Mobile technology progress has been largely shaped by consumers. These sentence state that the progress-driving and progress-shaping have been single entities (not sometimes-this-sometimes-that), and within those entities, consumers have made up a larger portion than enterprises. It is difficult to verbalise this latter distinction, so I will instead provide a clearer example: Imagine a substitute teacher who has taught someone else\u2019s class for a month. After that month is up, the regular teacher asks the substitute teacher how the children in the class have behaved during that time. The children have largely been well-behaved. \u2013 would indicate that most of the time, all the children were well-behaved; though of course some of the time, they weren\u2019t. The children have been largely well-behaved. \u2013 would indicate that the majority of the children\u2019s behaviour was in the category of \u2018well-behaved\u2019. This might mean that most of the children were well-behaved all the time, while a few of them were naughty nearly all the time; but if you take the entire amount of behaviour together as one, \u2018well-behaved\u2019 is the majority of it. Note also that in many, many cases, this slight nuance is almost impossible to describe, since either version ends up meaning the same practical thing. And even when there is an actual difference, it is so small that it is rarely significant or really matters.","output":"Both variations you give are grammatical, but their meanings are slightly different. In both cases, you have a complex verbal form, a perfect passive, which consists of three verbal forms: A finite auxiliary have (here in the third singular present, has), marking the perfect; A past participle of the auxiliary be, marking the passive in conjunction with \u2013 A past participle of the main verb (driven and shaped, respectively). (A similar structure has a plain adjective in 3., in which case the sense is not passive, but simply describes with an adjective a state or situation that has been ongoing up until now.) The adverb largely (meaning \u2018most of the time\u2019 or \u2018in most cases\u2019 here) modifies different things depending on where it is put. If placed between 1. and 2., it modifies the perfective, temporal aspect of the verb (basically, it modifies 1. and 2. taken together); if placed between 2. and 3., it modifies 3. only. In plainer terms: Mobile technology progress has largely been consumer-driven rather than enterprise-driven. Mobile technology progress has largely been shaped by consumers. These sentences mean that mobile technology progress has been driven by consumers most of the time, but sometimes by enterprises, and that it has been shaped by consumers most of the time, but not all the time. It is the aspect of has been that is being modified: sometimes this, sometimes that. Mobile technology progress has been largely consumer-driven rather than enterprise-driven. Mobile technology progress has been largely shaped by consumers. These sentence state that the progress-driving and progress-shaping have been single entities (not sometimes-this-sometimes-that), and within those entities, consumers have made up a larger portion than enterprises. It is difficult to verbalise this latter distinction, so I will instead provide a clearer example: Imagine a substitute teacher who has taught someone else\u2019s class for a month. After that month is up, the regular teacher asks the substitute teacher how the children in the class have behaved during that time. The children have largely been well-behaved. \u2013 would indicate that most of the time, all the children were well-behaved; though of course some of the time, they weren\u2019t. The children have been largely well-behaved. \u2013 would indicate that the majority of the children\u2019s behaviour was in the category of \u2018well-behaved\u2019. This might mean that most of the children were well-behaved all the time, while a few of them were naughty nearly all the time; but if you take the entire amount of behaviour together as one, \u2018well-behaved\u2019 is the majority of it. Note also that in many, many cases, this slight nuance is almost impossible to describe, since either version ends up meaning the same practical thing. And even when there is an actual difference, it is so small that it is rarely significant or really matters."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nOne thing I always notice when I'm hearing Kiwis speaking English is the fact that almost every vowel turns into \/\u026a\/. Here's a video which illustrates the point (listen to them when they speak vowels). Example words that video whose vowels I hear changed: Has (sounds like 'his'), neck (nick), men (min), death (dith), centre (cintre), yanked (yinked), says (siz), said (sid), etc. How did this vowel change come about? It doesn't even seem to exist in Australian English, and it seems rather unhelpful as I find this pronunciation makes many words harder to understand.","question":"One thing I always notice when I'm hearing Kiwis speaking English is the fact that almost every vowel turns into \/\u026a\/. Here's a video which illustrates the point (listen to them when they speak vowels). Example words that video whose vowels I hear changed: Has (sounds like 'his'), neck (nick), men (min), death (dith), centre (cintre), yanked (yinked), says (siz), said (sid), etc. How did this vowel change come about? It doesn't even seem to exist in Australian English, and it seems rather unhelpful as I find this pronunciation makes many words harder to understand.","answer":"They're not all like [\u026a]. They're just different from other dialects. The \"vowel\" section of the Wikipedia article about New Zealand English discusses how New Zealand vowels are different from other dialects. Note, however, that \/\u026a\/ itself is pronunced [\u028c], that is, \"sin\" sounds almost like how I would say \"sun\". As for why, nobody quite knows where sound changes originate. In many languages, including various times in the history of English, when one vowel changes, many others change as well, to redistribute them throughout the vowel space. Such groups of changes are known as chain shifts, the most famous being the Great Vowel Shift. This is clearly what has happened with short vowels New Zealand English. The description in the Wikipedia article says \"The short-e \/\u025b\/ of YES has moved to fill in the space left by \/\u026a\/, and it is phonetically in the region of [\u026a]\", implying this is a pull-chain\u2014a shift of one vowel opens up room in the vowel space that other vowels move into. I don't know if there are any studies that show the history of the New Zealand vowel shift, so I can't be sure the implication from Wikipedia is correct, as it is uncited, but it is certainly a plausible explanation.","output":"They're not all like [\u026a]. They're just different from other dialects. The \"vowel\" section of the Wikipedia article about New Zealand English discusses how New Zealand vowels are different from other dialects. Note, however, that \/\u026a\/ itself is pronunced [\u028c], that is, \"sin\" sounds almost like how I would say \"sun\". As for why, nobody quite knows where sound changes originate. In many languages, including various times in the history of English, when one vowel changes, many others change as well, to redistribute them throughout the vowel space. Such groups of changes are known as chain shifts, the most famous being the Great Vowel Shift. This is clearly what has happened with short vowels New Zealand English. The description in the Wikipedia article says \"The short-e \/\u025b\/ of YES has moved to fill in the space left by \/\u026a\/, and it is phonetically in the region of [\u026a]\", implying this is a pull-chain\u2014a shift of one vowel opens up room in the vowel space that other vowels move into. I don't know if there are any studies that show the history of the New Zealand vowel shift, so I can't be sure the implication from Wikipedia is correct, as it is uncited, but it is certainly a plausible explanation."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"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\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"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\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhich one is correct? option 1: You have no idea, don't you? or, option 2: You have no idea, do you?","question":"Which one is correct? option 1: You have no idea, don't you? or, option 2: You have no idea, do you?","answer":"The general principle is that when the main clause is positive, the question tag is negative. You have no idea is made negative by the presence of no. It follows that the tag will be do you?","output":"The general principle is that when the main clause is positive, the question tag is negative. You have no idea is made negative by the presence of no. It follows that the tag will be do you?"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat does \"skin\" or \"skin in the game\" mean in the following sentence? \"make sure that everyone has skin in the game\".","question":"What does \"skin\" or \"skin in the game\" mean in the following sentence? \"make sure that everyone has skin in the game\".","answer":"The phrase skin in the game is an idiom referring to effort, money, or other risk invested in something that could be potentially painful if it goes wrong. It is synonymous with the expression stake in the game. According to this source, skin can be interpreted as \"a metaphor for being committed to something through emotional, financial, or bodily commitment\", or \"a synecdoche representing the whole being\".","output":"The phrase skin in the game is an idiom referring to effort, money, or other risk invested in something that could be potentially painful if it goes wrong. It is synonymous with the expression stake in the game. According to this source, skin can be interpreted as \"a metaphor for being committed to something through emotional, financial, or bodily commitment\", or \"a synecdoche representing the whole being\"."}
{"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\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"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\nMany language learners miss out the verb BE when they are speaking English. This happens even if they know how the verb BE agrees with the Subject. They very rarely do this with other verbs. Some examples: \"Yesterday I very happy because my sister came to London to see me.\" \"London very large city.\" \"It doesn't matter what I do, they never nice to me.\" There may be many other completely different and unrelated sentences where learners may omit the verb BE too. This question isn't meant to only be about these examples. Why do so many language learners do this?","question":"Many language learners miss out the verb BE when they are speaking English. This happens even if they know how the verb BE agrees with the Subject. They very rarely do this with other verbs. Some examples: \"Yesterday I very happy because my sister came to London to see me.\" \"London very large city.\" \"It doesn't matter what I do, they never nice to me.\" There may be many other completely different and unrelated sentences where learners may omit the verb BE too. This question isn't meant to only be about these examples. Why do so many language learners do this?","answer":"In many languages, the verb to be is not required: it may be optional, used only for emphatic affirmation, or even prohibited. The phenomenon is known as zero copula. English language learners may carry this habit into English, even when it's not grammatically allowed in most circumstances. One special case in English is the fixed expression \"Long time no see\", which has its origins in pidgin English, possibly as a calque from Chinese. You have to admit, it's a much more efficient expression than \"It has been a long time since we've seen each other\". For English learners, the desire to keep expressions short and simple may be a factor in dropping words that they find superfluous, such as the verb to be.","output":"In many languages, the verb to be is not required: it may be optional, used only for emphatic affirmation, or even prohibited. The phenomenon is known as zero copula. English language learners may carry this habit into English, even when it's not grammatically allowed in most circumstances. One special case in English is the fixed expression \"Long time no see\", which has its origins in pidgin English, possibly as a calque from Chinese. You have to admit, it's a much more efficient expression than \"It has been a long time since we've seen each other\". For English learners, the desire to keep expressions short and simple may be a factor in dropping words that they find superfluous, such as the verb to be."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn my national language Hindi, there's a term for it. Let me describe it. Corruption is a nuisance in India. However, corruption is of many types here. For example, if you give some money to a traffic policeman, he'll let you go even though you have broken a signal at crossroads. Now, that is bribing him. But, I'm not talking about it. In other case, mainly policemen, rogues or hoodlums take money from local vendors i.e. small shop owners, road-side vegetable sellers etc. If the latter ones don't give, they harass them one or the other way. Hoodlums may even 'beat' them. Policemen may falsely book them. That said, those people have to give money forcefully, unwillingly. They come to 'collect' their _______ regularly. Say weekly or monthly. I'm searching for a term for that money they take. Precisely a noun to describe the unethical act. Say, a road-side vegetable seller is telling to a reporter\/journalist... \"You don't know sir, we live terrible life. We earn INR 5000 a month, but then INR 2000 goes to policemen\/hoodlums as ______________.\"","question":"In my national language Hindi, there's a term for it. Let me describe it. Corruption is a nuisance in India. However, corruption is of many types here. For example, if you give some money to a traffic policeman, he'll let you go even though you have broken a signal at crossroads. Now, that is bribing him. But, I'm not talking about it. In other case, mainly policemen, rogues or hoodlums take money from local vendors i.e. small shop owners, road-side vegetable sellers etc. If the latter ones don't give, they harass them one or the other way. Hoodlums may even 'beat' them. Policemen may falsely book them. That said, those people have to give money forcefully, unwillingly. They come to 'collect' their _______ regularly. Say weekly or monthly. I'm searching for a term for that money they take. Precisely a noun to describe the unethical act. Say, a road-side vegetable seller is telling to a reporter\/journalist... \"You don't know sir, we live terrible life. We earn INR 5000 a month, but then INR 2000 goes to policemen\/hoodlums as ______________.\"","answer":"The word for this in English is extortion. The money involved may be called \"protection money\", but \"extortion money\" could also be used and is more factual, because the former is essentially facetious; traditionally, such a racket hinges on the idea that the money is for \"protecting\" someone, but at best this is from some other criminal gang and in the case of the police it is obviously not a legitimate provision of service. Providing a false service is racketeering, and this kind of \"it's for your own protection\" extortion is a form of racketeering (the linked wikipedia article also refers to \"protection rackets\"). Prosecution of such offenses in the West is usually on racketeering charges. However, I notice in your question that these people are not necessarily offering anything (real or not) in exchange, in which case it is really just robbery, although much the same could be said about our concept of racketeering and extortion. The difference hinges on the nature of the threat used; in robbery it is explicit (\"I will shoot you...\"), in extortion it is more implicit (\"You don't want to end up with certain problems, do you?\"). It sounds in many cases what you are talking about is just explicit serial robbery. I make this last point since I think the Western distinction between \"extortion\" and \"robbery\" is a fine grained cultural one and could be confusing to the unfamiliar. None-the-less, it is a real distinction in English.","output":"The word for this in English is extortion. The money involved may be called \"protection money\", but \"extortion money\" could also be used and is more factual, because the former is essentially facetious; traditionally, such a racket hinges on the idea that the money is for \"protecting\" someone, but at best this is from some other criminal gang and in the case of the police it is obviously not a legitimate provision of service. Providing a false service is racketeering, and this kind of \"it's for your own protection\" extortion is a form of racketeering (the linked wikipedia article also refers to \"protection rackets\"). Prosecution of such offenses in the West is usually on racketeering charges. However, I notice in your question that these people are not necessarily offering anything (real or not) in exchange, in which case it is really just robbery, although much the same could be said about our concept of racketeering and extortion. The difference hinges on the nature of the threat used; in robbery it is explicit (\"I will shoot you...\"), in extortion it is more implicit (\"You don't want to end up with certain problems, do you?\"). It sounds in many cases what you are talking about is just explicit serial robbery. I make this last point since I think the Western distinction between \"extortion\" and \"robbery\" is a fine grained cultural one and could be confusing to the unfamiliar. None-the-less, it is a real distinction in English."}
{"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\nSuppose a grid of items, as you would have in a game. In this grid there are four types of lines of items: Horizontal Lines Vertical Lines Diagonal Lines oriented under 45 degrees Diagonal Lines oriented under minus 45 degrees Note that such a line has no particular direction, they can be seen going either way. The problem is that when writing material that has to be precise (such as code), the terms as above for types 3 and 4 become rather long (when succinct terminology is actually preferred). Is there a \"specialized\" term that means \"Diagonal\" but also indicates orientation? I've racked my brain to get an answer myself. There's not really a way to incorporate \"Clockwise\" and \"CounterClockwise\" to fix things. The terms from cardinal directions are too specialized as they also indicate a direction (e.g. \"North-East Lines\" suggests there's also \"South-West Lines\" but those are actually the same thing).","question":"Suppose a grid of items, as you would have in a game. In this grid there are four types of lines of items: Horizontal Lines Vertical Lines Diagonal Lines oriented under 45 degrees Diagonal Lines oriented under minus 45 degrees Note that such a line has no particular direction, they can be seen going either way. The problem is that when writing material that has to be precise (such as code), the terms as above for types 3 and 4 become rather long (when succinct terminology is actually preferred). Is there a \"specialized\" term that means \"Diagonal\" but also indicates orientation? I've racked my brain to get an answer myself. There's not really a way to incorporate \"Clockwise\" and \"CounterClockwise\" to fix things. The terms from cardinal directions are too specialized as they also indicate a direction (e.g. \"North-East Lines\" suggests there's also \"South-West Lines\" but those are actually the same thing).","answer":"Ascending and descending, are words for lines with positive and negative slope respectively. You can use them in the same context as the adjectives horizontal and vertical.","output":"Ascending and descending, are words for lines with positive and negative slope respectively. You can use them in the same context as the adjectives horizontal and vertical."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm not sure if I used the word \"provided\" in a right way in the following example: In general, this algorithm solves Fibonacci problem with higher scores rather than the original algorithm, provided\/providing reasonable values are selected for stack size and array length. In this text I want to say that if user choose reasonable variables then it is rightly expected that the mentioned algorithm works better than the original. Finally, please can you tell me that are \"provided\" and \"providing\" the same? which is better to use for scientific papers?","question":"I'm not sure if I used the word \"provided\" in a right way in the following example: In general, this algorithm solves Fibonacci problem with higher scores rather than the original algorithm, provided\/providing reasonable values are selected for stack size and array length. In this text I want to say that if user choose reasonable variables then it is rightly expected that the mentioned algorithm works better than the original. Finally, please can you tell me that are \"provided\" and \"providing\" the same? which is better to use for scientific papers?","answer":"In conversational use, you will encounter both expressions and, as brick notes, provided that which is slightly more formal. In a scientific paper, I would avoid all of these forms. The link subject to the requirement that makes the status of the caveat crystal clear. If you wanted a less verbose expression, you might try so long as or even if or when.","output":"In conversational use, you will encounter both expressions and, as brick notes, provided that which is slightly more formal. In a scientific paper, I would avoid all of these forms. The link subject to the requirement that makes the status of the caveat crystal clear. If you wanted a less verbose expression, you might try so long as or even if or when."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've recently encountered these two variations of the spellings for the informal word for \"expensive.\" My dictionary and the online dictionary seem to indicate that both of these spellings are correct, but I have yet to discover why there are two variations of this word. Are both of these spellings correct? Is this simply another difference between British and American English?","question":"I've recently encountered these two variations of the spellings for the informal word for \"expensive.\" My dictionary and the online dictionary seem to indicate that both of these spellings are correct, but I have yet to discover why there are two variations of this word. Are both of these spellings correct? Is this simply another difference between British and American English?","answer":"First of all, dictionaries list both spellings, and pricy is generally listed as a variant spelling of pricey, not the other way round, at least in the dictionaries I have checked (Merriam-Webster, Wiktionary, New Oxford American Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionaries Online). Secondly, the usage stats from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the British National Corpus (BNC) look as follows: COCA BNC pricey 1421 73 pricy 36 4 As you can see, this is not an American vs. British English thing. Pricey is clearly more popular on both sides of the pond. Furthermore, the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) paints the following picture: (X axis: year, Y axis: absolute number of hits.) So, this suggests three things, at least for American English: Both words are surprisingly recent coinages. COHA does return three more hits from 1837, 1928, and 1966, but they all look like typos or OCR failures to me. Etymonline confirms: \"1932, from price + -y\". Pricey has always been more popular than pricy. Pricey is getting even more popular, while pricy fades in comparison. So the bottom line is: both spellings are correct, but if you want to be on the safe side, pricey is the way to go.","output":"First of all, dictionaries list both spellings, and pricy is generally listed as a variant spelling of pricey, not the other way round, at least in the dictionaries I have checked (Merriam-Webster, Wiktionary, New Oxford American Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionaries Online). Secondly, the usage stats from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the British National Corpus (BNC) look as follows: COCA BNC pricey 1421 73 pricy 36 4 As you can see, this is not an American vs. British English thing. Pricey is clearly more popular on both sides of the pond. Furthermore, the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) paints the following picture: (X axis: year, Y axis: absolute number of hits.) So, this suggests three things, at least for American English: Both words are surprisingly recent coinages. COHA does return three more hits from 1837, 1928, and 1966, but they all look like typos or OCR failures to me. Etymonline confirms: \"1932, from price + -y\". Pricey has always been more popular than pricy. Pricey is getting even more popular, while pricy fades in comparison. So the bottom line is: both spellings are correct, but if you want to be on the safe side, pricey is the way to go."}
{"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 have a general question about third person singular verbs in indirect questions (questions in the sentence without '?'). Should I use 's' or 'es' or not. For example We explain how he finds the book and then we try the scenario. I will tell you when he arrives and then we will go to the station. He will tell us where he goes and then we can follow him","question":"I have a general question about third person singular verbs in indirect questions (questions in the sentence without '?'). Should I use 's' or 'es' or not. For example We explain how he finds the book and then we try the scenario. I will tell you when he arrives and then we will go to the station. He will tell us where he goes and then we can follow him","answer":"As Damkerng says, the short answer is that you have to. The reason that you have to is that verbs in interrogatory sentences are inflected in the same manner as they are in declarative sentences. Here's a simple declarative sentence for comparison: He likes strawberries. So, here's an indirect question. I will ask him whether he likes strawberries. Now, here's a direct question: Shall I ask him whether he likes strawberries? As you can see, in neither case is the verb inflection changed from the simple declarative statement. Now, here's where you probably get confused: Does he like strawberries? The change in inflection (removal of the s) doesn't have to do with whether or not this is a question. It has to do with the fact that you are using a blank infinitive with \"do\" as an auxiliary. Compare these: He must like strawberries. He should like strawberries. He might like strawberreis. This will clarify the blank infinitive a bit: Does he have to like strawberries? Note that in this case the infinitive isn't blank, which should help to clarify the usage. Now, look at the old-fashioned way of asking questions: Likes he strawberries? This construction remains in the language with the auxiliaries (\"does he\" being a good example, and note that we do not say \"do he like strawberries\"), and with to be and to have: Is he a strawberry lover? Has he any strawberries? We can also ask \"Does he have any strawberries?\"; the former is more common in British English.","output":"As Damkerng says, the short answer is that you have to. The reason that you have to is that verbs in interrogatory sentences are inflected in the same manner as they are in declarative sentences. Here's a simple declarative sentence for comparison: He likes strawberries. So, here's an indirect question. I will ask him whether he likes strawberries. Now, here's a direct question: Shall I ask him whether he likes strawberries? As you can see, in neither case is the verb inflection changed from the simple declarative statement. Now, here's where you probably get confused: Does he like strawberries? The change in inflection (removal of the s) doesn't have to do with whether or not this is a question. It has to do with the fact that you are using a blank infinitive with \"do\" as an auxiliary. Compare these: He must like strawberries. He should like strawberries. He might like strawberreis. This will clarify the blank infinitive a bit: Does he have to like strawberries? Note that in this case the infinitive isn't blank, which should help to clarify the usage. Now, look at the old-fashioned way of asking questions: Likes he strawberries? This construction remains in the language with the auxiliaries (\"does he\" being a good example, and note that we do not say \"do he like strawberries\"), and with to be and to have: Is he a strawberry lover? Has he any strawberries? We can also ask \"Does he have any strawberries?\"; the former is more common in British English."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am the third daughter (or son) of my parents. OR I am the third child of my parents How should a question that is answered with the above sentences be framed?","question":"I am the third daughter (or son) of my parents. OR I am the third child of my parents How should a question that is answered with the above sentences be framed?","answer":"English doesn't have a standard way of framing a question whose answer is an ordinal number. (Although, which and what can be used but they don't cover all the cases. Some familiar examples are: What grade are you in?, On which floor is your apartment?. You can try framing the question in several ways but it doesn't guarantee that the answer will include an ordinal number. The context might shape the question also. Some possible questions for the OP are: \"What child are you in your family?\", \"What number child are you in your family?\", \"Where do you come in your family?\", \"What is your birth order in your family?\". However, you can always get answers like youngest, oldest, middle and such. \"What number\" type of question in this context is not that usual and the answer can be a cardinal number also. For example, I am number two. When you start including phrases like where do you fall, birth order, age order etc.; the question gets unnecessarily long and formal, and it wouldn't sound natural in a conversation. If you really want to get an ordinal number as an answer and sound natural also, I would suggest using the ordinal numbers in the question. For example: What child are you (in your family)? First, second, third? Most probably the answer will include the ordinal number, except the answer can be I am the only child. Or, you might know the number of siblings (let's say three) and you can ask: Are you the first, second or third child? On the other hand, there are non-standard interrogative words that you can use in English but they don't sound natural. They are whatth (whath), whichth and how manieth. They include the usual interrogative words plus the suffix -th that forms ordinal numbers. Whatth (whath) is the only one that is mentioned in a dictionary and it might be somewhat more acceptable than the others. Wiktionary includes a definition and example usages: (nonstandard) Which ordinal number. Thanksgiving is on the whatth of November this year? In many languages, this kind of interrogative word is standard unlike English. Here is a list from omegawiki.org: Here is an explanation about ordinatives from a credible source (Explorations in Functional Syntax: A New Framework for Lexicogrammatical Analysis by George David Morley): Ordinatives: Exact ordinatives are known as 'ordinals', e.g. The first\/second\/fourth\/fifty eighth shall be last. They mark the precise numerical position of the entity under consideration in the order\/sequence and are more fully known as ordinal numerals. However, they do not always require to take an article. As ordinatives, they answer the question 'Which?' in respect of numerical position, equivalent almost to asking 'the how-many-eth?' or 'the whichth?'. Ordinatives may also be inexact, including words which mark the relative or non-numerical position of an entity in a series., e.g. The next\/following\/last is the best scene. Some uses require an article, some don't. They answer the question 'Which?' in respect of relative sequential position but only in the sense of 'the whichth?'.","output":"English doesn't have a standard way of framing a question whose answer is an ordinal number. (Although, which and what can be used but they don't cover all the cases. Some familiar examples are: What grade are you in?, On which floor is your apartment?. You can try framing the question in several ways but it doesn't guarantee that the answer will include an ordinal number. The context might shape the question also. Some possible questions for the OP are: \"What child are you in your family?\", \"What number child are you in your family?\", \"Where do you come in your family?\", \"What is your birth order in your family?\". However, you can always get answers like youngest, oldest, middle and such. \"What number\" type of question in this context is not that usual and the answer can be a cardinal number also. For example, I am number two. When you start including phrases like where do you fall, birth order, age order etc.; the question gets unnecessarily long and formal, and it wouldn't sound natural in a conversation. If you really want to get an ordinal number as an answer and sound natural also, I would suggest using the ordinal numbers in the question. For example: What child are you (in your family)? First, second, third? Most probably the answer will include the ordinal number, except the answer can be I am the only child. Or, you might know the number of siblings (let's say three) and you can ask: Are you the first, second or third child? On the other hand, there are non-standard interrogative words that you can use in English but they don't sound natural. They are whatth (whath), whichth and how manieth. They include the usual interrogative words plus the suffix -th that forms ordinal numbers. Whatth (whath) is the only one that is mentioned in a dictionary and it might be somewhat more acceptable than the others. Wiktionary includes a definition and example usages: (nonstandard) Which ordinal number. Thanksgiving is on the whatth of November this year? In many languages, this kind of interrogative word is standard unlike English. Here is a list from omegawiki.org: Here is an explanation about ordinatives from a credible source (Explorations in Functional Syntax: A New Framework for Lexicogrammatical Analysis by George David Morley): Ordinatives: Exact ordinatives are known as 'ordinals', e.g. The first\/second\/fourth\/fifty eighth shall be last. They mark the precise numerical position of the entity under consideration in the order\/sequence and are more fully known as ordinal numerals. However, they do not always require to take an article. As ordinatives, they answer the question 'Which?' in respect of numerical position, equivalent almost to asking 'the how-many-eth?' or 'the whichth?'. Ordinatives may also be inexact, including words which mark the relative or non-numerical position of an entity in a series., e.g. The next\/following\/last is the best scene. Some uses require an article, some don't. They answer the question 'Which?' in respect of relative sequential position but only in the sense of 'the whichth?'."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe word \"military profile\" is sometimes in the news. For example, (1) India Monday said it was 'conscious and watchful' of China's growing military profile and... (2) NATO to raise military profile around Kosovo.(Headline) According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, \"profile\" means: 1. a side view of someone's head 2. a short description that gives important details about a person, a group of people, or a place 3. something that is high profile is noticed by many people or gets a lot of attention 4. to behave quietly and avoid doing things that will make people notice you 5. if a person or an organization raises its profile, it gets more attention from the public 6. an edge or shape of something seen against a background In this case, \"profile\" probably refers to the definition of 5. But I am not sure what (1) and (2) mean. Does \"military profile\" mean \"military might\", military role\", or \"military WHAT\"? What would you paraphrase this word as?","question":"The word \"military profile\" is sometimes in the news. For example, (1) India Monday said it was 'conscious and watchful' of China's growing military profile and... (2) NATO to raise military profile around Kosovo.(Headline) According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, \"profile\" means: 1. a side view of someone's head 2. a short description that gives important details about a person, a group of people, or a place 3. something that is high profile is noticed by many people or gets a lot of attention 4. to behave quietly and avoid doing things that will make people notice you 5. if a person or an organization raises its profile, it gets more attention from the public 6. an edge or shape of something seen against a background In this case, \"profile\" probably refers to the definition of 5. But I am not sure what (1) and (2) mean. Does \"military profile\" mean \"military might\", military role\", or \"military WHAT\"? What would you paraphrase this word as?","answer":"In this case, the meaning of \"profile\" is not adequately described by any of the dictionary terms. The word profile in the first case refers to \"military might\" and stands for \"military presence\" in the second example. In a metaphorical sense, the outline (edge\/shape) of the military becomes more visible against the background as it grows (corresponding to the definition no. 6 in the Longman DCE).","output":"In this case, the meaning of \"profile\" is not adequately described by any of the dictionary terms. The word profile in the first case refers to \"military might\" and stands for \"military presence\" in the second example. In a metaphorical sense, the outline (edge\/shape) of the military becomes more visible against the background as it grows (corresponding to the definition no. 6 in the Longman DCE)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\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\n\"Burning house\" is an active adjective. But i cant figure out how is that -ing form in burning house make the word as an active adj. How can we differ burning house and burnt house..","question":"\"Burning house\" is an active adjective. But i cant figure out how is that -ing form in burning house make the word as an active adj. How can we differ burning house and burnt house..","answer":"We can speak about participles here. There are different forms but we meet only two of them in your question. They are \"burning \" which is Present Participle and \"burnt \" which is called Past Participle. Present Participles express actions in progress. \"Burning \" actually means \"on fire\". Past Participles have passive meaning and that of a finished action. \"Burnt \" means that the process was completed and the house doesn't exist any more.","output":"We can speak about participles here. There are different forms but we meet only two of them in your question. They are \"burning \" which is Present Participle and \"burnt \" which is called Past Participle. Present Participles express actions in progress. \"Burning \" actually means \"on fire\". Past Participles have passive meaning and that of a finished action. \"Burnt \" means that the process was completed and the house doesn't exist any more."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the origin in a strong Scouse accent of the phoneme \/k\/ in all positions of a word except the beginning being realised as \/x\/ or sometimes \/kx\/? Has this charateristic been taken from a different language?","question":"What is the origin in a strong Scouse accent of the phoneme \/k\/ in all positions of a word except the beginning being realised as \/x\/ or sometimes \/kx\/? Has this charateristic been taken from a different language?","answer":"This is a common phonological process known as lenition. For this to occur in a dialect of English, one does not require contact with or influence from another language. Allophonic variation between [k] and [x] is something that can easily spring up naturally. Both \/k\/ and \/x\/ are articulated in the same place in the mouth and both are voiceless; the only difference between the two sounds is that \/k\/ is a stop (or plosive), while \/x\/ is a fricative. So, the relationship between \/k\/ and \/x\/ is analogous to that of \/t\/ and \/s\/, or \/p\/ and \/f\/. When you articulate a stop, you bring your tongue to the roof of your mouth and make a full closure. When you articulate a fricative, you only make a partial closure, such that the small space causes frication. So the lenition path (stop to fricative) is simply an \"opening\" of the sound, i.e. an early relaxing of the tongue. In Standard English, (basically) anytime the \/k\/ sound is made, a full closure is maintained during the entire consonant. In Scouse, when you get [kx], an affricate, the speaker makes a full closure for only part of the time (the [k]) but allows the tongue to open more during the latter half of the consonant sound (the [x]). When the sound is only [x], the speaker never quite makes the full closure \u2014 so this is an even further progression of the lenition process. Lenition over time is one way that a consonant can gradually change into a completely different sound. So, for example, the biggest difference between Spanish estudiar and French \u00e9tudier is the lack of \/s\/ in French; this \"s\" used to be present, but was lost through diachronic lenition (\u2014 Argentinian Spanish is beginning to lose their \/s\/ through lenition as well \u2014 turning it into [h] for the time being).","output":"This is a common phonological process known as lenition. For this to occur in a dialect of English, one does not require contact with or influence from another language. Allophonic variation between [k] and [x] is something that can easily spring up naturally. Both \/k\/ and \/x\/ are articulated in the same place in the mouth and both are voiceless; the only difference between the two sounds is that \/k\/ is a stop (or plosive), while \/x\/ is a fricative. So, the relationship between \/k\/ and \/x\/ is analogous to that of \/t\/ and \/s\/, or \/p\/ and \/f\/. When you articulate a stop, you bring your tongue to the roof of your mouth and make a full closure. When you articulate a fricative, you only make a partial closure, such that the small space causes frication. So the lenition path (stop to fricative) is simply an \"opening\" of the sound, i.e. an early relaxing of the tongue. In Standard English, (basically) anytime the \/k\/ sound is made, a full closure is maintained during the entire consonant. In Scouse, when you get [kx], an affricate, the speaker makes a full closure for only part of the time (the [k]) but allows the tongue to open more during the latter half of the consonant sound (the [x]). When the sound is only [x], the speaker never quite makes the full closure \u2014 so this is an even further progression of the lenition process. Lenition over time is one way that a consonant can gradually change into a completely different sound. So, for example, the biggest difference between Spanish estudiar and French \u00e9tudier is the lack of \/s\/ in French; this \"s\" used to be present, but was lost through diachronic lenition (\u2014 Argentinian Spanish is beginning to lose their \/s\/ through lenition as well \u2014 turning it into [h] for the time being)."}
{"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 negatif:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"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\nI wonder what do you normally say when you as a smoker would like to indicate that you do not smoke too much and you just do it sometimes and for fun? I'm not a heavy smoker. I...................... The only idiom that I know is \"joypop\" which reliable dictionaries rarely allude to. So I doubt if it is a common term, or at least it seems to be so colloquial that is used in street language as slang. But what is a common way to say that in English?","question":"I wonder what do you normally say when you as a smoker would like to indicate that you do not smoke too much and you just do it sometimes and for fun? I'm not a heavy smoker. I...................... The only idiom that I know is \"joypop\" which reliable dictionaries rarely allude to. So I doubt if it is a common term, or at least it seems to be so colloquial that is used in street language as slang. But what is a common way to say that in English?","answer":"This study refers to them as casual smokers or social smokers: We investigated how adolescents define different smoker types (nonsmoker, smoker, regular smoker, addicted smoker, heavy smoker, experimental smoker, casual smoker, and social smoker) using multiple indicators of smoking behaviors, including frequency, amount, place, and length of time cigarette smoking, and whether differences exist by smoking experience. The percentages below indicate what the subjects thinks is a proper definition for casual and social smokers: Casual smoker A casual smoker was characterized as an individual who smokes every few months (22.5%), a couple times a month (28.6%), or a couple times a week (27.8%). The amount of smoking for a casual smoker generally ranged from a few cigarettes per month to a few cigarettes per week (66.4%) and tends to smoke at parties (33.5%) or anywhere (36.2%). Over half of the sample (64.8%) characterized casual smokers as having smoked for a few months or for about a year. Social smoker Adolescents characterized a social smoker as an individual who smokes a couple times a month or week (62.5%), smokes a few cigarettes per month or week (57.1%), and tends to smoke at parties only (73.3%). Although the length of smoking for a social smoker was widely distributed, the majority of the sample (63.1%) characterized a social smoker as having smoked for a few months or for about a year.","output":"This study refers to them as casual smokers or social smokers: We investigated how adolescents define different smoker types (nonsmoker, smoker, regular smoker, addicted smoker, heavy smoker, experimental smoker, casual smoker, and social smoker) using multiple indicators of smoking behaviors, including frequency, amount, place, and length of time cigarette smoking, and whether differences exist by smoking experience. The percentages below indicate what the subjects thinks is a proper definition for casual and social smokers: Casual smoker A casual smoker was characterized as an individual who smokes every few months (22.5%), a couple times a month (28.6%), or a couple times a week (27.8%). The amount of smoking for a casual smoker generally ranged from a few cigarettes per month to a few cigarettes per week (66.4%) and tends to smoke at parties (33.5%) or anywhere (36.2%). Over half of the sample (64.8%) characterized casual smokers as having smoked for a few months or for about a year. Social smoker Adolescents characterized a social smoker as an individual who smokes a couple times a month or week (62.5%), smokes a few cigarettes per month or week (57.1%), and tends to smoke at parties only (73.3%). Although the length of smoking for a social smoker was widely distributed, the majority of the sample (63.1%) characterized a social smoker as having smoked for a few months or for about a year."}
{"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":"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\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":"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 revising procedural documentation and checklists for my work. One of the checklist questions are written as \"Is the equipment in the work center calibrated, and operating within specified parameters?\" I feel like it should be written as \"Are the equipment in the work center calibrated and operating within specified parameters?\" But in this case, the term \"equipment\" can refer to one piece of equipment or multiple pieces of equipment. The latter is most often the case in this context. I know it seems kinda silly, but it's still driving me crazy.","question":"I'm revising procedural documentation and checklists for my work. One of the checklist questions are written as \"Is the equipment in the work center calibrated, and operating within specified parameters?\" I feel like it should be written as \"Are the equipment in the work center calibrated and operating within specified parameters?\" But in this case, the term \"equipment\" can refer to one piece of equipment or multiple pieces of equipment. The latter is most often the case in this context. I know it seems kinda silly, but it's still driving me crazy.","answer":"Generally a noncount noun is treated as singular for the purposes of subject-verb agreement even when it may refer to multiple items. From Everyday Grammar: Grammatically, a noncount noun is always singular, even if it refers to multiple items like furniture, luggage, or equipment. Semantically, readers will understand that the equipment refers to, say, the table saw and the drill, or any equipment in the room. Similarly, if I ask, \"Is the clothing in the laundry?\" I am looking for anything that is categorically clothing, whether that's a single item or all the clothes I've worn this week. (Compare with a count noun, where the number of items matters: \"Is the shirt in the laundry?\" \"Are the shirts in the laundry?\") So you should keep the verb in the checklist question in the singular.","output":"Generally a noncount noun is treated as singular for the purposes of subject-verb agreement even when it may refer to multiple items. From Everyday Grammar: Grammatically, a noncount noun is always singular, even if it refers to multiple items like furniture, luggage, or equipment. Semantically, readers will understand that the equipment refers to, say, the table saw and the drill, or any equipment in the room. Similarly, if I ask, \"Is the clothing in the laundry?\" I am looking for anything that is categorically clothing, whether that's a single item or all the clothes I've worn this week. (Compare with a count noun, where the number of items matters: \"Is the shirt in the laundry?\" \"Are the shirts in the laundry?\") So you should keep the verb in the checklist question in the singular."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs the word 'branch' correctly used in the following sentence? Or is the correct word some other word like 'field'? He is a 19-year-old national sportsman. His branch is archery.","question":"Is the word 'branch' correctly used in the following sentence? Or is the correct word some other word like 'field'? He is a 19-year-old national sportsman. His branch is archery.","answer":"No, branch wouldn't be used there. I also wouldn't use field, but based on comments some readers would find it acceptable. The most common expression would be \"his sport\". If speaking in the context of a multi-sport competition like the Olympics or World Track and Field Championships you could use \"his event\". This would be more specific than sport. For example two athletes could both compete in the sport of swimming, but one's event could be the 100 meter freestyle and the other's could be the 50 meter butterfly. You could also use the more general term, \"his specialty\". There are also specific nouns that designate competitors in certain sports, such as archer, boxer, cyclist, decathlete, equestrian, fencer, etc., so in your example you could say \"he is an archer\".","output":"No, branch wouldn't be used there. I also wouldn't use field, but based on comments some readers would find it acceptable. The most common expression would be \"his sport\". If speaking in the context of a multi-sport competition like the Olympics or World Track and Field Championships you could use \"his event\". This would be more specific than sport. For example two athletes could both compete in the sport of swimming, but one's event could be the 100 meter freestyle and the other's could be the 50 meter butterfly. You could also use the more general term, \"his specialty\". There are also specific nouns that designate competitors in certain sports, such as archer, boxer, cyclist, decathlete, equestrian, fencer, etc., so in your example you could say \"he is an archer\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAs i checked several email from my daughter school mail communication and i found a strange salute for my child. Your ward has successfully moved one more step ahead. You ward is now in Grade 2 section C Why our children called as ward in the school ? Please explain.","question":"As i checked several email from my daughter school mail communication and i found a strange salute for my child. Your ward has successfully moved one more step ahead. You ward is now in Grade 2 section C Why our children called as ward in the school ? Please explain.","answer":"Ward is a slightly old-fashioned term for something\/someone that is under the stewardship of someone else. As you are the guardian of your child, they are the ward of their parent. Ward: a person or thing under guard, protection, or surveillance as a minor subject to wardship, a person who by reason of incapacity (as minority or mental illness) is under the protection of a court either directly or through a guardian appointed by the court \u2014called also ward of court, a person or body of persons under the protection or tutelage of a government Wardship: care and protection of a ward, the right to the custody of an infant heir of a feudal tenant and of the heir's property. the state of being under a guardian","output":"Ward is a slightly old-fashioned term for something\/someone that is under the stewardship of someone else. As you are the guardian of your child, they are the ward of their parent. Ward: a person or thing under guard, protection, or surveillance as a minor subject to wardship, a person who by reason of incapacity (as minority or mental illness) is under the protection of a court either directly or through a guardian appointed by the court \u2014called also ward of court, a person or body of persons under the protection or tutelage of a government Wardship: care and protection of a ward, the right to the custody of an infant heir of a feudal tenant and of the heir's property. the state of being under a guardian"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe spelling for the adjective derived from the name Shaw is Shavian and not Shawian. Similarly you can find Arrow \u2192 Arrovian and Harrow \u2192 Harrovian. This strikes me as odd. First of all, I accept that the adjective for \/\u0283\u0254\u02d0\/ is pronounced \/\u0283\u0254\u02d0v\u026a\u0259n\/, so this is not about the word, just the spelling. Now, I see two possible rationales: Shavian is phonemically closer since v usually represents \/v\/ in English orthography and w represents \/w\/. Shawian is etymologically closer, without being too distant phonemically since \/v\/ and \/w\/ are pretty close. What strikes me about this is that English orthography usually champions etymology over phonemics, in particular when it comes to proper names. Thus, my question is: Has phonemics just won for once, or is there any other argument for spelling these adjectives with a v?","question":"The spelling for the adjective derived from the name Shaw is Shavian and not Shawian. Similarly you can find Arrow \u2192 Arrovian and Harrow \u2192 Harrovian. This strikes me as odd. First of all, I accept that the adjective for \/\u0283\u0254\u02d0\/ is pronounced \/\u0283\u0254\u02d0v\u026a\u0259n\/, so this is not about the word, just the spelling. Now, I see two possible rationales: Shavian is phonemically closer since v usually represents \/v\/ in English orthography and w represents \/w\/. Shawian is etymologically closer, without being too distant phonemically since \/v\/ and \/w\/ are pretty close. What strikes me about this is that English orthography usually champions etymology over phonemics, in particular when it comes to proper names. Thus, my question is: Has phonemics just won for once, or is there any other argument for spelling these adjectives with a v?","answer":"It is said that Shaw disliked the adjective \"Shawian\" (which does look and sound awkward) and proposed to invent a new one. He Latinized (sort of) his surname, from Shaw to Shavius (there is no \"w\" in Latin, while \"u\" is spelled as \"v\"). Shavius naturally lends itself to Shavian. At least that is the explanation given in the Dictionary of Eponyms by Martin Manser, which is available online in fragments (and also in its complete form for a fee).","output":"It is said that Shaw disliked the adjective \"Shawian\" (which does look and sound awkward) and proposed to invent a new one. He Latinized (sort of) his surname, from Shaw to Shavius (there is no \"w\" in Latin, while \"u\" is spelled as \"v\"). Shavius naturally lends itself to Shavian. At least that is the explanation given in the Dictionary of Eponyms by Martin Manser, which is available online in fragments (and also in its complete form for a fee)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is an adjective that means that something is shaped like a cube? If something is shaped like a sphere, it's spherical. What would it be called if the object was shaped like a cube? I'm using this word in a poem. The word is describing a cubicle. So cubic wouldn't work. Sorry for being so picky!","question":"What is an adjective that means that something is shaped like a cube? If something is shaped like a sphere, it's spherical. What would it be called if the object was shaped like a cube? I'm using this word in a poem. The word is describing a cubicle. So cubic wouldn't work. Sorry for being so picky!","answer":"Cuboid describes a square-shaped object with six rectangular sides. No idea if that works with your poem, though. If it was a cubicle that looks small from the outside but is larger within, it would be a tardis (think Dr. Who).","output":"Cuboid describes a square-shaped object with six rectangular sides. No idea if that works with your poem, though. If it was a cubicle that looks small from the outside but is larger within, it would be a tardis (think Dr. Who)."}
{"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 trying to describe being on top of things accounting-wise but can't quite find the words. Is there some kind of idiomatic antonym for \"cooking the books\"?","question":"I'm trying to describe being on top of things accounting-wise but can't quite find the words. Is there some kind of idiomatic antonym for \"cooking the books\"?","answer":"Maybe honest bookkeeping could be the opposite of cooking the books.","output":"Maybe honest bookkeeping could be the opposite of cooking the books."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am helping a charity and I need to invite my friends to join in. We're not asking for any money or valuables but just their time for some feedback on few questions. I am struggling at the opening line of the invitation message\u2014what I want to say is that \"I need your help in this great work \/ noble work\" but it just doesn't sound that impressive\/catchy. Jihad or movement both describe something too big to describe \"answering a few questions.\" Please note that it is for non-native English speakers.","question":"I am helping a charity and I need to invite my friends to join in. We're not asking for any money or valuables but just their time for some feedback on few questions. I am struggling at the opening line of the invitation message\u2014what I want to say is that \"I need your help in this great work \/ noble work\" but it just doesn't sound that impressive\/catchy. Jihad or movement both describe something too big to describe \"answering a few questions.\" Please note that it is for non-native English speakers.","answer":"I don't know a single English word that isn't hopelessly archaic. Hebrew\/Yiddish has mitzvah, if your fellow-primates are in the Jewish community. Otherwise I'd go with \"I need your contribution to this effort\". Contributing to an effort feels gratifyingly strenuous, out of all proportion to the actual energy expended.","output":"I don't know a single English word that isn't hopelessly archaic. Hebrew\/Yiddish has mitzvah, if your fellow-primates are in the Jewish community. Otherwise I'd go with \"I need your contribution to this effort\". Contributing to an effort feels gratifyingly strenuous, out of all proportion to the actual energy expended."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs the expression \"in danger\" an adverb or an adjective? Why?","question":"Is the expression \"in danger\" an adverb or an adjective? Why?","answer":"It is neither: it is a preposition phrase with (figurative) locative sense, usually followed by a preposition phrase with of defining the danger. ... in danger of contracting the virus ... in danger of being fired The of phrase may be omitted when it is recoverable from context. John has been exposed to the virus. He is in danger. You will probably find it deployed most often as a predicate complement to the verb be, with adjectival sense modifying the subject: John is in danger [of contracting the virus]. But it may also be deployed as an attributive adjectival. It will usually (and always when it is accompanied by the of phrase) be set after the noun or pronoun it modifies: People\/those in danger of contracting the virus are monitored closely. If the of phrase is omitted in danger may be set before the noun modified; in this case it is a courtesy to readers to hyphenate it. We monitor in-danger children particularly closely.","output":"It is neither: it is a preposition phrase with (figurative) locative sense, usually followed by a preposition phrase with of defining the danger. ... in danger of contracting the virus ... in danger of being fired The of phrase may be omitted when it is recoverable from context. John has been exposed to the virus. He is in danger. You will probably find it deployed most often as a predicate complement to the verb be, with adjectival sense modifying the subject: John is in danger [of contracting the virus]. But it may also be deployed as an attributive adjectival. It will usually (and always when it is accompanied by the of phrase) be set after the noun or pronoun it modifies: People\/those in danger of contracting the virus are monitored closely. If the of phrase is omitted in danger may be set before the noun modified; in this case it is a courtesy to readers to hyphenate it. We monitor in-danger children particularly closely."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI just came across the fact that Brits call the owners\\operators of their pubs landlords, (on the new show \"The Reluctant Landlord\"). Being from the USA I am only aware of the term landlord being used to refer to the person you pay your rent to if you are renting a house, apartment\/flat or shop etc., not a hotel or motel (and I love British humor\\television shows and movies). Anyway it got me thinking: why is that?","question":"I just came across the fact that Brits call the owners\\operators of their pubs landlords, (on the new show \"The Reluctant Landlord\"). Being from the USA I am only aware of the term landlord being used to refer to the person you pay your rent to if you are renting a house, apartment\/flat or shop etc., not a hotel or motel (and I love British humor\\television shows and movies). Anyway it got me thinking: why is that?","answer":"A \u2018public house\u2019 is a kind of bar in the UK that originated as a \u2018house\u2019 that was \u2018public\u2019. In other words, it was a house (looong ago!) where the owner had his friends round for drinks and food, and ended up turning it into a business. These were the original\u2019 taverns\u2019 - houses where you could stop for food and drink, often while travelling, and so they would be adjacent to the newly made straight Roman roads which first connected parts of the UK, way back when. It was literally \u2018someone\u2019s house\u2019 - where you could stop - and they gave you food - so you could continue your journey (without starving!) As well as meaning \u2018someone who runs a pub\u2019, a \u2018landlord\u2019 in England is also someone who owns the title to land, houses and property. It also refers to someone who rents out such property. You do not, any longer, need to be an actual \u2018lord\u2019 or titled person of any kind, to do this. In 1393 legislation was passed requiring signs to be displayed outside such \u2018public houses\u2019 so they could be recognised easily (and I\u2019m sure, taxed). This would be the beginning of legislation to control and tax \u2018pubs\u2019 and oversee the quality of ale, etc. The \u2018landlord\u2019 back then, would be the person owning the land on which the public house sits. Way back, this may indeed have been a \u2018lord\u2019 but these days, most usually a \u2018landlord\u2019 is any person who owns the title to property. It also refers to a person who owns property that one rents. That person\u2019s permission would have been needed, to run the \u2018pub\u2019 on their property. Or they themselves might have been running it. So they would legally be \u2018the landlord\u2019 of the pub, and the building it\u2019s running in. The boss, the person in control. \u2018Can we stay late? - you\u2019ll have to ask the landlord - he\u2019s over there\u2019. The name \u2018landlord\u2019 has stuck, as the name of the person owning and\/or running a pub. In that case he or she may nowadays just be a tennant of the property, or be an employee of a food and beverage company or chain, though some people do still own their own pubs independently. 2 meanings of Landlord: Landlord - owner of property and\/or one who rents out property Landlord - person who runs a \u2018pub\u2019 in the UK Question: Can a person be both \u2018landlord\u2019 of the pub property (ie they own the property) and \u2018landlord\u2019 of the pub? Answer - yes, but they don\u2019t have to be. History of the public house including it\u2019s origin as a tavern in Roman times: https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Pub In the link below you\u2019ll read how, hundreds of years ago, the \u2018lord\u2019 owned the \u2018land\u2019 and serfs or peasants who worked the land for him would be allowed to farm their own (very little, and not \u2018enough\u2019) food from a small strip of land. They also would build their own house on the land and pay him rent for \u2018the use of the land\u2019. This system underlies the foundation of our modern day governments, in case you didn\u2019t know. Origin of Landlord: https:\/\/spoa.com\/the-concept-of-landlord-a-short-history-from-medieval-times-to-the-present\/","output":"A \u2018public house\u2019 is a kind of bar in the UK that originated as a \u2018house\u2019 that was \u2018public\u2019. In other words, it was a house (looong ago!) where the owner had his friends round for drinks and food, and ended up turning it into a business. These were the original\u2019 taverns\u2019 - houses where you could stop for food and drink, often while travelling, and so they would be adjacent to the newly made straight Roman roads which first connected parts of the UK, way back when. It was literally \u2018someone\u2019s house\u2019 - where you could stop - and they gave you food - so you could continue your journey (without starving!) As well as meaning \u2018someone who runs a pub\u2019, a \u2018landlord\u2019 in England is also someone who owns the title to land, houses and property. It also refers to someone who rents out such property. You do not, any longer, need to be an actual \u2018lord\u2019 or titled person of any kind, to do this. In 1393 legislation was passed requiring signs to be displayed outside such \u2018public houses\u2019 so they could be recognised easily (and I\u2019m sure, taxed). This would be the beginning of legislation to control and tax \u2018pubs\u2019 and oversee the quality of ale, etc. The \u2018landlord\u2019 back then, would be the person owning the land on which the public house sits. Way back, this may indeed have been a \u2018lord\u2019 but these days, most usually a \u2018landlord\u2019 is any person who owns the title to property. It also refers to a person who owns property that one rents. That person\u2019s permission would have been needed, to run the \u2018pub\u2019 on their property. Or they themselves might have been running it. So they would legally be \u2018the landlord\u2019 of the pub, and the building it\u2019s running in. The boss, the person in control. \u2018Can we stay late? - you\u2019ll have to ask the landlord - he\u2019s over there\u2019. The name \u2018landlord\u2019 has stuck, as the name of the person owning and\/or running a pub. In that case he or she may nowadays just be a tennant of the property, or be an employee of a food and beverage company or chain, though some people do still own their own pubs independently. 2 meanings of Landlord: Landlord - owner of property and\/or one who rents out property Landlord - person who runs a \u2018pub\u2019 in the UK Question: Can a person be both \u2018landlord\u2019 of the pub property (ie they own the property) and \u2018landlord\u2019 of the pub? Answer - yes, but they don\u2019t have to be. History of the public house including it\u2019s origin as a tavern in Roman times: https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Pub In the link below you\u2019ll read how, hundreds of years ago, the \u2018lord\u2019 owned the \u2018land\u2019 and serfs or peasants who worked the land for him would be allowed to farm their own (very little, and not \u2018enough\u2019) food from a small strip of land. They also would build their own house on the land and pay him rent for \u2018the use of the land\u2019. This system underlies the foundation of our modern day governments, in case you didn\u2019t know. Origin of Landlord: https:\/\/spoa.com\/the-concept-of-landlord-a-short-history-from-medieval-times-to-the-present\/"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIf I want to add a third option to the construct \"Some..., others\", what is the best way to put it? Some, others and again others? So: Some people like apples, others like oranges and again others enjoy bananas. This sounds a bit off, or not?","question":"If I want to add a third option to the construct \"Some..., others\", what is the best way to put it? Some, others and again others? So: Some people like apples, others like oranges and again others enjoy bananas. This sounds a bit off, or not?","answer":"You will commonly find people using still others.","output":"You will commonly find people using still others."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am always confused with the prepositions to use when indicating an event happening at a place. Should I use \"at\" or \"in\" or \"on\"? For example: We had our dinner at the McDonalds at\/in the shopping centre at\/on Sixth Avenue. The McDonalds restaurant is in the shopping centre. The shopping centre is located at Sixth Avenue. So am I right to say \"the McDonalds in the shopping centre at Sixth Avenue\"? Now, what if it was a street instead of an avenue? Say for example: We had our dinner at the McDonalds at\/in the shopping centre at\/on Coral Street. Here, somehow, I find it natural to say \"the McDonalds at the shopping centre on Coral Street\". How do I determine the right prepositions to use? And how would the different prepositions give different meanings to the sentence?","question":"I am always confused with the prepositions to use when indicating an event happening at a place. Should I use \"at\" or \"in\" or \"on\"? For example: We had our dinner at the McDonalds at\/in the shopping centre at\/on Sixth Avenue. The McDonalds restaurant is in the shopping centre. The shopping centre is located at Sixth Avenue. So am I right to say \"the McDonalds in the shopping centre at Sixth Avenue\"? Now, what if it was a street instead of an avenue? Say for example: We had our dinner at the McDonalds at\/in the shopping centre at\/on Coral Street. Here, somehow, I find it natural to say \"the McDonalds at the shopping centre on Coral Street\". How do I determine the right prepositions to use? And how would the different prepositions give different meanings to the sentence?","answer":"YMMV, however my inclination is that while both options are acceptable, each has different connotations. So, We had our dinner at the McDonalds at the shopping centre on Sixth Avenue. This tells me that McDonalds is located near the shopping centre, but not necessarily in it. It also tells me that the shopping centre is either a group of shops facing the street, or a big building containing lots of shops with frontage on Sixth Avenue. We had our dinner at the McDonalds in the shopping centre at Coral Street. This tells me that McDonalds is physically located inside the shopping centre, i.e. that you enter the shopping centre, then the McDonalds; and that the shopping centre is more of a sort of blob in the general vicinity of Coral Street. In both cases, 'at' implies less precision than 'in' or 'on'. The only other thing I would say is that using 'at' in both places would sound awkward, especially as it would make three uses of 'at' in the sentence.","output":"YMMV, however my inclination is that while both options are acceptable, each has different connotations. So, We had our dinner at the McDonalds at the shopping centre on Sixth Avenue. This tells me that McDonalds is located near the shopping centre, but not necessarily in it. It also tells me that the shopping centre is either a group of shops facing the street, or a big building containing lots of shops with frontage on Sixth Avenue. We had our dinner at the McDonalds in the shopping centre at Coral Street. This tells me that McDonalds is physically located inside the shopping centre, i.e. that you enter the shopping centre, then the McDonalds; and that the shopping centre is more of a sort of blob in the general vicinity of Coral Street. In both cases, 'at' implies less precision than 'in' or 'on'. The only other thing I would say is that using 'at' in both places would sound awkward, especially as it would make three uses of 'at' in the sentence."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAn office colleague wrote the following in an email: Kindly log a ticket for the same and assign it to the concerned team. I wrote back the following: I believe it should be \"Kindly log a ticket for the same and assign it to the team concerned.\" Which one is correct, and why?","question":"An office colleague wrote the following in an email: Kindly log a ticket for the same and assign it to the concerned team. I wrote back the following: I believe it should be \"Kindly log a ticket for the same and assign it to the team concerned.\" Which one is correct, and why?","answer":"The team concerned is short for something like the team that is concerned with it. While the concerned team is also valid in that context, on its own I'd be more likely understand it as referring to a team of people that are feeling worried. So you're both correct, but I'd say your phrasing is generally preferable.","output":"The team concerned is short for something like the team that is concerned with it. While the concerned team is also valid in that context, on its own I'd be more likely understand it as referring to a team of people that are feeling worried. So you're both correct, but I'd say your phrasing is generally preferable."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI think when someone leaves home, he or she may say like this, \" I am leaving\" or \"I am going to school\" or \"I am going to work\" . I am wondering what phrases native speakers usually say when they leave home for work or school.","question":"I think when someone leaves home, he or she may say like this, \" I am leaving\" or \"I am going to school\" or \"I am going to work\" . I am wondering what phrases native speakers usually say when they leave home for work or school.","answer":"Not a native speaker here, but I used to say \"I'm heading out to\/for school\" According to thefreedictionary: Definition(head out for something): to set out for something or some place; to begin a journey to something or some place http:\/\/idioms.thefreedictionary.com\/head+out","output":"Not a native speaker here, but I used to say \"I'm heading out to\/for school\" According to thefreedictionary: Definition(head out for something): to set out for something or some place; to begin a journey to something or some place http:\/\/idioms.thefreedictionary.com\/head+out"}
{"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am trying to find an appropriate word to describe multiple items that wash up on shore. I would prefer a single-word answer, but don't know that one exists. I am trying to name a photo album that contains flotsam, jellyfish, seashells, and driftwood.","question":"I am trying to find an appropriate word to describe multiple items that wash up on shore. I would prefer a single-word answer, but don't know that one exists. I am trying to name a photo album that contains flotsam, jellyfish, seashells, and driftwood.","answer":"1. wrack noun seaweed or other marine vegetation that is floating in the sea or has been cast ashore ... a wreck or piece of wreckage A lone beachcomber squats among the wrack Of kaleidoscope shells Probing fractured Venus with a stick Under a tent of taunting gulls. Two Lovers And A Beachcomber By The Real Sea - Sylvia Plath 2. jetsam noun unwanted material or goods that have been thrown overboard from a ship and washed ashore, especially material that has been discarded to lighten the vessel. \"there was plenty of good kindling among the jetsam on the beach\"","output":"1. wrack noun seaweed or other marine vegetation that is floating in the sea or has been cast ashore ... a wreck or piece of wreckage A lone beachcomber squats among the wrack Of kaleidoscope shells Probing fractured Venus with a stick Under a tent of taunting gulls. Two Lovers And A Beachcomber By The Real Sea - Sylvia Plath 2. jetsam noun unwanted material or goods that have been thrown overboard from a ship and washed ashore, especially material that has been discarded to lighten the vessel. \"there was plenty of good kindling among the jetsam on the beach\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAlice was beginning to get very tired of sitting by her sister on the bank, and of having nothing to do. I am trying to understand why Lewis Carroll decided to write \"on the bank\" instead of \"on a bank\". Could you clarify it for me? So far I've been exposed to the following possible reasons for that: \"on a bank\" is never correct in the sense of \"on a riverbank\". (Do you agree?) Alice was beginning to get tired of sitting on a specific bank which happens to be \"the bank\". However, I am not convinced whether \"sitting on a bank\" wouldn't convey the meaning needed. I understand that \"was getting tired\" restricts the situation to a one-off occasion. Hence, she couldn't have been sitting on more than one banks at the same time. It means that \"a bank\" can be only a specific bank. I think if we had \"She was tired of sitting on a bank\" it would mean that she might have sat on many banks. But it's not the case in this case. These are my musings on the matter. How would you profoundly substantiate the choice of \"the\"?","question":"Alice was beginning to get very tired of sitting by her sister on the bank, and of having nothing to do. I am trying to understand why Lewis Carroll decided to write \"on the bank\" instead of \"on a bank\". Could you clarify it for me? So far I've been exposed to the following possible reasons for that: \"on a bank\" is never correct in the sense of \"on a riverbank\". (Do you agree?) Alice was beginning to get tired of sitting on a specific bank which happens to be \"the bank\". However, I am not convinced whether \"sitting on a bank\" wouldn't convey the meaning needed. I understand that \"was getting tired\" restricts the situation to a one-off occasion. Hence, she couldn't have been sitting on more than one banks at the same time. It means that \"a bank\" can be only a specific bank. I think if we had \"She was tired of sitting on a bank\" it would mean that she might have sat on many banks. But it's not the case in this case. These are my musings on the matter. How would you profoundly substantiate the choice of \"the\"?","answer":"Stangdon's comment has the answer, but I'll enlarge it a bit. You're right that normally we use the when we expect the reader\/hearer to know which thing(s) we are talking about, often because they have already been mentioned. So a possible way of starting the book could be: Alice was sitting on a bank by her sister, and was getting beginning to get very tired. But writers will often make the narrative more engaging for the reader by writing as though the reader already knows (this is what stangdon means by in medias res - thanks, I know the phrase, but I wasn't aware of this use of it). Charlotte Bronte begins Jane Eyre with: There was no possibility of taking a walk that day. In normal speech, that day would not make sense unless the conversation had already established which day that day was; but by starting the narrative in this way, Bronte inviting us to enter Jane's story. Jane knows which day she is talking about - the day on which the first chapter is set - and by presenting it to us as that day, as though we also knew which day she was talking about, she invites us to share her perspective on what happened.","output":"Stangdon's comment has the answer, but I'll enlarge it a bit. You're right that normally we use the when we expect the reader\/hearer to know which thing(s) we are talking about, often because they have already been mentioned. So a possible way of starting the book could be: Alice was sitting on a bank by her sister, and was getting beginning to get very tired. But writers will often make the narrative more engaging for the reader by writing as though the reader already knows (this is what stangdon means by in medias res - thanks, I know the phrase, but I wasn't aware of this use of it). Charlotte Bronte begins Jane Eyre with: There was no possibility of taking a walk that day. In normal speech, that day would not make sense unless the conversation had already established which day that day was; but by starting the narrative in this way, Bronte inviting us to enter Jane's story. Jane knows which day she is talking about - the day on which the first chapter is set - and by presenting it to us as that day, as though we also knew which day she was talking about, she invites us to share her perspective on what happened."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSuppose I was writing this sentence: \"John ran, and he shouted very loudly\". \"He\" in that sentence was referring back to John. I am quite sure there is a word describing this referring to a noun previously mentioned. Could someone help me out please?","question":"Suppose I was writing this sentence: \"John ran, and he shouted very loudly\". \"He\" in that sentence was referring back to John. I am quite sure there is a word describing this referring to a noun previously mentioned. Could someone help me out please?","answer":"It's anaphoric reference, as opposed to cataphoric reference. Disclaimer: That link is not to my site, but I work with someone who works on it.","output":"It's anaphoric reference, as opposed to cataphoric reference. Disclaimer: That link is not to my site, but I work with someone who works on it."}
{"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\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"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 doing some research in NLP, and thought you guys would be the best to ask this. When looking at an English sentence, it is sometimes hard for a computer to distinguish between proper nouns, such as Bill, and common (non-proper) nouns, such as bill as in He gave me a bill. At first I thought, 'Oh, I'll just see if it's capitalized.' I'm wary to do this though, since I'm not sure if that pattern will hold as a rule. Then, I noticed that every time a common noun begins a sentence (and almost always when it is used in a sentence), it is preceded by one of the articles a, an, or the. Is this a rule I can count on? Can anyone think of counterexamples?","question":"I'm doing some research in NLP, and thought you guys would be the best to ask this. When looking at an English sentence, it is sometimes hard for a computer to distinguish between proper nouns, such as Bill, and common (non-proper) nouns, such as bill as in He gave me a bill. At first I thought, 'Oh, I'll just see if it's capitalized.' I'm wary to do this though, since I'm not sure if that pattern will hold as a rule. Then, I noticed that every time a common noun begins a sentence (and almost always when it is used in a sentence), it is preceded by one of the articles a, an, or the. Is this a rule I can count on? Can anyone think of counterexamples?","answer":"Nouns don't have to be preceded by an article, but often are for discourse reasons. There are many examples of sentence-initial common nouns (the standard term, not 'non-proper noun'). Counterexamples are common, just look at this sentence (or my first sentence) for two such.","output":"Nouns don't have to be preceded by an article, but often are for discourse reasons. There are many examples of sentence-initial common nouns (the standard term, not 'non-proper noun'). Counterexamples are common, just look at this sentence (or my first sentence) for two such."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nFrom a book on Linux, I found the following text: A typical Linux system will run six virtual consoles and one graphical console Server systems often have only virtual consoles Desktops and workstations typically have both Could anyone explain these three words, please?","question":"From a book on Linux, I found the following text: A typical Linux system will run six virtual consoles and one graphical console Server systems often have only virtual consoles Desktops and workstations typically have both Could anyone explain these three words, please?","answer":"Pr\u00e9cis Server: Designed to concurrently provide (shared) services to many people. Desktop: Designed for use by one person on their desk. Workstation: Usually a more powerful desktop. Server Hardware A server is a computer that is used to provide shared services to many people. In a business context, the server is usually kept in a room dedicated to this purpose (the server room). Servers are often dedicated to one purpose: a file-server provides shared file-storage services to a group of people. An email server provides email collection, transmission and storage services to a group of people. This does not mean that the information is shared (though it can be) but that the computer and the services it provides are concurrently used by tens, hundreds or thousands of people. Servers are typically housed in tower or rack-mount cases. Servers do not typically have a dedicated screen, keyboard or mouse attached - they are managed by other means or by using a KVM-switch to share one keyboard etc between large numbers of servers. Apart from the above, computer hardware designed for server use in an enterprise is often distinguishable from desktop computers (including workstations) in some or all of the following ways: rack-mount case. designed for \"lights-out\" usage. out-of-band management. boot-up messages diverted to remote monitoring devices. hardware RAID controllers. SCSI variants more often than SATA. front-accessible hot-plug disks. greater backplane bandwidth. higher noise levels. redundant hot-swap power supplies. support for SAN hardware. basic or absent graphics capability. often sold without a bundled keyboard or mouse. There are home and SME \"server\" hardware devices which follow an almost opposite trend. They are designed to be very small quiet and unobtrusive and to sit on a desk or shelf. An example is the Excito Bubba, the size of a paperback book, sold without keyboard or mouse (it doesn't need one). These are also hardware designed specifically for a \"server\" r\u00f4le. There can be some overlap in form-factor with the \"net-top\" category of personal desktop computers. Other usage Obviously, in general this term means \"one who serves\" and can be applied to waiters in restaurants for example. This term is also used for software, for example the Apache project's HTTPD software is invariably described as web-server software. Some people associate the term most strongly with software. Dictionary Oxford says \"a computer or computer program which manages access to a centralized resource or service in a network.\" Desktop Hardware A desktop computer sits on the desk of one person and is primarily dedicated to the use of a single person. Whilst it might be shared consecutively (e.g. in \"hot desking\"), usually only one person is using it at any given time. It doesn't matter if the main part of the computer is placed under the desk. Desktops are often in tower cases (sometimes horizontally under a monitor) or all-in-one cases combined with the display. A desktop computer usually has a dedicated display, keyboard, mouse and other peripherals directly attached to it. Other usage Other usage isn't especially relevant but the term can obviously mean the upper surface of a desk. It can therefore be applied as an adjective for objects designed to be placed on that surface. Dictionary Oxford says \"the working surface of a desk. (also desktop computer)a computer suitable for use at an ordinary desk. the working area of a computer screen regarded as a representation of a notional desktop and containing icons representing items such as files.\" compact http:\/\/h20000.www2.hp.com\/bc\/docs\/support\/SupportDocument\/c00323629\/c00406696.jpg Workstation Hardware A workstation is a name usually reserved for a very high-performance desktop computer of the sort that might be used by scientists, engineers or on the trading floors of banks. Other usage The word \"workstation\" has a more general use. In some cases it means a position equipped for a worker. Sometimes furniture makers describe use this word in the description of their products. Some people use the term workstation to mean any personal computer. Sometimes the word is used to define a computer used, by one person at a time, for a specialised task. Dictionary Oxford says \"a desktop computer terminal, typically networked and more powerful than a personal computer.\" images linked from hp.com and are probably (c)HP Related Terms All-in-One Here are some examples of current all-in-one desktop PCs: HP Omni 200t -- The integrated, space-saving design of our Omni 200t series puts everything in the display HP All-in-one 200-5210 -- HP Pavilion all-in-one 200-5210uk desktop Dell Inspiron One 22 -- \"the sleek, space-saving, all-in-one Inspiron One 2205 desktop\" Apple iMac -- \"The ultimate all-in-one\" Sony VAIO L-Series -- all-in-one desktops Lenovo C200 -- Desktops & all-in-ones Gateway ZX series -- An all-in-one for everyone","output":"Pr\u00e9cis Server: Designed to concurrently provide (shared) services to many people. Desktop: Designed for use by one person on their desk. Workstation: Usually a more powerful desktop. Server Hardware A server is a computer that is used to provide shared services to many people. In a business context, the server is usually kept in a room dedicated to this purpose (the server room). Servers are often dedicated to one purpose: a file-server provides shared file-storage services to a group of people. An email server provides email collection, transmission and storage services to a group of people. This does not mean that the information is shared (though it can be) but that the computer and the services it provides are concurrently used by tens, hundreds or thousands of people. Servers are typically housed in tower or rack-mount cases. Servers do not typically have a dedicated screen, keyboard or mouse attached - they are managed by other means or by using a KVM-switch to share one keyboard etc between large numbers of servers. Apart from the above, computer hardware designed for server use in an enterprise is often distinguishable from desktop computers (including workstations) in some or all of the following ways: rack-mount case. designed for \"lights-out\" usage. out-of-band management. boot-up messages diverted to remote monitoring devices. hardware RAID controllers. SCSI variants more often than SATA. front-accessible hot-plug disks. greater backplane bandwidth. higher noise levels. redundant hot-swap power supplies. support for SAN hardware. basic or absent graphics capability. often sold without a bundled keyboard or mouse. There are home and SME \"server\" hardware devices which follow an almost opposite trend. They are designed to be very small quiet and unobtrusive and to sit on a desk or shelf. An example is the Excito Bubba, the size of a paperback book, sold without keyboard or mouse (it doesn't need one). These are also hardware designed specifically for a \"server\" r\u00f4le. There can be some overlap in form-factor with the \"net-top\" category of personal desktop computers. Other usage Obviously, in general this term means \"one who serves\" and can be applied to waiters in restaurants for example. This term is also used for software, for example the Apache project's HTTPD software is invariably described as web-server software. Some people associate the term most strongly with software. Dictionary Oxford says \"a computer or computer program which manages access to a centralized resource or service in a network.\" Desktop Hardware A desktop computer sits on the desk of one person and is primarily dedicated to the use of a single person. Whilst it might be shared consecutively (e.g. in \"hot desking\"), usually only one person is using it at any given time. It doesn't matter if the main part of the computer is placed under the desk. Desktops are often in tower cases (sometimes horizontally under a monitor) or all-in-one cases combined with the display. A desktop computer usually has a dedicated display, keyboard, mouse and other peripherals directly attached to it. Other usage Other usage isn't especially relevant but the term can obviously mean the upper surface of a desk. It can therefore be applied as an adjective for objects designed to be placed on that surface. Dictionary Oxford says \"the working surface of a desk. (also desktop computer)a computer suitable for use at an ordinary desk. the working area of a computer screen regarded as a representation of a notional desktop and containing icons representing items such as files.\" compact http:\/\/h20000.www2.hp.com\/bc\/docs\/support\/SupportDocument\/c00323629\/c00406696.jpg Workstation Hardware A workstation is a name usually reserved for a very high-performance desktop computer of the sort that might be used by scientists, engineers or on the trading floors of banks. Other usage The word \"workstation\" has a more general use. In some cases it means a position equipped for a worker. Sometimes furniture makers describe use this word in the description of their products. Some people use the term workstation to mean any personal computer. Sometimes the word is used to define a computer used, by one person at a time, for a specialised task. Dictionary Oxford says \"a desktop computer terminal, typically networked and more powerful than a personal computer.\" images linked from hp.com and are probably (c)HP Related Terms All-in-One Here are some examples of current all-in-one desktop PCs: HP Omni 200t -- The integrated, space-saving design of our Omni 200t series puts everything in the display HP All-in-one 200-5210 -- HP Pavilion all-in-one 200-5210uk desktop Dell Inspiron One 22 -- \"the sleek, space-saving, all-in-one Inspiron One 2205 desktop\" Apple iMac -- \"The ultimate all-in-one\" Sony VAIO L-Series -- all-in-one desktops Lenovo C200 -- Desktops & all-in-ones Gateway ZX series -- An all-in-one for everyone"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have often struggled with sentences that contain two characters of the same gender. For example, if there are two females, Alice and Carol, then the following sentence can be confusing. Alice reminded Carol about how she helped her last week. Clearly, Alice is telling Carol something, but who helped whom? When the genders differ, the ambiguity is resolved. Alice reminded Bob about how he helped her last week. Alice reminded Bob about how she helped him last week. Is there a rule that addresses this or a rule of thumb for handling it?","question":"I have often struggled with sentences that contain two characters of the same gender. For example, if there are two females, Alice and Carol, then the following sentence can be confusing. Alice reminded Carol about how she helped her last week. Clearly, Alice is telling Carol something, but who helped whom? When the genders differ, the ambiguity is resolved. Alice reminded Bob about how he helped her last week. Alice reminded Bob about how she helped him last week. Is there a rule that addresses this or a rule of thumb for handling it?","answer":"As a reader, my first choice would usually be to take whoever is subject of the main clause (Alice) to remain the subject in the following clause; but I could never be sure, and it might be ambiguous in many cases. There is no real solution. The only way out is by recasting the sentence such that the right reference will become clear from context. You will usually need to make it longer by adding more information: Alice reminded Carol about how she helped with Carol's paperwork last week. I agree that this isn't the prettiest of sentences, as using the same name twice in a sentence is usually not done, but it might be acceptable. If the reader knows that the paperwork must be Carol's, references will be acceptably clear without Carol's: Carol seemed fairly happy now that she didn't have to worry about the documents any more, but she failed to mention payment. Alice reminded her about how she had helped her last week with the paperwork and requested a share of the proceeds. A sentence rarely comes without context: usually you have something to work with, and often things will naturally fall into place even with several persons of the same gender. Note that the problem is also very real with two or more inanimate objects; it, that, etc. can often lead to similar ambiguity: The difference between Rome and Carthage was great; its economy also depended very much on trade, and yet its merchant class was far less powerful than one would have expected. If I changed the first sentence so that Rome became the subject, I believe its would logically point toward Rome first: Rome was very different from Carthage; its economy also depended very much on trade, and yet its merchant class was far less powerful than one would have expected.","output":"As a reader, my first choice would usually be to take whoever is subject of the main clause (Alice) to remain the subject in the following clause; but I could never be sure, and it might be ambiguous in many cases. There is no real solution. The only way out is by recasting the sentence such that the right reference will become clear from context. You will usually need to make it longer by adding more information: Alice reminded Carol about how she helped with Carol's paperwork last week. I agree that this isn't the prettiest of sentences, as using the same name twice in a sentence is usually not done, but it might be acceptable. If the reader knows that the paperwork must be Carol's, references will be acceptably clear without Carol's: Carol seemed fairly happy now that she didn't have to worry about the documents any more, but she failed to mention payment. Alice reminded her about how she had helped her last week with the paperwork and requested a share of the proceeds. A sentence rarely comes without context: usually you have something to work with, and often things will naturally fall into place even with several persons of the same gender. Note that the problem is also very real with two or more inanimate objects; it, that, etc. can often lead to similar ambiguity: The difference between Rome and Carthage was great; its economy also depended very much on trade, and yet its merchant class was far less powerful than one would have expected. If I changed the first sentence so that Rome became the subject, I believe its would logically point toward Rome first: Rome was very different from Carthage; its economy also depended very much on trade, and yet its merchant class was far less powerful than one would have expected."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"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 actually want to present this question in two parts: 1) First of all, xenos comes from \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Nevertheless, it is pronounced with \"z\" instead of \"ks\" (\/ks\/). How come? 2) Let's take the word \"xenocide\" (the killing of xenos - strangers). Should 'Xe' be pronounced as \"ze\" or \"zee\"? In popular culture, you usually see \"zee\" being used. But, in the context of xenocide, there is a clear connection with genocide (\/\u02c8\u02a4\u025bn\u0259said\/, [jen-uh-sahyd]). What should be preferred? I always pronounced it \"zee-no-cide\". For easy reference: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Greek I recalled a very old discussion concerning the pronunciation of a FOSS game's title, \"Project Xenocide\": http:\/\/www.xcomufo.com\/forums\/index.php?showtopic=1639 edit: As another example, take \"Xena\".","question":"I actually want to present this question in two parts: 1) First of all, xenos comes from \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Nevertheless, it is pronounced with \"z\" instead of \"ks\" (\/ks\/). How come? 2) Let's take the word \"xenocide\" (the killing of xenos - strangers). Should 'Xe' be pronounced as \"ze\" or \"zee\"? In popular culture, you usually see \"zee\" being used. But, in the context of xenocide, there is a clear connection with genocide (\/\u02c8\u02a4\u025bn\u0259said\/, [jen-uh-sahyd]). What should be preferred? I always pronounced it \"zee-no-cide\". For easy reference: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Greek I recalled a very old discussion concerning the pronunciation of a FOSS game's title, \"Project Xenocide\": http:\/\/www.xcomufo.com\/forums\/index.php?showtopic=1639 edit: As another example, take \"Xena\".","answer":"English (and most other European languages) imported many of the Greek roots it uses a long time ago -- long enough that ordinary sound changes took place subsequently which modified the original Greek pronunciations. Just as we no longer pronounce Anglo-Saxon words the same as the Anglo-Saxons did, we no longer pronounce Ancient Greek words the same as the Ancient Greeks did. In particular the Great Vowel Shift of around 1500 CE significantly changed the way we pronounce vowels. Looking at the Greek eta \u03ad [\u025b\u02d0] vowel: Middle English [\u025b\u02d0] --> [e\u02d0] --> modern English [i\u02d0] ..giving us \"ee\" [i\u02d0] instead of \"eh\" [\u025b:] for the sound of the vowel in xenocide. The other part of your question is covered in this Eng.SE question. Basically, many Greek roots came to English through French and then were simplified to meet English phonotactic constraints. So Gk [ks] --> Fr [gz] --> En [z]. (Interestingly enough, a similar thing happened in Greek itself, though not to \u03b5. E.g. the letter \u03b7 (eta) is now pronounced [ita], among many other changes.)","output":"English (and most other European languages) imported many of the Greek roots it uses a long time ago -- long enough that ordinary sound changes took place subsequently which modified the original Greek pronunciations. Just as we no longer pronounce Anglo-Saxon words the same as the Anglo-Saxons did, we no longer pronounce Ancient Greek words the same as the Ancient Greeks did. In particular the Great Vowel Shift of around 1500 CE significantly changed the way we pronounce vowels. Looking at the Greek eta \u03ad [\u025b\u02d0] vowel: Middle English [\u025b\u02d0] --> [e\u02d0] --> modern English [i\u02d0] ..giving us \"ee\" [i\u02d0] instead of \"eh\" [\u025b:] for the sound of the vowel in xenocide. The other part of your question is covered in this Eng.SE question. Basically, many Greek roots came to English through French and then were simplified to meet English phonotactic constraints. So Gk [ks] --> Fr [gz] --> En [z]. (Interestingly enough, a similar thing happened in Greek itself, though not to \u03b5. E.g. the letter \u03b7 (eta) is now pronounced [ita], among many other changes.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhenever I read (silently), I hear a voice in my head speaking the written words. I've tried to mute this voice while reading, but have been unable to thus far. Is this a universal aspect of reading, or a personal development?","question":"Whenever I read (silently), I hear a voice in my head speaking the written words. I've tried to mute this voice while reading, but have been unable to thus far. Is this a universal aspect of reading, or a personal development?","answer":"What type of sound ? No whenever I read silently, I didn't hear any type of sound in my mind.","output":"What type of sound ? No whenever I read silently, I didn't hear any type of sound in my mind."}
{"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":"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 was just looking at the verb to be (here) and I saw the subjunctive form \"I be\". Other than pirates saying \"I be looking for treasure\" I couldn't think of a single usage of \"I be\". Not knowing what subjunctive meant I went and looked it up but now I'm left thinking that \"I be\" could never be used in a grammatically correct way. If I understand correctly the subjunctive form is for an irrealis mood which implies that the speaker doesn't know if the action or situation has happened as they are speaking. Surely that makes any sentence starting \"I be\" a logical contradiction - the speaker must know whether the action has started as they are doing it? Perhaps that is the humour behind the sentence and I'm just the last one in the room to get in!","question":"I was just looking at the verb to be (here) and I saw the subjunctive form \"I be\". Other than pirates saying \"I be looking for treasure\" I couldn't think of a single usage of \"I be\". Not knowing what subjunctive meant I went and looked it up but now I'm left thinking that \"I be\" could never be used in a grammatically correct way. If I understand correctly the subjunctive form is for an irrealis mood which implies that the speaker doesn't know if the action or situation has happened as they are speaking. Surely that makes any sentence starting \"I be\" a logical contradiction - the speaker must know whether the action has started as they are doing it? Perhaps that is the humour behind the sentence and I'm just the last one in the room to get in!","answer":"This is an example of a subjunctive. The subjunctive form of the verb is frequently used in mandative clauses (certain clauses which contain the content of an order, desire, suggestion). The subjuntivee uses the plain form of the verb. The same form as the bare infinitive. The Original Poster's example I be would be grammatical in the following sentences: He demanded I be taken out and flogged. He suggested I be there before the proceedings commenced. It is essential that I be kept informed of any new developments. The subjunctive is used more frequently in American English than in British, although it is perfectly normal in both.","output":"This is an example of a subjunctive. The subjunctive form of the verb is frequently used in mandative clauses (certain clauses which contain the content of an order, desire, suggestion). The subjuntivee uses the plain form of the verb. The same form as the bare infinitive. The Original Poster's example I be would be grammatical in the following sentences: He demanded I be taken out and flogged. He suggested I be there before the proceedings commenced. It is essential that I be kept informed of any new developments. The subjunctive is used more frequently in American English than in British, although it is perfectly normal in both."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"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":"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\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI recently found the word \"dictate\". As always, I dived into the dictionary and took a look for definition. Following is what I found. Dictate to give orders, or tell someone exactly what they must do, with total authority (from Cambridge Dictionary) At the moment I saw this definition, the word \"instruct\" directly came to my mind and I was a bit confused. So, I searched for definition of \"instruct\". Dictionary told me Instruct to order or tell someone to do something, especially in a formal way Two words seems interchangeable for me! So I googled \"dictate vs instruct\" sort of things. However, I could not able to find any useful information: usually means they are used in very different situation. What are the difference between them and what situations and mood or vibe they are typically used respectively?","question":"I recently found the word \"dictate\". As always, I dived into the dictionary and took a look for definition. Following is what I found. Dictate to give orders, or tell someone exactly what they must do, with total authority (from Cambridge Dictionary) At the moment I saw this definition, the word \"instruct\" directly came to my mind and I was a bit confused. So, I searched for definition of \"instruct\". Dictionary told me Instruct to order or tell someone to do something, especially in a formal way Two words seems interchangeable for me! So I googled \"dictate vs instruct\" sort of things. However, I could not able to find any useful information: usually means they are used in very different situation. What are the difference between them and what situations and mood or vibe they are typically used respectively?","answer":"Use dictate for authoritative commands, emphasis on authority. Use instruct for educational descriptions of processes, emphasis on making expectations clear. Dictate has two general uses: either A) to issue decrees in an authoritarian manner, or B) to speak words that are intended to be transcribed by another person. A dictator is (MW.com): 1a : a person granted absolute emergency power especially, history : one appointed by the senate (see senate sense 1b) of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited governmental power c : one ruling in an absolute ... and often oppressive way fascist dictators 2 : one who says or reads something for a person to transcribe or for a machine to record : one that dictates... Instruct carries more of a sense of teaching or guiding someone about how they are expected to perform a task. An instructor is (Mw.com) \"one that instructs : teacher.\"","output":"Use dictate for authoritative commands, emphasis on authority. Use instruct for educational descriptions of processes, emphasis on making expectations clear. Dictate has two general uses: either A) to issue decrees in an authoritarian manner, or B) to speak words that are intended to be transcribed by another person. A dictator is (MW.com): 1a : a person granted absolute emergency power especially, history : one appointed by the senate (see senate sense 1b) of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited governmental power c : one ruling in an absolute ... and often oppressive way fascist dictators 2 : one who says or reads something for a person to transcribe or for a machine to record : one that dictates... Instruct carries more of a sense of teaching or guiding someone about how they are expected to perform a task. An instructor is (Mw.com) \"one that instructs : teacher.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\"Cost-effective\" is a generic term that can be used to describe anything that is \"productive relative to the cost\" whereby cost is a very vague term which can refer to either time, money, or human resources, etc. \"Time-effective\" will be a specific case of \"cost-effective\", in the context of \"time\". What may be a word to mean \"cost-effective\" in the context of \"money\"?","question":"\"Cost-effective\" is a generic term that can be used to describe anything that is \"productive relative to the cost\" whereby cost is a very vague term which can refer to either time, money, or human resources, etc. \"Time-effective\" will be a specific case of \"cost-effective\", in the context of \"time\". What may be a word to mean \"cost-effective\" in the context of \"money\"?","answer":"I consider that a nice option could be Economical, for me the meaning is exactly the same and in other languages like Spanish is more common to say Economical than Cost-effective","output":"I consider that a nice option could be Economical, for me the meaning is exactly the same and in other languages like Spanish is more common to say Economical than Cost-effective"}
{"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\nI'd like to ask a question about the 'that' in the following sentence. There are various phony research institutes dedicated to convincing people that global warming is a myth, which were set up by major companies likely to be adversely affected by policies to prevent global warming. Despite losing the media battle, they and their corporate sponsors managed to delay action for a lost decade that the next generation should never forgive them for. Does this 'that' equal to 'so that'?","question":"I'd like to ask a question about the 'that' in the following sentence. There are various phony research institutes dedicated to convincing people that global warming is a myth, which were set up by major companies likely to be adversely affected by policies to prevent global warming. Despite losing the media battle, they and their corporate sponsors managed to delay action for a lost decade that the next generation should never forgive them for. Does this 'that' equal to 'so that'?","answer":"...a lost decade that the next generation should never forgive them for. The \"that\" refers to \"a lost decade.\" The clause could be rewritten: ...a lost decade for which the next generation should never forgive them.","output":"...a lost decade that the next generation should never forgive them for. The \"that\" refers to \"a lost decade.\" The clause could be rewritten: ...a lost decade for which the next generation should never forgive them."}
{"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"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\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat, exactly, is the difference between the following two sentences? Are they both correct -- or is one considered more correct in certain contexts or constructions? Jim's wailing child was the subject of much scrutiny. Jim's wailing child was the object of much scrutiny. Each of these usages is ubiquitous, and it's not uncommon to see both within the span of a few sentences. (For example, Google estimates over 60,000 results for \"subject of study\" \"object of study\".) The difficulty seems to be that both words have several senses, and they are somewhat overlapping in this case. As a lover of grammar, I am frustrated that I cannot resolve this question in my mind. (I tried to search to see if this question had already been asked, but I could not find it amongst the many questions concerning pronoun declension and objects and subjects as parts of speech.)","question":"What, exactly, is the difference between the following two sentences? Are they both correct -- or is one considered more correct in certain contexts or constructions? Jim's wailing child was the subject of much scrutiny. Jim's wailing child was the object of much scrutiny. Each of these usages is ubiquitous, and it's not uncommon to see both within the span of a few sentences. (For example, Google estimates over 60,000 results for \"subject of study\" \"object of study\".) The difficulty seems to be that both words have several senses, and they are somewhat overlapping in this case. As a lover of grammar, I am frustrated that I cannot resolve this question in my mind. (I tried to search to see if this question had already been asked, but I could not find it amongst the many questions concerning pronoun declension and objects and subjects as parts of speech.)","answer":"They're both grammatically correct and accepted. For me though, and if you would like to dissect the nuance between them, Both of them mean a \"person to whom thought or action is directed\" But object emphasizes: \"a person seen as a focus for feelings, thought etc.\" ex. an object of affection\/ contempt While subject: \"one who experiences or is subjected to something\" ex. the helpless subject of their cruelty\/ ridicule","output":"They're both grammatically correct and accepted. For me though, and if you would like to dissect the nuance between them, Both of them mean a \"person to whom thought or action is directed\" But object emphasizes: \"a person seen as a focus for feelings, thought etc.\" ex. an object of affection\/ contempt While subject: \"one who experiences or is subjected to something\" ex. the helpless subject of their cruelty\/ ridicule"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI know that the first is correct. Is the second correct too? Why? And two more examples to make it clearer: I know the tower height vs I know the tower's height vs I know height of the tower","question":"I know that the first is correct. Is the second correct too? Why? And two more examples to make it clearer: I know the tower height vs I know the tower's height vs I know height of the tower","answer":"All three are correct. In all three cases, \"height\" is modifying tower. In \"the tower height\", \"tower\" is modifying \"height\". When a noun acts like an adjective, it is called a noun adjunct or attributive noun. In \"the tower's height\", \"height\" is an attribute that the tower possesses. The possessive can be used with abstract ownership as well as literal ownership, and so using the possessive makes sense, in the same way you could say \"Her intelligence\" or \"John's weight\". As a native AmE speaker, with the tower examples, my frequency of using them would be in reverse order; some of it is convention, but \"the height of the tower\" is also less confusing. However, I think that's just because tower heights are not something one discusses all that often. With people, \"I know the height of Bryan\" sounds wrong and \"I know Bryan height\" sounds very wrong (you can't use people as an attributive noun); \"I know Bryan's height\" is pretty much the only option.","output":"All three are correct. In all three cases, \"height\" is modifying tower. In \"the tower height\", \"tower\" is modifying \"height\". When a noun acts like an adjective, it is called a noun adjunct or attributive noun. In \"the tower's height\", \"height\" is an attribute that the tower possesses. The possessive can be used with abstract ownership as well as literal ownership, and so using the possessive makes sense, in the same way you could say \"Her intelligence\" or \"John's weight\". As a native AmE speaker, with the tower examples, my frequency of using them would be in reverse order; some of it is convention, but \"the height of the tower\" is also less confusing. However, I think that's just because tower heights are not something one discusses all that often. With people, \"I know the height of Bryan\" sounds wrong and \"I know Bryan height\" sounds very wrong (you can't use people as an attributive noun); \"I know Bryan's height\" is pretty much the only option."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nFirst of all, I'm speaking of webpage referral. Second, let me quote Wikipedia: The misspelling referer originated in the original proposal by computer \"scientist\" Phillip Hallam-Baker to incorporate the field into the HTTP specification.[1] The misspelling was set in stone by the time of its incorporation into the standards document Request for Comments (RFC) 1945; document co-author Roy Fielding has remarked that neither \"referrer\" nor the misspelling \"referer\" were recognized by the standard Unix spell checker of the period.[2] \"Referer\" has since become a widely used spelling in the industry when discussing HTTP referrers; usage of the misspelling is not universal, though, as the correct spelling of \"referrer\" is used in some web specifications such as the Document Object Model. [1] Hallam-Baker, Phillip. \"Re: Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?\" alt.folklore.computers, 2000-09-21 [2] Fielding, Roy. \"Re: Referer: (sic).\" HTTP-wg, 1995-03-09 It seems even the W3C isn't completely consistent: http:\/\/validator.w3.org\/check?uri=referer - works http:\/\/validator.w3.org\/check?uri=referrer - fails http:\/\/jigsaw.w3.org\/css-validator\/check?uri=referrer - works What is the correct spelling to use (referer or referrer), either in general or specific situations?","question":"First of all, I'm speaking of webpage referral. Second, let me quote Wikipedia: The misspelling referer originated in the original proposal by computer \"scientist\" Phillip Hallam-Baker to incorporate the field into the HTTP specification.[1] The misspelling was set in stone by the time of its incorporation into the standards document Request for Comments (RFC) 1945; document co-author Roy Fielding has remarked that neither \"referrer\" nor the misspelling \"referer\" were recognized by the standard Unix spell checker of the period.[2] \"Referer\" has since become a widely used spelling in the industry when discussing HTTP referrers; usage of the misspelling is not universal, though, as the correct spelling of \"referrer\" is used in some web specifications such as the Document Object Model. [1] Hallam-Baker, Phillip. \"Re: Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?\" alt.folklore.computers, 2000-09-21 [2] Fielding, Roy. \"Re: Referer: (sic).\" HTTP-wg, 1995-03-09 It seems even the W3C isn't completely consistent: http:\/\/validator.w3.org\/check?uri=referer - works http:\/\/validator.w3.org\/check?uri=referrer - fails http:\/\/jigsaw.w3.org\/css-validator\/check?uri=referrer - works What is the correct spelling to use (referer or referrer), either in general or specific situations?","answer":"When referring to the the information that is made available as REFERER, then the 3R version is correct. When referring to pretty much anything else, the 4R version would be preferred. Thus: The REFERER URL is sent by the browser to indicate which site contained the information that encouraged the user to visit this site. However, when a real estate agent receives a referral, the person who gives the referral is the referrer.","output":"When referring to the the information that is made available as REFERER, then the 3R version is correct. When referring to pretty much anything else, the 4R version would be preferred. Thus: The REFERER URL is sent by the browser to indicate which site contained the information that encouraged the user to visit this site. However, when a real estate agent receives a referral, the person who gives the referral is the referrer."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am looking for a suitable word for doing errand \/ petty jobs. Clerk is not the right word.","question":"I am looking for a suitable word for doing errand \/ petty jobs. Clerk is not the right word.","answer":"Gofer A person who runs errands, especially on a film set or in an office; a dogsbody: Oxford Dictionaries Online","output":"Gofer A person who runs errands, especially on a film set or in an office; a dogsbody: Oxford Dictionaries Online"}
{"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 lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"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'm in the \"on-time\" camp when it comes to describing, for example, delivering something by the deadline. Is this the correct usage?","question":"I'm in the \"on-time\" camp when it comes to describing, for example, delivering something by the deadline. Is this the correct usage?","answer":"In a situation where you're using the phrase on time as an adjective (basically a synonym of punctual) preceding the noun, then it's fairly common to use a hyphen. Examples I was able to quickly pull up were things like On-time delivery is our goal. On-time flight departures were up 10%. On-time performance is an important ingredient However, if you're using the phrase on time as an adverb to describe when the verb is going to happen, the hyphen is not appropriate. For example: We will deliver your package on time. Your flight will depart on time. Finally, if you're using on time as a predicate adjective, I would not use the hyphen. Your delivery was on time.","output":"In a situation where you're using the phrase on time as an adjective (basically a synonym of punctual) preceding the noun, then it's fairly common to use a hyphen. Examples I was able to quickly pull up were things like On-time delivery is our goal. On-time flight departures were up 10%. On-time performance is an important ingredient However, if you're using the phrase on time as an adverb to describe when the verb is going to happen, the hyphen is not appropriate. For example: We will deliver your package on time. Your flight will depart on time. Finally, if you're using on time as a predicate adjective, I would not use the hyphen. Your delivery was on time."}
{"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\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI wrote: It was a step toward independence and get rid of foreign interference, but it might went too ideological on this ground. versus. It was a step toward independence and get rid of foreign interference, but it probably went too ideological on this ground. It was a step toward independence and get rid of foreign interference, but it might go too ideological on this ground. Which of them is correct according to the meaning I want to convey? I don't know why, but I like to use \"might\" and prefer it to \"probably\" but then again I like to use \"went\" rather \"go\" because \"might went\" to me is something that happened in the past. I'm not sure if \"might go\" still means that the event happened in the past.","question":"I wrote: It was a step toward independence and get rid of foreign interference, but it might went too ideological on this ground. versus. It was a step toward independence and get rid of foreign interference, but it probably went too ideological on this ground. It was a step toward independence and get rid of foreign interference, but it might go too ideological on this ground. Which of them is correct according to the meaning I want to convey? I don't know why, but I like to use \"might\" and prefer it to \"probably\" but then again I like to use \"went\" rather \"go\" because \"might went\" to me is something that happened in the past. I'm not sure if \"might go\" still means that the event happened in the past.","answer":"It was a step toward independence and get rid of foreign interference, but it might went too ideological on this ground. should be: It was a step toward independence and got rid of foreign interference, but it might have been too ideological. Past tense of might: might have been might have seen might have gone might have walked might + have + past participle","output":"It was a step toward independence and get rid of foreign interference, but it might went too ideological on this ground. should be: It was a step toward independence and got rid of foreign interference, but it might have been too ideological. Past tense of might: might have been might have seen might have gone might have walked might + have + past participle"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI want to express that after a certain experience I have some new insights. Does an insight come \"into mind\", or do you \"gain\/develop\" insight? How is this best phrased?","question":"I want to express that after a certain experience I have some new insights. Does an insight come \"into mind\", or do you \"gain\/develop\" insight? How is this best phrased?","answer":"Gain insight is a very common (and rather generic) phrasing. Believe me, I know that, I tend to overuse it in academic writing ;-) Other possible constructions include: \u201cthis experience provided me with insight into \u2026\u201d, \u201cI developed a better insight into \u2026\u201d, \u201cthis intership offered plenty of insight into \u2026\u201d, etc.","output":"Gain insight is a very common (and rather generic) phrasing. Believe me, I know that, I tend to overuse it in academic writing ;-) Other possible constructions include: \u201cthis experience provided me with insight into \u2026\u201d, \u201cI developed a better insight into \u2026\u201d, \u201cthis intership offered plenty of insight into \u2026\u201d, etc."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThere's a thing where people will tend to hate those that almost agree with them more than they hate the ones that completely disagree with them. Is there a term for this? Has it been studied?","question":"There's a thing where people will tend to hate those that almost agree with them more than they hate the ones that completely disagree with them. Is there a term for this? Has it been studied?","answer":"The term (although not a single word) is the narcissism of small differences. There's a Wikipedia article about it: The narcissism of small differences (German: der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen) is the thesis that it is precisely communities with adjoining territories and close relationships that engage in constant feuds and mutual ridicule because of hypersensitivity to details of differentiation.[1] The term was coined by Sigmund Freud in 1917, based on the earlier work of British anthropologist Ernest Crawley. In language differing only slightly from current psychoanalytic terminology, Crawley declared that each individual is separated from others by a taboo of personal isolation, a narcissism of minor differences.","output":"The term (although not a single word) is the narcissism of small differences. There's a Wikipedia article about it: The narcissism of small differences (German: der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen) is the thesis that it is precisely communities with adjoining territories and close relationships that engage in constant feuds and mutual ridicule because of hypersensitivity to details of differentiation.[1] The term was coined by Sigmund Freud in 1917, based on the earlier work of British anthropologist Ernest Crawley. In language differing only slightly from current psychoanalytic terminology, Crawley declared that each individual is separated from others by a taboo of personal isolation, a narcissism of minor differences."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI found myself using the phrase \"[something] is at my disposal\" as a way of indicating that a particular resource is available for my use. My question arises from the word disposal. It seems to imply that the resource is gone once it is used. As in, \"I disposed of the trash\". Another use would be, \"He was going to help me, but was already disposed\". In that case, it seems to mean \"otherwise occupied\" or \"not currently usable\". @mfe pointed out that this usage was incorrect. So I can say, \"The tool is at my disposal\". This naturally seems to mean that while I am using it, others probably can not. If I say, \"The firewood is at my disposal\". It would mean that I am able to permanently deplete the firewood by using it. So the question is, if I'm referring to a resource that can not be used up and a particular use of it does not prevent furtherer use (such as a concept in the mind), is it correct to say that it is \"at my disposal\" simply because I am able to use it? Its also possible that I'm confusing similar terms. Can anyone help me straighten this out.","question":"I found myself using the phrase \"[something] is at my disposal\" as a way of indicating that a particular resource is available for my use. My question arises from the word disposal. It seems to imply that the resource is gone once it is used. As in, \"I disposed of the trash\". Another use would be, \"He was going to help me, but was already disposed\". In that case, it seems to mean \"otherwise occupied\" or \"not currently usable\". @mfe pointed out that this usage was incorrect. So I can say, \"The tool is at my disposal\". This naturally seems to mean that while I am using it, others probably can not. If I say, \"The firewood is at my disposal\". It would mean that I am able to permanently deplete the firewood by using it. So the question is, if I'm referring to a resource that can not be used up and a particular use of it does not prevent furtherer use (such as a concept in the mind), is it correct to say that it is \"at my disposal\" simply because I am able to use it? Its also possible that I'm confusing similar terms. Can anyone help me straighten this out.","answer":"As a correction to your third paragraph, someone who is not available at some point in time is said to be indisposed. I am not sure where \"already disposed\" is used and deemed correct, if anywhere. A thing, service, or person at your disposal may be under your control or available at your convenience. The degree varies with context. We sometimes say \"at my complete disposal\" or \"at your utter disposal\" to intensify the sense of control. To dispose of a thing means to handle it as you see fit. Context is derived from the nature of the thing itself. With firewood, it means depleting the supply as you wish. With a task, e.g., \"please dispose of this matter,\" it means to handle or complete it; how you do it is not important to the speaker. In action movies with bad dialog that is meant to sound dark, disposing of someone means to kill them as if they were a bothersome detail.","output":"As a correction to your third paragraph, someone who is not available at some point in time is said to be indisposed. I am not sure where \"already disposed\" is used and deemed correct, if anywhere. A thing, service, or person at your disposal may be under your control or available at your convenience. The degree varies with context. We sometimes say \"at my complete disposal\" or \"at your utter disposal\" to intensify the sense of control. To dispose of a thing means to handle it as you see fit. Context is derived from the nature of the thing itself. With firewood, it means depleting the supply as you wish. With a task, e.g., \"please dispose of this matter,\" it means to handle or complete it; how you do it is not important to the speaker. In action movies with bad dialog that is meant to sound dark, disposing of someone means to kill them as if they were a bothersome detail."}
{"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\nFrom this resource I find two situational explanations of Past Progressive: \"Interrupted action in the past.\" with an example She was reading a book when the light went off, had a shower and left. And for Past Perfect Progressive: \"To show that something started in the past and continued up until another action stopped it.\" with an example: They had been playing soccer when the accident occurred For me both are kind of interruption. And both were continued up until another action stopped it. Are those bad examples? Or I am missing something? Or second part of Past Progressive (\"had a shower and left.\") is crucial?","question":"From this resource I find two situational explanations of Past Progressive: \"Interrupted action in the past.\" with an example She was reading a book when the light went off, had a shower and left. And for Past Perfect Progressive: \"To show that something started in the past and continued up until another action stopped it.\" with an example: They had been playing soccer when the accident occurred For me both are kind of interruption. And both were continued up until another action stopped it. Are those bad examples? Or I am missing something? Or second part of Past Progressive (\"had a shower and left.\") is crucial?","answer":"The difference is subtle, but there is one. In She was reading a book when the light went off the focus is on the activity at the time of the interruption. In They had been playing soccer when the accident occurred the focus is on the activity in the time before the interruption. But to all intents and purposes the grammatical forms are interchangeable in such contexts. As an aside, the second part of the Past Progressive sentence \"had a shower and left\" is not only of no importance to the choice of construction, it is also somewhat bizarre.","output":"The difference is subtle, but there is one. In She was reading a book when the light went off the focus is on the activity at the time of the interruption. In They had been playing soccer when the accident occurred the focus is on the activity in the time before the interruption. But to all intents and purposes the grammatical forms are interchangeable in such contexts. As an aside, the second part of the Past Progressive sentence \"had a shower and left\" is not only of no importance to the choice of construction, it is also somewhat bizarre."}
{"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":"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":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhy is the following statement valid, and how can I break it down so that it is easier to understand? Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.","question":"Why is the following statement valid, and how can I break it down so that it is easier to understand? Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.","answer":"The word buffalo is interesting because it can be both a singular and a plural noun as well as a verb whose conjugation is the same for both singular and plural subjects, and, when capitalized, the name of a city. Let's replace each instance of buffalo with a different word that acts similarly to the way that instance of buffalo is used and then parse the sentence. Let's replace the verb buffalo with the verb intimidate. Let's replace the noun buffalo with the noun bison. Let's replace the city Buffalo with the city Rochester. Now let's look at the sentence: (and I'll throw in a that to help make it even clearer) Rochester bison [that] Rochester bison intimidate, intimidate Rochester bison. And, of course, Rochester bison means bison who are from the city of Rochester. So we've got some bisonnoun from Rochester who intimidateverb some other bisonnoun from Rochestercity who, in turn, intimidateverb still other bisonnoun from Rochestercity- or maybe it's circular and they're intimidating the first group again. Taking it back to buffalo again we get some buffalonoun from Buffalocity who buffaloverb some other buffalonoun from Buffalocity who, in turn, buffaloverb still other buffalonoun from Buffalocity. Buffalocity buffalonoun Buffalocity buffalonoun buffaloverb buffaloverb Buffalocity buffalonoun. The sentence is not meant to make a lot of sense, it's just supposed to be fun.","output":"The word buffalo is interesting because it can be both a singular and a plural noun as well as a verb whose conjugation is the same for both singular and plural subjects, and, when capitalized, the name of a city. Let's replace each instance of buffalo with a different word that acts similarly to the way that instance of buffalo is used and then parse the sentence. Let's replace the verb buffalo with the verb intimidate. Let's replace the noun buffalo with the noun bison. Let's replace the city Buffalo with the city Rochester. Now let's look at the sentence: (and I'll throw in a that to help make it even clearer) Rochester bison [that] Rochester bison intimidate, intimidate Rochester bison. And, of course, Rochester bison means bison who are from the city of Rochester. So we've got some bisonnoun from Rochester who intimidateverb some other bisonnoun from Rochestercity who, in turn, intimidateverb still other bisonnoun from Rochestercity- or maybe it's circular and they're intimidating the first group again. Taking it back to buffalo again we get some buffalonoun from Buffalocity who buffaloverb some other buffalonoun from Buffalocity who, in turn, buffaloverb still other buffalonoun from Buffalocity. Buffalocity buffalonoun Buffalocity buffalonoun buffaloverb buffaloverb Buffalocity buffalonoun. The sentence is not meant to make a lot of sense, it's just supposed to be fun."}
{"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm writing up some documentation, and I'm unsure which phrase to use: Option X: Find all strings ending with foo. or Option X: Find all strings ending in foo. Are both correct? (Google spits out both, strongly favoring with.) Which should I prefer?","question":"I'm writing up some documentation, and I'm unsure which phrase to use: Option X: Find all strings ending with foo. or Option X: Find all strings ending in foo. Are both correct? (Google spits out both, strongly favoring with.) Which should I prefer?","answer":"\"Ends in\" is acceptable in the sense that words can end in a vowel; end in an \"a\"; etc. This is often shortened to: \"Word\" ends in \"d\" \"Ends with\" seems to fulfill the same use: \"Word\" ends with \"d\" But I typically think of \"ends with\" using larger things than letters: \"This phrase\" ends with \"phrase\" \"This is a sentence\" that ends with \"sentence\" Really, though, both \"in\" and \"with\" are doable: \"Hungry\" and \"angry\" both end in \"gry.\" \"Hungry\" and \"angry\" both end with \"gry.\" The only difference I can find is their usage outside of words: Our journey ends in Texas. Our journey ends with disaster. To directly answer your question, both work just fine in the original context. Some people prefer one over the other; some workplaces will have a strict style guide dictating which should be used. At the end of the day, consistency is more important. As for references, there isn't much to find other than looking at hits via Google. NGram searching for \"ends in\/with c\" shows: But that really doesn't mean much, given the propensity for quirks in searching algorithms. Just browsing pages found by Google is of virtually no help given how often people use both phrases.","output":"\"Ends in\" is acceptable in the sense that words can end in a vowel; end in an \"a\"; etc. This is often shortened to: \"Word\" ends in \"d\" \"Ends with\" seems to fulfill the same use: \"Word\" ends with \"d\" But I typically think of \"ends with\" using larger things than letters: \"This phrase\" ends with \"phrase\" \"This is a sentence\" that ends with \"sentence\" Really, though, both \"in\" and \"with\" are doable: \"Hungry\" and \"angry\" both end in \"gry.\" \"Hungry\" and \"angry\" both end with \"gry.\" The only difference I can find is their usage outside of words: Our journey ends in Texas. Our journey ends with disaster. To directly answer your question, both work just fine in the original context. Some people prefer one over the other; some workplaces will have a strict style guide dictating which should be used. At the end of the day, consistency is more important. As for references, there isn't much to find other than looking at hits via Google. NGram searching for \"ends in\/with c\" shows: But that really doesn't mean much, given the propensity for quirks in searching algorithms. Just browsing pages found by Google is of virtually no help given how often people use both phrases."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was calling you yesterday; you didn\u2019t answer. or I called you yesterday but you didn\u2019t answer.","question":"I was calling you yesterday; you didn\u2019t answer. or I called you yesterday but you didn\u2019t answer.","answer":"Both are grammatical, but a native speaker of US english would be far more likely to use the second form: I called you yesterday, but you didn\u2019t answer. Other possible variants: I called you yesterday, but no one answered. I called you yesterday, but I didn't get an answer. Perhaps because the activity of calling has been completed before the speaker is speaking, \"I called\" is much more common than \"I was calling\" is. This Google Ngram shows that my empirical impression of frequency has a basis.","output":"Both are grammatical, but a native speaker of US english would be far more likely to use the second form: I called you yesterday, but you didn\u2019t answer. Other possible variants: I called you yesterday, but no one answered. I called you yesterday, but I didn't get an answer. Perhaps because the activity of calling has been completed before the speaker is speaking, \"I called\" is much more common than \"I was calling\" is. This Google Ngram shows that my empirical impression of frequency has a basis."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAny time now Nana will show up with the cookies. What is the meaning of \"any time now\"? Should \"any time\" be one word or two? The words seem to conflict and are sort of nebulous because now refers to an exact instance whereas \"any time\" refers to multiple possible instances.","question":"Any time now Nana will show up with the cookies. What is the meaning of \"any time now\"? Should \"any time\" be one word or two? The words seem to conflict and are sort of nebulous because now refers to an exact instance whereas \"any time\" refers to multiple possible instances.","answer":"It means that the event will happen soon; any time from now on - but definitely soon. In fact, \"soon\" is a concise synonym of \"any time now\". \"Any time\" could be consolidated into one word; however, this is unusual. http:\/\/ngrams.googlelabs.com\/chart?content=anytime+now%2Cany+time+now&corpus=0&smoothing=3&year_start=1800&year_end=2000 If you use the expression, I would recommend \"any time now\" rather than \"anytime now\". As to \"now\", it does lend meaning to the phrase, by suggesting that though we are not sure of the exact time, we do know that Nana will come soon. Basically, it means any time from now on; probably sooner than later. Without the \"now\", we would not have any idea of how long we could potentially wait.","output":"It means that the event will happen soon; any time from now on - but definitely soon. In fact, \"soon\" is a concise synonym of \"any time now\". \"Any time\" could be consolidated into one word; however, this is unusual. http:\/\/ngrams.googlelabs.com\/chart?content=anytime+now%2Cany+time+now&corpus=0&smoothing=3&year_start=1800&year_end=2000 If you use the expression, I would recommend \"any time now\" rather than \"anytime now\". As to \"now\", it does lend meaning to the phrase, by suggesting that though we are not sure of the exact time, we do know that Nana will come soon. Basically, it means any time from now on; probably sooner than later. Without the \"now\", we would not have any idea of how long we could potentially wait."}
{"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\nIn this sentence: Bird jumps from one branch to another in a strange wood. I am interested in the part: \"jumps from one branch to another\". Could you tell me some well-known term of such action? So after replacing I'll get: Bird in a strange wood.","question":"In this sentence: Bird jumps from one branch to another in a strange wood. I am interested in the part: \"jumps from one branch to another\". Could you tell me some well-known term of such action? So after replacing I'll get: Bird in a strange wood.","answer":"The bird flitted about in a strange wood.","output":"The bird flitted about in a strange wood."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIt's my brother's first year studying English and the book they use at school has sentences like: A is for Animal B is for Beast C is for Continent D is for Den and so on. Shouldn't we use \" \" (or ' ') when we refer to a single letter inside a sentence? For example: The letter \"A\" is the first letter in the alphabet. or The letter 'A' is the first letter in the alphabet. Are there any cases when we should simply write an \"A\" alone?","question":"It's my brother's first year studying English and the book they use at school has sentences like: A is for Animal B is for Beast C is for Continent D is for Den and so on. Shouldn't we use \" \" (or ' ') when we refer to a single letter inside a sentence? For example: The letter \"A\" is the first letter in the alphabet. or The letter 'A' is the first letter in the alphabet. Are there any cases when we should simply write an \"A\" alone?","answer":"It's a matter of style. UK English tends to use single quotes whereas US tends to use double quotes. There's no additional rule for individual characters. I don't think it's essential to use quotation marks when indicating an individual letter, but it may help for clarity. It helps when distinguishing between single-letter words and single letters, for example.","output":"It's a matter of style. UK English tends to use single quotes whereas US tends to use double quotes. There's no additional rule for individual characters. I don't think it's essential to use quotation marks when indicating an individual letter, but it may help for clarity. It helps when distinguishing between single-letter words and single letters, for example."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"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 go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"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\nUsually a policy will go through different stages: making a draft, being revised, being approved by the government, and then taking effect. Is there a single word for \"taking effect\" of a policy? For example, I was born shortly before the introduction\/enaction\/beginning of some policy. Thanks!","question":"Usually a policy will go through different stages: making a draft, being revised, being approved by the government, and then taking effect. Is there a single word for \"taking effect\" of a policy? For example, I was born shortly before the introduction\/enaction\/beginning of some policy. Thanks!","answer":"A single word for a policy being in effect is simply either of the verbs \"to start\" or \"to begin\". The new policy { starts | begins } on Jan 1, 2015.","output":"A single word for a policy being in effect is simply either of the verbs \"to start\" or \"to begin\". The new policy { starts | begins } on Jan 1, 2015."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMy dream is becoming an English teacher. Do native speakers not think that the person who says that wants to become an English teacher? And, by any chance, do native speakers think that he\/she went to bed and had a dream, and in the dream he\/she became an English teacher? In dictionaries, all examples I could find were: My dream is to become an English teacher.","question":"My dream is becoming an English teacher. Do native speakers not think that the person who says that wants to become an English teacher? And, by any chance, do native speakers think that he\/she went to bed and had a dream, and in the dream he\/she became an English teacher? In dictionaries, all examples I could find were: My dream is to become an English teacher.","answer":"SHORT ANSWER: My dream is becoming an English teacher is not a grammatically acceptable English sentence. LONG ANSWER: This is a licensing matter. That is, there are four clause-types which can act as Noun Phrases; but each verb or adjective or noun which takes an NP complement licenses\u2014that is, accepts\u2014only a subset of these types. The noun dream licenses a somewhat different set as predicate NPs: that clauses: My dream is that I will become an English teacher. to-infinitive clauses: My dream is [for me] to become an English teacher. The verb dream, however, licenses only one type: that clauses: I dream that I will become an English teacher. You cannot say I dream to become an English teacher. On the other hand, you can use the verb dream with a prepositional phrase headed by of + gerund (the -ing form of the verb): I dream of becoming an English teacher. The noun dream also licenses this prepositional construction as a modifying clause: My dream of becoming an English teacher will be dashed if I cannot master the pluperfect. But gerund clauses are not licensed by the noun dream as predicate NPs. If you want to use a gerund NP you must back into it with this awkward construction: My dream is one\/that of becoming an English teacher. My dream is becoming an English teacher is therefore simply nonsensical. It means, literally, that your dream is undergoing the process of being transformed into an English teacher! Unhappily, there\u2019s no way of predicting what constructions any given word will license; you have to learn this word by word. You will find more discussion of licensing here, here, and here","output":"SHORT ANSWER: My dream is becoming an English teacher is not a grammatically acceptable English sentence. LONG ANSWER: This is a licensing matter. That is, there are four clause-types which can act as Noun Phrases; but each verb or adjective or noun which takes an NP complement licenses\u2014that is, accepts\u2014only a subset of these types. The noun dream licenses a somewhat different set as predicate NPs: that clauses: My dream is that I will become an English teacher. to-infinitive clauses: My dream is [for me] to become an English teacher. The verb dream, however, licenses only one type: that clauses: I dream that I will become an English teacher. You cannot say I dream to become an English teacher. On the other hand, you can use the verb dream with a prepositional phrase headed by of + gerund (the -ing form of the verb): I dream of becoming an English teacher. The noun dream also licenses this prepositional construction as a modifying clause: My dream of becoming an English teacher will be dashed if I cannot master the pluperfect. But gerund clauses are not licensed by the noun dream as predicate NPs. If you want to use a gerund NP you must back into it with this awkward construction: My dream is one\/that of becoming an English teacher. My dream is becoming an English teacher is therefore simply nonsensical. It means, literally, that your dream is undergoing the process of being transformed into an English teacher! Unhappily, there\u2019s no way of predicting what constructions any given word will license; you have to learn this word by word. You will find more discussion of licensing here, here, and here"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is an alternative expression for : \"It is easy to acknowledge accuracy to be a very important feature\". The word Accuracy should remain in the sentence. In an academic context.","question":"What is an alternative expression for : \"It is easy to acknowledge accuracy to be a very important feature\". The word Accuracy should remain in the sentence. In an academic context.","answer":"You could try Accuracy is essential. Three words.","output":"You could try Accuracy is essential. Three words."}
{"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 go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAre there adjectives in English that are still adjectives when adding -ly to it? More precisely, I mean words that would be originally adjectives, and that would still be adjectives when adding the -ly suffix to it (even if the meaning is different). For example, elderly is, as elder can be used as an adjective. Lone is as well. Are there others? (I have read this question but it is asking about whether there are nouns that turn into adjectives (as opposed to adverbs) when you add -ly. I'm asking about whether there are adjectives that remain adjectives after adding -ly.)","question":"Are there adjectives in English that are still adjectives when adding -ly to it? More precisely, I mean words that would be originally adjectives, and that would still be adjectives when adding the -ly suffix to it (even if the meaning is different). For example, elderly is, as elder can be used as an adjective. Lone is as well. Are there others? (I have read this question but it is asking about whether there are nouns that turn into adjectives (as opposed to adverbs) when you add -ly. I'm asking about whether there are adjectives that remain adjectives after adding -ly.)","answer":"'elder' is an adjective! I can say 'This is my elder\/eldest sister' at any age (though I would say 'older\/oldest'). Adding 'ly' changes the distribution - we can only say 'My sister is elderly' (not true in my case). Two more that I've found after brief research are 'lone' ('This is the lone ranger' v 'This is the lonely ranger' v 'The ranger is lonely' but *'The ranger is lone') and 'live' ('a live television show' v 'a lively television show' v 'the television show was live' v 'the television show was lively').","output":"'elder' is an adjective! I can say 'This is my elder\/eldest sister' at any age (though I would say 'older\/oldest'). Adding 'ly' changes the distribution - we can only say 'My sister is elderly' (not true in my case). Two more that I've found after brief research are 'lone' ('This is the lone ranger' v 'This is the lonely ranger' v 'The ranger is lonely' but *'The ranger is lone') and 'live' ('a live television show' v 'a lively television show' v 'the television show was live' v 'the television show was lively')."}
{"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\n\u201cYou buried the elf,\u201d he said, sounding unexpectedly rancorous. \u201cI watched you from the window of the bedroom next door.\u201d \u201cYes,\u201d said Harry. Griphook looked at him out of the corners of his slanting black eyes. \u201cYou are an unusual wizard, Harry Potter.\u201d \u201cIn what way?\u201d asked Harry, rubbing his scar absently. \u201cYou dug the grave.\u201d \u201cSo?\u201d Griphook did not answer. Harry rather thought he was being sneered at for acting like a Muggle, but it did not much matter to him whether Griphook approved of Dobby's grave or not. He gathered himself for the attack. \"Griphook, I need to ask - \" \"You also rescued a goblin. \" \"What?\" \"You brought me here. Saved me.\" \"Well, I take it you're not sorry?\" said Harry, a little impatiently. \"No, Harry Potter,\" said Griphook, and with one finger he twisted the thin, black beard upon his chin, \"but you are a very odd wizard.\" .... ... Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows I don't understand what Harry means by \"I take it you're not sorry?\" in this context. How should we understand it?","question":"\u201cYou buried the elf,\u201d he said, sounding unexpectedly rancorous. \u201cI watched you from the window of the bedroom next door.\u201d \u201cYes,\u201d said Harry. Griphook looked at him out of the corners of his slanting black eyes. \u201cYou are an unusual wizard, Harry Potter.\u201d \u201cIn what way?\u201d asked Harry, rubbing his scar absently. \u201cYou dug the grave.\u201d \u201cSo?\u201d Griphook did not answer. Harry rather thought he was being sneered at for acting like a Muggle, but it did not much matter to him whether Griphook approved of Dobby's grave or not. He gathered himself for the attack. \"Griphook, I need to ask - \" \"You also rescued a goblin. \" \"What?\" \"You brought me here. Saved me.\" \"Well, I take it you're not sorry?\" said Harry, a little impatiently. \"No, Harry Potter,\" said Griphook, and with one finger he twisted the thin, black beard upon his chin, \"but you are a very odd wizard.\" .... ... Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows I don't understand what Harry means by \"I take it you're not sorry?\" in this context. How should we understand it?","answer":"Due to his impatience Harry is speaking somewhat rhetorically\/sarcastically. The phrase \"I take it\" means something to the effect of \"I assume\". The context here is that Griphook is \"accusing\" Harry of being unusual. One example he cites as supporting evidence is that Harry saved him. Harry's response to that is that Griphook is almost making it seem as though being saved was a negative thing. What Harry is essentially saying is something like this: Well if you really think it's so bad that I saved you, I could have just let you die. But obviously you don't regret that I saved you \u2013 you're happy to be alive. Therefore let's skip the whole discussion about how unusual I am, and let's get to the point of the conversation. The \"I take it\" part of the original sentence is Harry's assumption that indeed Griphook would rather be saved than not saved.","output":"Due to his impatience Harry is speaking somewhat rhetorically\/sarcastically. The phrase \"I take it\" means something to the effect of \"I assume\". The context here is that Griphook is \"accusing\" Harry of being unusual. One example he cites as supporting evidence is that Harry saved him. Harry's response to that is that Griphook is almost making it seem as though being saved was a negative thing. What Harry is essentially saying is something like this: Well if you really think it's so bad that I saved you, I could have just let you die. But obviously you don't regret that I saved you \u2013 you're happy to be alive. Therefore let's skip the whole discussion about how unusual I am, and let's get to the point of the conversation. The \"I take it\" part of the original sentence is Harry's assumption that indeed Griphook would rather be saved than not saved."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the proper way of starting an email: Hi X, I have a question for you. Or I have a question to you. Google fings 122M of the first version and 45M of the second one.Is the second one always incorrect?","question":"What is the proper way of starting an email: Hi X, I have a question for you. Or I have a question to you. Google fings 122M of the first version and 45M of the second one.Is the second one always incorrect?","answer":"The idiom is overwhelmingly a question for (somebody). You'll sometimes meet the words a question to (someone), but usually in the context of put a question to (someone), where to is designating the indirect object the the verb put, not part of the noun phrase a question. ie. I have [a question for you]. but I will put [a question] to you. I guess that the majority of the 45M examples you found were from people who did not have English as their first language.","output":"The idiom is overwhelmingly a question for (somebody). You'll sometimes meet the words a question to (someone), but usually in the context of put a question to (someone), where to is designating the indirect object the the verb put, not part of the noun phrase a question. ie. I have [a question for you]. but I will put [a question] to you. I guess that the majority of the 45M examples you found were from people who did not have English as their first language."}
{"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\nHere are examples: Johann Gutenberg printed the famous Gutenberg Bible, the first book to be printed in movable type in Europe. Johann Gutenberg printed the famous Gutenberg Bible, the first book printed in movable type in Europe. Johann Gutenberg printed the famous Gutenberg Bible, the first book that was printed in movable type in Europe.","question":"Here are examples: Johann Gutenberg printed the famous Gutenberg Bible, the first book to be printed in movable type in Europe. Johann Gutenberg printed the famous Gutenberg Bible, the first book printed in movable type in Europe. Johann Gutenberg printed the famous Gutenberg Bible, the first book that was printed in movable type in Europe.","answer":"As a native American English speaker, I hear all three sentences as almost indistinguishable. The differences are very subtle. The first one has a ceremonial feel. The phrasing \u201cthe first to be\u2026\u201d carries the connotation of being special and important. That's probably the best choice for this topic. The third sentence might be just a little awkward, since printed gets reduced emphasis by being in a relative clause, but printing is probably the main concept that you want to emphasize in this sentence. If you want a general guideline, here are two thoughts. First, you can ignore this kind of difference most of the time. A beginner should ignore these differences before mastering the grammar. Second, this kind of difference gives you options that you can exploit for aesthetics and emphasis. For example, this sentence has parallel meanings but lacks grammatical parallelism: The house had walls that were painted purple, a roof leaking water, and a front door to be replaced. It's more elegant, stronger, and clearer if you use the same construction each time, like this: The house had walls that were painted purple, a roof that leaked water, and a front door that needed replacement. Recurring rhythm is an important rhetorical device, and the options provided by grammar give you a lot of opportunities to create recurring rhythm. Another aesthetic use of these kinds of grammatical options is to make a line of poetry scan (that is, fit the rhythmic pattern of the poem). I find this revision a little stronger and more elegant, perhaps because it ends on a stressed syllable, and rhythm is often more satisfying when the last element of a list has more beats: The house had walls that were painted purple, a roof that leaked water, and a front door that needed to be replaced. Exploiting grammatical flexibility for rhetorical effect goes beyond plain communication and into excellence in speech and writing. I think it probably takes several years' experience to develop enough of an ear for the language to do it well.","output":"As a native American English speaker, I hear all three sentences as almost indistinguishable. The differences are very subtle. The first one has a ceremonial feel. The phrasing \u201cthe first to be\u2026\u201d carries the connotation of being special and important. That's probably the best choice for this topic. The third sentence might be just a little awkward, since printed gets reduced emphasis by being in a relative clause, but printing is probably the main concept that you want to emphasize in this sentence. If you want a general guideline, here are two thoughts. First, you can ignore this kind of difference most of the time. A beginner should ignore these differences before mastering the grammar. Second, this kind of difference gives you options that you can exploit for aesthetics and emphasis. For example, this sentence has parallel meanings but lacks grammatical parallelism: The house had walls that were painted purple, a roof leaking water, and a front door to be replaced. It's more elegant, stronger, and clearer if you use the same construction each time, like this: The house had walls that were painted purple, a roof that leaked water, and a front door that needed replacement. Recurring rhythm is an important rhetorical device, and the options provided by grammar give you a lot of opportunities to create recurring rhythm. Another aesthetic use of these kinds of grammatical options is to make a line of poetry scan (that is, fit the rhythmic pattern of the poem). I find this revision a little stronger and more elegant, perhaps because it ends on a stressed syllable, and rhythm is often more satisfying when the last element of a list has more beats: The house had walls that were painted purple, a roof that leaked water, and a front door that needed to be replaced. Exploiting grammatical flexibility for rhetorical effect goes beyond plain communication and into excellence in speech and writing. I think it probably takes several years' experience to develop enough of an ear for the language to do it well."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI need to know if there is a word to refer to someone who doesn't want study anything, who is a bad student etc. Example: He was a bad student because he didn't study anything. I would like know if I can replace \"didn't study anything\" with an adjective.","question":"I need to know if there is a word to refer to someone who doesn't want study anything, who is a bad student etc. Example: He was a bad student because he didn't study anything. I would like know if I can replace \"didn't study anything\" with an adjective.","answer":"The common word lazy can apply here. lazy : not liking or willing to act or work He was a bad student because he was lazy. In this context, lazy implies that he did not do his work or study. Specifically, to suggest that a student did not want to study, you could say disinterested : not having the mind or feelings engaged : not interested He was a bad student because he was disinterested (in school, studies, etc). apathetic : having little or no interest or concern : indifferent He was a bad student because he was apathetic (towards school, studies, etc).","output":"The common word lazy can apply here. lazy : not liking or willing to act or work He was a bad student because he was lazy. In this context, lazy implies that he did not do his work or study. Specifically, to suggest that a student did not want to study, you could say disinterested : not having the mind or feelings engaged : not interested He was a bad student because he was disinterested (in school, studies, etc). apathetic : having little or no interest or concern : indifferent He was a bad student because he was apathetic (towards school, studies, etc)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nLooking for a single word that means doing something but not totally finishing whatever it is. Like if one is studying for an exam, that person won't review everything, he\/she will just review certain parts of a lecture for the time being. Edit: I don't mean it like it is a bad thing. What I'm trying to say on the example is to review for an exam little by little on multiple times.","question":"Looking for a single word that means doing something but not totally finishing whatever it is. Like if one is studying for an exam, that person won't review everything, he\/she will just review certain parts of a lecture for the time being. Edit: I don't mean it like it is a bad thing. What I'm trying to say on the example is to review for an exam little by little on multiple times.","answer":"Incrementally Incremental, according to Merriam Webster: of, relating to, being, or occurring in especially small increments [e.g.] incremental additions Vocabulary.com says: If you are making incremental progress in math, you are moving slowly but steadily forward. Incremental describes regular, measurable movements that are usually small Incrementally is doing things by increments. In your case you are reviewing your course-work incrementally, in easy to absorb bite-size portions. Doing this for a week is better in the long run than cramming for hours the night before an exam; you will retain more.","output":"Incrementally Incremental, according to Merriam Webster: of, relating to, being, or occurring in especially small increments [e.g.] incremental additions Vocabulary.com says: If you are making incremental progress in math, you are moving slowly but steadily forward. Incremental describes regular, measurable movements that are usually small Incrementally is doing things by increments. In your case you are reviewing your course-work incrementally, in easy to absorb bite-size portions. Doing this for a week is better in the long run than cramming for hours the night before an exam; you will retain more."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am looking for a term that means ultimate parent, in the context of the last in a line of parent-of parent-of parent-of a subject. An example sentence this word or phrase would be used: Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah and so on, but the _____________ of all of them is Adam. I could make something up like ultimate ancestor or root ancestor, borrowing the latter term from OS filesystem nomenclature, but I'd prefer a word that already exists for this purpose.","question":"I am looking for a term that means ultimate parent, in the context of the last in a line of parent-of parent-of parent-of a subject. An example sentence this word or phrase would be used: Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah and so on, but the _____________ of all of them is Adam. I could make something up like ultimate ancestor or root ancestor, borrowing the latter term from OS filesystem nomenclature, but I'd prefer a word that already exists for this purpose.","answer":"I'd say the word your looking for is primogenitor, or possibly progenitor, which are seen as synonyms by Oxford Dictionary: From https:\/\/en.oxforddictionaries.com\/definition\/primogenitor primogenitor NOUN An ancestor, especially the earliest ancestor of a people; a progenitor. progenitor NOUN 1A person or thing from which a person, animal, or plant is descended or originates; an ancestor or parent. \u2018his children were the progenitors of many of Scotland's noble families\u2019 I like primogenitor better, because it is rooted in the root primo-, meaning \"first.\"","output":"I'd say the word your looking for is primogenitor, or possibly progenitor, which are seen as synonyms by Oxford Dictionary: From https:\/\/en.oxforddictionaries.com\/definition\/primogenitor primogenitor NOUN An ancestor, especially the earliest ancestor of a people; a progenitor. progenitor NOUN 1A person or thing from which a person, animal, or plant is descended or originates; an ancestor or parent. \u2018his children were the progenitors of many of Scotland's noble families\u2019 I like primogenitor better, because it is rooted in the root primo-, meaning \"first.\""}
{"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\nDon't native speakers in some regions pronounce [\u014b] simultaneously with the [n] sound in order to connect it without releasing the \"g\"? For instance, can the word \"singer\" instead of s\u026a\u014b\u00b7\u0259r, be pronounced more like s\u026a\u014bn\u00b7\u0259r? I'm asking because every time I try to pronounce that word, the \"g\" sound is released automatically, even though it's very slight, and the only way to avoid it is adding the \"n\" sound. My native language is Russian.","question":"Don't native speakers in some regions pronounce [\u014b] simultaneously with the [n] sound in order to connect it without releasing the \"g\"? For instance, can the word \"singer\" instead of s\u026a\u014b\u00b7\u0259r, be pronounced more like s\u026a\u014bn\u00b7\u0259r? I'm asking because every time I try to pronounce that word, the \"g\" sound is released automatically, even though it's very slight, and the only way to avoid it is adding the \"n\" sound. My native language is Russian.","answer":"Firstly, native English speakers do not add an extra n after the \/\u014b\/ in the word singer, though some do have the same issue as you with having difficulty producing \/\u014b\/ in the middle of words like singer and singing. The \"ng\" sound in medial and final word position can be challenging for native Russian speakers. What's happening is that \/\u014b\/ is a continuant sound, and if you release the tongue from the sealed position for the \/\u014b\/ while you are still producing airflow, you will make a \/g\/ or \/k\/ sound because the release of the built-up air produces the sound. The way to avoid this problem is to begin to shape the vowel for the \"-er\" before releasing the \/\u014b\/ tongue position, and to release the tongue gently into the vowel. If no air is allowed to build up, the plosive\/stop g sound will not be produced. You can hear the pronunciation of singer in this video: https:\/\/youtu.be\/c-3HtmE5muY and get more information about the \/\u014b\/ phoneme in American English in this video: https:\/\/youtu.be\/-DZ5GICTHVU I will be making a more specific video to help with words with \"-nger\" and \"-inging\" in the future, as I have heard from many Russian and other non-native speakers that these are particularly difficult to make without the \"g\" sound intruding. I'll add it to this post as an edit when it's complete.","output":"Firstly, native English speakers do not add an extra n after the \/\u014b\/ in the word singer, though some do have the same issue as you with having difficulty producing \/\u014b\/ in the middle of words like singer and singing. The \"ng\" sound in medial and final word position can be challenging for native Russian speakers. What's happening is that \/\u014b\/ is a continuant sound, and if you release the tongue from the sealed position for the \/\u014b\/ while you are still producing airflow, you will make a \/g\/ or \/k\/ sound because the release of the built-up air produces the sound. The way to avoid this problem is to begin to shape the vowel for the \"-er\" before releasing the \/\u014b\/ tongue position, and to release the tongue gently into the vowel. If no air is allowed to build up, the plosive\/stop g sound will not be produced. You can hear the pronunciation of singer in this video: https:\/\/youtu.be\/c-3HtmE5muY and get more information about the \/\u014b\/ phoneme in American English in this video: https:\/\/youtu.be\/-DZ5GICTHVU I will be making a more specific video to help with words with \"-nger\" and \"-inging\" in the future, as I have heard from many Russian and other non-native speakers that these are particularly difficult to make without the \"g\" sound intruding. I'll add it to this post as an edit when it's complete."}
{"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\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nConsider: The conclusion is contrary to what you expected. The conclusion is contrary to what you would expect. The conclusion is contrary to what you would have expected. Who would have expected such a counterintuitive conclusion? In coloquial register, I would think Examples 2, 3 and 4 mean the same, right? But in a more formal register, can I say that Example 2 refers to an present real expectation and Example 3 and 4 refer to a past real expectation? Are there any implicit conditionals implied in Examples 2, 3 and 4? Say, if you were told or given some clue, you would expect such-and-such.. If it is true that there are any, then Examples 2, 3 and 4 refer to irrealis expectations, right?","question":"Consider: The conclusion is contrary to what you expected. The conclusion is contrary to what you would expect. The conclusion is contrary to what you would have expected. Who would have expected such a counterintuitive conclusion? In coloquial register, I would think Examples 2, 3 and 4 mean the same, right? But in a more formal register, can I say that Example 2 refers to an present real expectation and Example 3 and 4 refer to a past real expectation? Are there any implicit conditionals implied in Examples 2, 3 and 4? Say, if you were told or given some clue, you would expect such-and-such.. If it is true that there are any, then Examples 2, 3 and 4 refer to irrealis expectations, right?","answer":"You've got it pretty much right; but I think that the equivalence of 2 and 3 is a matter not of register but of semantics and pragmatics. Sentence 2 reflects a present conditional; You would expect conclusion X if you were presented these premises. Sentence 3 reflects a past conditional: You would have expected conclusion X if you had been presented these premises. Practically speaking, however, these amount to the same thing: any reasonable person at any time would draw the same inference from the same premises. There is a difference between the two only if something in the context marks the conclusion as historically contingent. The conclusion which 18th-century philosophes drew is contrary to what you would expect if you were presented these premises today. The conclusion you draw today is contrary to what you would have expected if you had been presented these premises in the 18th century.","output":"You've got it pretty much right; but I think that the equivalence of 2 and 3 is a matter not of register but of semantics and pragmatics. Sentence 2 reflects a present conditional; You would expect conclusion X if you were presented these premises. Sentence 3 reflects a past conditional: You would have expected conclusion X if you had been presented these premises. Practically speaking, however, these amount to the same thing: any reasonable person at any time would draw the same inference from the same premises. There is a difference between the two only if something in the context marks the conclusion as historically contingent. The conclusion which 18th-century philosophes drew is contrary to what you would expect if you were presented these premises today. The conclusion you draw today is contrary to what you would have expected if you had been presented these premises in the 18th century."}
{"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 verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"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":"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 a monthly phone subscription, and I need to recharge it. Since I have not yet paid for it, the service is only working one-way. Meaning that I can only receive calls, but I cannot make any calls. Is there a word or phrase to for this situation?","question":"I have a monthly phone subscription, and I need to recharge it. Since I have not yet paid for it, the service is only working one-way. Meaning that I can only receive calls, but I cannot make any calls. Is there a word or phrase to for this situation?","answer":"This phrase should work for you: You have failed to pay your bill, so your service is restricted to incoming calls only. EDIT: As suggested by @Hot Licks, you can also use \"inbound\" instead of \"incoming\".","output":"This phrase should work for you: You have failed to pay your bill, so your service is restricted to incoming calls only. EDIT: As suggested by @Hot Licks, you can also use \"inbound\" instead of \"incoming\"."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"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\nI'm looking for a single word or a phrase that means \"Things to do \/ tasks\". It can be an English word or phrase, or a neologism: todolist, thingslist, etc. Or a word that means \"a task or item of work done while travelling\".","question":"I'm looking for a single word or a phrase that means \"Things to do \/ tasks\". It can be an English word or phrase, or a neologism: todolist, thingslist, etc. Or a word that means \"a task or item of work done while travelling\".","answer":"Agenda (Latin gerundive - neuter plural of agendum) - things which are to be done.","output":"Agenda (Latin gerundive - neuter plural of agendum) - things which are to be done."}
{"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 was reading some essays the other day written in the late 1940s and early 1950s, in which the phrase Near East (meaning Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc) recurred quite frequently. It then occurred to me that I hadn't heard that name recently, as it seems to have been replaced by Middle East. So I wonder: when, and why, did the Near East become the Middle East? It hasn't moved, after all.","question":"I was reading some essays the other day written in the late 1940s and early 1950s, in which the phrase Near East (meaning Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc) recurred quite frequently. It then occurred to me that I hadn't heard that name recently, as it seems to have been replaced by Middle East. So I wonder: when, and why, did the Near East become the Middle East? It hasn't moved, after all.","answer":"The Middle East or Mideast is a region that encompasses Western Asia and Northern Africa.The term is considered to be Eurocentric and used as a synonym for Near East, in opposition to Far East. The corresponding adjective is Middle-Eastern and the derived noun is Middle-Easterner. Middle East Near East","output":"The Middle East or Mideast is a region that encompasses Western Asia and Northern Africa.The term is considered to be Eurocentric and used as a synonym for Near East, in opposition to Far East. The corresponding adjective is Middle-Eastern and the derived noun is Middle-Easterner. Middle East Near East"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"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\nWhen pronouncing the expression \"I'll say\", on which word I should put the emphasis?","question":"When pronouncing the expression \"I'll say\", on which word I should put the emphasis?","answer":"In the idiomatic phrase \"I'll say\" meaning \"I agree\", the emphasis is on I'll, with an elongated vowel sound. Note that this is not the case for I'll say when not used as part of the idiomatic expression meaning I agree. For example \"I'll say I love you\" has no such stress on the word I'll.","output":"In the idiomatic phrase \"I'll say\" meaning \"I agree\", the emphasis is on I'll, with an elongated vowel sound. Note that this is not the case for I'll say when not used as part of the idiomatic expression meaning I agree. For example \"I'll say I love you\" has no such stress on the word I'll."}
{"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\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"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\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow to pronounce \"Chicago\"? I have 2 issues with it. First is how to pronounce the \"Ch\" in \"Chicago\". I have heard it pronounced as in \"cheese\", but also as in \"ship\" by the natives. Second is how to pronounce the \"a\" in \"Chicago\". SHould it be \"a\" as in \"Albert\" or \"a\" as in \"I am\"? Are there any differences between AE and BE or other \"accents\"?","question":"How to pronounce \"Chicago\"? I have 2 issues with it. First is how to pronounce the \"Ch\" in \"Chicago\". I have heard it pronounced as in \"cheese\", but also as in \"ship\" by the natives. Second is how to pronounce the \"a\" in \"Chicago\". SHould it be \"a\" as in \"Albert\" or \"a\" as in \"I am\"? Are there any differences between AE and BE or other \"accents\"?","answer":"Any good dictionary will provide you a pronunciation guide. Online dictionaries have an advantage over print editions: they can embed audio files for additional help. Pronunciation guides list all of these as valid pronunciations: \/SHi\u02c8k\u00f4g\u014d, -\u02c8k\u00e4g\u014d\/ (from ODO) \u0283\u0259\u02c8k\u0251go\u028a ; t\u0283\u026a\u02c8k\u0254go\u028a (from Collins, American edition) \u0283\u026a\u02c8k\u0251\u02d0\u0261\u0259\u028a (from Collins, British edition) (If some those symbols are confusing to you, look here). Anyhow, the \"Ch\" is almost invariably pronounced with an \"Sh\" sound, much like chagrin and champagne, although a few might use the traditional \"Ch\" sound, as at least one dictionary listed that as an alternate pronunciation. As for the vowels, you may hear slight variations; regional accents may apply. Probably the best place to answer a question like this one is Forvo, where you can hear numerous anglophones (in this case, 10) take a crack at letting you know how to pronounce the name of that Windy City.","output":"Any good dictionary will provide you a pronunciation guide. Online dictionaries have an advantage over print editions: they can embed audio files for additional help. Pronunciation guides list all of these as valid pronunciations: \/SHi\u02c8k\u00f4g\u014d, -\u02c8k\u00e4g\u014d\/ (from ODO) \u0283\u0259\u02c8k\u0251go\u028a ; t\u0283\u026a\u02c8k\u0254go\u028a (from Collins, American edition) \u0283\u026a\u02c8k\u0251\u02d0\u0261\u0259\u028a (from Collins, British edition) (If some those symbols are confusing to you, look here). Anyhow, the \"Ch\" is almost invariably pronounced with an \"Sh\" sound, much like chagrin and champagne, although a few might use the traditional \"Ch\" sound, as at least one dictionary listed that as an alternate pronunciation. As for the vowels, you may hear slight variations; regional accents may apply. Probably the best place to answer a question like this one is Forvo, where you can hear numerous anglophones (in this case, 10) take a crack at letting you know how to pronounce the name of that Windy City."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI would like to know the exact meaning of forthcoming. Is it denotes for something will happen in hours, days or months? For example: This piece of music is from my forthcoming album. How can I view my Forthcoming Projects? How long it takes forthcoming in the first and second sentences? Is it depends on the meaning of sentence?","question":"I would like to know the exact meaning of forthcoming. Is it denotes for something will happen in hours, days or months? For example: This piece of music is from my forthcoming album. How can I view my Forthcoming Projects? How long it takes forthcoming in the first and second sentences? Is it depends on the meaning of sentence?","answer":"In this context forthcoming means \"about to happen\", \"about to appear\", or \"approaching in time\", but it doesn't denote a specific time frame. It could be hours, days, or months. The nature of a particular event may imply a time frame, for example if I said something about \"our forthcoming meal\", presumably we would be eating within a couple of hours, not next month. If I said something about \"our forthcoming baby\" that could still be a few months away, but not more than eight months away (assuming the pregnancy was confirmed after one month). If we're already sitting in the audience then the \"forthcoming performance\" of a play might be just minutes away. This piece of music is from my forthcoming album. Some decades ago musical albums were recorded in a matter of days or weeks, but these days many artists take months to complete the recording process - more than a year in some cases. Once recorded, an album won't actually be available for sale until the cover artwork is complete, CDs have been manufactured and shipped to shops, MP3s have been lined up for download, etc. So a \"forthcoming album\" may not be due for a few months. Or it could be due next week. Some artists don't release CDs, they only do MP3s online, so their albums can be made available more quickly. From that one sentence we can't tell, though I would assume production is well underway or nearly complete. How can I view my Forthcoming Projects? Without knowing the nature of the projects we really can't tell how long it will be until they happen. In some fields an individual project may take months. In some fields an individual project may take days. Forthcoming projects presumably will happen after current projects have been completed.","output":"In this context forthcoming means \"about to happen\", \"about to appear\", or \"approaching in time\", but it doesn't denote a specific time frame. It could be hours, days, or months. The nature of a particular event may imply a time frame, for example if I said something about \"our forthcoming meal\", presumably we would be eating within a couple of hours, not next month. If I said something about \"our forthcoming baby\" that could still be a few months away, but not more than eight months away (assuming the pregnancy was confirmed after one month). If we're already sitting in the audience then the \"forthcoming performance\" of a play might be just minutes away. This piece of music is from my forthcoming album. Some decades ago musical albums were recorded in a matter of days or weeks, but these days many artists take months to complete the recording process - more than a year in some cases. Once recorded, an album won't actually be available for sale until the cover artwork is complete, CDs have been manufactured and shipped to shops, MP3s have been lined up for download, etc. So a \"forthcoming album\" may not be due for a few months. Or it could be due next week. Some artists don't release CDs, they only do MP3s online, so their albums can be made available more quickly. From that one sentence we can't tell, though I would assume production is well underway or nearly complete. How can I view my Forthcoming Projects? Without knowing the nature of the projects we really can't tell how long it will be until they happen. In some fields an individual project may take months. In some fields an individual project may take days. Forthcoming projects presumably will happen after current projects have been completed."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe're looking for a suitable synonym for cluster as in \"a cluster of applications\" within our enterprise architecture. We don't want to use \"cluster\" itself since this can be misunderstood to mean a cluster of physical servers. Our rejected options are bunch bundle set pack platform constellation Edit to add more technical context: These are not desktop applications or products, but elements within the overall enterprise such as a JMS application, a web portal, a CMS and so on. What should the synonym be?","question":"We're looking for a suitable synonym for cluster as in \"a cluster of applications\" within our enterprise architecture. We don't want to use \"cluster\" itself since this can be misunderstood to mean a cluster of physical servers. Our rejected options are bunch bundle set pack platform constellation Edit to add more technical context: These are not desktop applications or products, but elements within the overall enterprise such as a JMS application, a web portal, a CMS and so on. What should the synonym be?","answer":"If they are related to each other, consider family. (Also suite, already suggested by somebody else.)","output":"If they are related to each other, consider family. (Also suite, already suggested by somebody else.)"}
{"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\nWikipedia defines Ceteris paribus as: a Latin phrase meaning \"with other things the same\" or \"other things being equal or held constant\". It has always struck me as strange that we (primarily Economists, but it crops up elsewhere too, usually in academia) need a Latin phrase to stand in for the seemingly clear English statements the definition provides. To me, it has always obfuscated more than it clarifies. I'm curious why this phrase is used, if there is an advantage to using it over one of the equivalent English phrases, and in particular would love to see examples where ceteris paribus conveys the author's intent more clearly than the alternatives might. Edit: I suppose I should clarify; there are certainly many usages of Latin throughout modern English, however generally speaking these usages are more concise, or describe a concept that doesn't directly map to English. Perhaps it is simply my perception, but ceteris paribus has always struck me as more confusing than the equivalent English. For example, there's not (much of) a difference between etc. and and so on, but the former is both more concise and in common usage. I'm asking if there's a clear distinction or reason for using ceteris paribus, if the answer is \"Nope, it's just so you can sound smarter \/ demonstrate you're in the I-know-what-this-means club\" that's fine by me, I just didn't want to assume that.","question":"Wikipedia defines Ceteris paribus as: a Latin phrase meaning \"with other things the same\" or \"other things being equal or held constant\". It has always struck me as strange that we (primarily Economists, but it crops up elsewhere too, usually in academia) need a Latin phrase to stand in for the seemingly clear English statements the definition provides. To me, it has always obfuscated more than it clarifies. I'm curious why this phrase is used, if there is an advantage to using it over one of the equivalent English phrases, and in particular would love to see examples where ceteris paribus conveys the author's intent more clearly than the alternatives might. Edit: I suppose I should clarify; there are certainly many usages of Latin throughout modern English, however generally speaking these usages are more concise, or describe a concept that doesn't directly map to English. Perhaps it is simply my perception, but ceteris paribus has always struck me as more confusing than the equivalent English. For example, there's not (much of) a difference between etc. and and so on, but the former is both more concise and in common usage. I'm asking if there's a clear distinction or reason for using ceteris paribus, if the answer is \"Nope, it's just so you can sound smarter \/ demonstrate you're in the I-know-what-this-means club\" that's fine by me, I just didn't want to assume that.","answer":"It is not in itself clearer than any of the phrases your mentioned. But it is internationally recognised and has a fixed, established meaning that everyone recognises immediately. The very fact that it is Latin alerts the reader that it is a special term with a fixed meaning, which is convenient, ceteris paribus. The same applies to other terms, such as a priori, mutatis mutandis, and alea jacta est.","output":"It is not in itself clearer than any of the phrases your mentioned. But it is internationally recognised and has a fixed, established meaning that everyone recognises immediately. The very fact that it is Latin alerts the reader that it is a special term with a fixed meaning, which is convenient, ceteris paribus. The same applies to other terms, such as a priori, mutatis mutandis, and alea jacta est."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHere in Brazil we call people like this \"puxa-saco\" (bag dragger?), meaning someone who invariably sides with and supports their bosses, often going against co-workers or employees in general, in an attempt to get recognition, be promoted, whatever. Often the boss doesn't trust them, but keeps them around as a self-maintained policing agent. Often they are quickly fired too. Today I had an experience with a person like this. I went to see a person who happens to own a property around here and they were there, but sleeping. All I wanted to do was to ask for permission to enter the property and take close-up pictures from some beautiful trees inside the property. I was received by an employee and he was extremely concerned about my presence there and my wanting to take photos therein. He talked and acted as if it was a mortal sin to ask that and even told me his boss would call the police if he saw anyone inside the property... Except that I was going there specifically to ask for permission. I bet his boss wouldn't be half as worried as he was, at most he would deny me permission to enter the property, which is fine. So that's what I wanted to know. Employees who act like that, what would you call them in English? EDIT: First, thanks for all the answers so far. I haven't decided yet which is better but all people who answered my question so far gave valuable answers. It seems, however, that some people need more context on what I said, as they inferred stuff I did not write, or somehow understood me in a way I did not intend to be perceived. DESCRIPTION The property lay by the road, at the town's entrance. There are no walls, only a barbed wire fence around the pasture, and walking further, alongside the road, there's an alley that leads into the property. Down that alley there are some stables and a house somewhere behind them. The owner sells some goods he produces there, like milk and manure, a lad well known to the city folks. There was no reason for the employee to be concerned. I met him as he was walking the alley up and out the property. As I see him I walk it down, but no further than he himself has walked up, then I stop, clearly signalling I wait him so we can talk. As he gets near me he says nothing, so I say hi and politely ask him over his boss' whereabouts. He looked calm, on an okay mood until then, but immediately frowns upon me and tells me upfront that his boss was sleeping, as if it was personal to him that his boss not be disturbed. That struck me as odd though, it was 3 in the noon and the day was bright, who sleeps by then!? Not impossible, but not customary either... He proceeds to ask me why I want to see him, acting passive aggressively already, while I just don't get why. I tell him why, he gets even more so... the most awkward! Soon I'm talking to this pretentious mediator between a plebeian and some sort of king. If I could describe his stance with one word, it's unnecessary... To make it all the more comic, the guy's wearing old work outfits, full of manure and dirt, the vision of an unimpressive rural worker. Totally okay, don't get me wrong, except that he acts as if he's the property manager and instead of a small farm, the whole matter is about a mansion or a castle... At that moment I wished I had his boss walking up the alley instead, I sure would have had a better conversation... EDIT 2: I think the more info I add, the harder it's getting for readers to understand the context. Bear in mind that when one experiences a situation, there are emotional and non-verbal cues that can't be transmitted in full via a written account. I was there and know the undertones of the situation. I felt offended by someone to whom I acted kind and respectful. I bet there's a ton of people around who'd just hop over the fence and take the photos right away. Now, I said something about the lad's clothes and may have gotten misinterpreted. There's nothing wrong with working in farms and getting dirty. I myself work in the farms during the rainy seasons, and I get home just as dirty. That's a common job around here, the town has only 4 thousand inhabitants and most of us live off rural activities, my family included. My father, for instance, produces and sells vegetables. The problem I was trying to portray is that I felt disgusted by the lad's attitude. Looking at him made me feel even more disgusted... \"Who the hell does he think he is?\" was my thought. I went there to ask for permission, exactly because I didn't want to be invasive, trespassing someone else's property. I know his boss is cool. During weekdays, people walk down that alley to buy cabbages, milk and such from him. The thing is, it was saturday, and I was going to take photos, so that might bother the owner, so let me not do that and ask what his thoughts are first, I thought. Then as soon as that man learns what my purposes are, immediately frowns at me and gets pretentious, conceited, curt and unfriendly, talking in a kind of angry, agressive undertonte and purporting himself to be great mediator between a presumed idiot who wants to take photos from trees (because who does these silly things anyway?) and the most important personality in the town. That's how it felt. It was uncomfortable, I felt offended and I didn't understand the need for him to act like that towards me. As I got home I was still thinking about that weirdo. I was not resented, but thought to myself: \"That was a great puxa-saco I met there\". Immediately afterwards I thought it might be exciting to know what word might be like \"puxa-saco\" in English. So I turned the computer on and asked this question... I hope I was clear this time around.","question":"Here in Brazil we call people like this \"puxa-saco\" (bag dragger?), meaning someone who invariably sides with and supports their bosses, often going against co-workers or employees in general, in an attempt to get recognition, be promoted, whatever. Often the boss doesn't trust them, but keeps them around as a self-maintained policing agent. Often they are quickly fired too. Today I had an experience with a person like this. I went to see a person who happens to own a property around here and they were there, but sleeping. All I wanted to do was to ask for permission to enter the property and take close-up pictures from some beautiful trees inside the property. I was received by an employee and he was extremely concerned about my presence there and my wanting to take photos therein. He talked and acted as if it was a mortal sin to ask that and even told me his boss would call the police if he saw anyone inside the property... Except that I was going there specifically to ask for permission. I bet his boss wouldn't be half as worried as he was, at most he would deny me permission to enter the property, which is fine. So that's what I wanted to know. Employees who act like that, what would you call them in English? EDIT: First, thanks for all the answers so far. I haven't decided yet which is better but all people who answered my question so far gave valuable answers. It seems, however, that some people need more context on what I said, as they inferred stuff I did not write, or somehow understood me in a way I did not intend to be perceived. DESCRIPTION The property lay by the road, at the town's entrance. There are no walls, only a barbed wire fence around the pasture, and walking further, alongside the road, there's an alley that leads into the property. Down that alley there are some stables and a house somewhere behind them. The owner sells some goods he produces there, like milk and manure, a lad well known to the city folks. There was no reason for the employee to be concerned. I met him as he was walking the alley up and out the property. As I see him I walk it down, but no further than he himself has walked up, then I stop, clearly signalling I wait him so we can talk. As he gets near me he says nothing, so I say hi and politely ask him over his boss' whereabouts. He looked calm, on an okay mood until then, but immediately frowns upon me and tells me upfront that his boss was sleeping, as if it was personal to him that his boss not be disturbed. That struck me as odd though, it was 3 in the noon and the day was bright, who sleeps by then!? Not impossible, but not customary either... He proceeds to ask me why I want to see him, acting passive aggressively already, while I just don't get why. I tell him why, he gets even more so... the most awkward! Soon I'm talking to this pretentious mediator between a plebeian and some sort of king. If I could describe his stance with one word, it's unnecessary... To make it all the more comic, the guy's wearing old work outfits, full of manure and dirt, the vision of an unimpressive rural worker. Totally okay, don't get me wrong, except that he acts as if he's the property manager and instead of a small farm, the whole matter is about a mansion or a castle... At that moment I wished I had his boss walking up the alley instead, I sure would have had a better conversation... EDIT 2: I think the more info I add, the harder it's getting for readers to understand the context. Bear in mind that when one experiences a situation, there are emotional and non-verbal cues that can't be transmitted in full via a written account. I was there and know the undertones of the situation. I felt offended by someone to whom I acted kind and respectful. I bet there's a ton of people around who'd just hop over the fence and take the photos right away. Now, I said something about the lad's clothes and may have gotten misinterpreted. There's nothing wrong with working in farms and getting dirty. I myself work in the farms during the rainy seasons, and I get home just as dirty. That's a common job around here, the town has only 4 thousand inhabitants and most of us live off rural activities, my family included. My father, for instance, produces and sells vegetables. The problem I was trying to portray is that I felt disgusted by the lad's attitude. Looking at him made me feel even more disgusted... \"Who the hell does he think he is?\" was my thought. I went there to ask for permission, exactly because I didn't want to be invasive, trespassing someone else's property. I know his boss is cool. During weekdays, people walk down that alley to buy cabbages, milk and such from him. The thing is, it was saturday, and I was going to take photos, so that might bother the owner, so let me not do that and ask what his thoughts are first, I thought. Then as soon as that man learns what my purposes are, immediately frowns at me and gets pretentious, conceited, curt and unfriendly, talking in a kind of angry, agressive undertonte and purporting himself to be great mediator between a presumed idiot who wants to take photos from trees (because who does these silly things anyway?) and the most important personality in the town. That's how it felt. It was uncomfortable, I felt offended and I didn't understand the need for him to act like that towards me. As I got home I was still thinking about that weirdo. I was not resented, but thought to myself: \"That was a great puxa-saco I met there\". Immediately afterwards I thought it might be exciting to know what word might be like \"puxa-saco\" in English. So I turned the computer on and asked this question... I hope I was clear this time around.","answer":"brown-nose (brown-noser) informal an extremely obsequious person. obsequious obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree.","output":"brown-nose (brown-noser) informal an extremely obsequious person. obsequious obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs there any grammatically correct example where the structure mentioned in the title i.e. adjective immediately followed by 'the'+noun is used in a sentence? Does any rule prohibit such usage? This question explores a similar concept but I couldn't find any example using 'the'.","question":"Is there any grammatically correct example where the structure mentioned in the title i.e. adjective immediately followed by 'the'+noun is used in a sentence? Does any rule prohibit such usage? This question explores a similar concept but I couldn't find any example using 'the'.","answer":"An example just came to my head: If you have a large family, the bigger the car is, the better. But you have to be careful, these constructs are not the \"mainstream\" grammar rules - they are merely particular situations \/ constructs.","output":"An example just came to my head: If you have a large family, the bigger the car is, the better. But you have to be careful, these constructs are not the \"mainstream\" grammar rules - they are merely particular situations \/ constructs."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have heard many (rather most) people, especially in the USA, saying: I don't know nothing about it. Is that correct? I always get a weird feeling hearing this and feel the correct one would be saying: I don't know anything about it.","question":"I have heard many (rather most) people, especially in the USA, saying: I don't know nothing about it. Is that correct? I always get a weird feeling hearing this and feel the correct one would be saying: I don't know anything about it.","answer":"The second one is correct for most dialects of English. The first one is a double negative, or as we call it in linguistics, exhibits negative concord. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on double negatives: http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Double_negative Most prescriptive grammarians will tell you that a double negative is incorrect because it is \"illogical.\" However, there are many languages that operate just fine using double negative obligatorily. For instance, almost all Romance languages have obligatory negative concord: Italian: Non so niente. French: Je ne sais pas. Double negatives used to be grammatical in English, but there was a grammatical change sometime during Middle English. The Wikipedia article gives a sentence from a 1644 letter by Oliver Cromwell (emphasis is added by me). A little after, he said one thing lay upon his spirit. I asked him what it was. He told me it was that God had not suffered him to be no more the executioner of His enemies. The double negative is still used in many modern dialects, but it is typically very stigmatized.","output":"The second one is correct for most dialects of English. The first one is a double negative, or as we call it in linguistics, exhibits negative concord. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on double negatives: http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Double_negative Most prescriptive grammarians will tell you that a double negative is incorrect because it is \"illogical.\" However, there are many languages that operate just fine using double negative obligatorily. For instance, almost all Romance languages have obligatory negative concord: Italian: Non so niente. French: Je ne sais pas. Double negatives used to be grammatical in English, but there was a grammatical change sometime during Middle English. The Wikipedia article gives a sentence from a 1644 letter by Oliver Cromwell (emphasis is added by me). A little after, he said one thing lay upon his spirit. I asked him what it was. He told me it was that God had not suffered him to be no more the executioner of His enemies. The double negative is still used in many modern dialects, but it is typically very stigmatized."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat's the difference between following two: Wait for a second. Wait a second. Why for is used in such sentences? I often see such sentences but can't figure out when for is used and when it isn't. Like I studied for two hours. I studied two hours. Can we drop preposition \"of\" in passage below? A boy doesn\u2019t show any interest in his work or doesn\u2019t try to do it with any distinction when he is forced to follow a direction mapped out by his parents that runs counter to all of his interests and abilities.","question":"What's the difference between following two: Wait for a second. Wait a second. Why for is used in such sentences? I often see such sentences but can't figure out when for is used and when it isn't. Like I studied for two hours. I studied two hours. Can we drop preposition \"of\" in passage below? A boy doesn\u2019t show any interest in his work or doesn\u2019t try to do it with any distinction when he is forced to follow a direction mapped out by his parents that runs counter to all of his interests and abilities.","answer":"For {time-expression} can appear after a verb or adjective to indicate how long the action was done or how long the attribute described by the adjective lasted. This is only one of the many meanings of for. Prepositions in English like in many other languages are overloaded with many meanings that you simply have to memorize or follow existing patterns to learn. I walked for three hours I was sad for a long time. It is also possible to use the time expression as an adverbial clause, where it directly modifies a verb or adjective. This typically strongly implies that the activity or attribute modified lasted for that long. It can potentially look a little weird in writing when modifying an adjective but is usually OK in speech. I walked three hours. I was sad a long time. Of X means from group\/set named X or from a group\/set that has one or more X's, among many other meanings. Since all means every, it will automatically reference everything in a group. So the of is optional, but it's not wrong to use it if needed for emphasis, clarity, etc.","output":"For {time-expression} can appear after a verb or adjective to indicate how long the action was done or how long the attribute described by the adjective lasted. This is only one of the many meanings of for. Prepositions in English like in many other languages are overloaded with many meanings that you simply have to memorize or follow existing patterns to learn. I walked for three hours I was sad for a long time. It is also possible to use the time expression as an adverbial clause, where it directly modifies a verb or adjective. This typically strongly implies that the activity or attribute modified lasted for that long. It can potentially look a little weird in writing when modifying an adjective but is usually OK in speech. I walked three hours. I was sad a long time. Of X means from group\/set named X or from a group\/set that has one or more X's, among many other meanings. Since all means every, it will automatically reference everything in a group. So the of is optional, but it's not wrong to use it if needed for emphasis, clarity, etc."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI came across this phrase that I don't get the meaning: the principle of the thing. Here's the sentence that includes this phrase (a questionnaire item): I have, at times stood in the way of people who were trying to do something, not because it amounted to much, but because of the principle of the thing.","question":"I came across this phrase that I don't get the meaning: the principle of the thing. Here's the sentence that includes this phrase (a questionnaire item): I have, at times stood in the way of people who were trying to do something, not because it amounted to much, but because of the principle of the thing.","answer":"I know a guy who went to small claims court to get out of paying a bill he felt he should not have been obligated to pay. He didn't have to pay the $800 bill, but he paid almost $2000 in legal costs. Some might have viewed that as a net loss, but he considered it a victory, because of the principle of the thing. In other words, he felt it was more important to not pay the bill than to save the money. Your quote mentions people who \"were trying to do something.\" That's rather vague, but the idea is that, whatever they tried to do, there's a good chance they wouldn't gain anything personally, yet they persevered anyway, because they felt it was the right thing to do.","output":"I know a guy who went to small claims court to get out of paying a bill he felt he should not have been obligated to pay. He didn't have to pay the $800 bill, but he paid almost $2000 in legal costs. Some might have viewed that as a net loss, but he considered it a victory, because of the principle of the thing. In other words, he felt it was more important to not pay the bill than to save the money. Your quote mentions people who \"were trying to do something.\" That's rather vague, but the idea is that, whatever they tried to do, there's a good chance they wouldn't gain anything personally, yet they persevered anyway, because they felt it was the right thing to do."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"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 not a native speaker, so frequently I don't know underlying semantic subtleties of synonyms; what connotations they bear, which may be antiquated or very official, which are specific to given region or group and such. Currently, I'm struggling with: engagement \/ betrothal, betrothed \/ affianced \/ engaged \/ to be married betrothed \/ a wife-to-be \/ husband-to-be \/ fianc\u00e9e \/ fianc\u00e9 Which ones would be proper for extremely formal occasion (royal pair)? Which ones are more informal? Can you outline differences between them, their general use? And in case I missed some other synonyms, could you supply them?","question":"I'm not a native speaker, so frequently I don't know underlying semantic subtleties of synonyms; what connotations they bear, which may be antiquated or very official, which are specific to given region or group and such. Currently, I'm struggling with: engagement \/ betrothal, betrothed \/ affianced \/ engaged \/ to be married betrothed \/ a wife-to-be \/ husband-to-be \/ fianc\u00e9e \/ fianc\u00e9 Which ones would be proper for extremely formal occasion (royal pair)? Which ones are more informal? Can you outline differences between them, their general use? And in case I missed some other synonyms, could you supply them?","answer":"Betrothal carries two implications for me - first, that it wasn't the decision of the people involved, and was perhaps a decision taken when one or the other was still a child. And second, that while there is a promise of marriage, there's no date or certainty to it. In contrast engagement means \"we're going to get married\". (There was once the idea of \"engaged to be engaged\" - people who were still in school or otherwise too young to get married or even plan a wedding, but wanted to say they would get married some day.) Old fashioned people like me say you're not engaged unless you have \"a ring and a date\" but I know plenty of people who use the words fiance and fiancee to mean \"person I love who I will probably end up marrying\" and in many cases \"person I love, live with, and am raising children with who I will probably end up marrying\" but they have no firm plans to actually do that. Language moves. You won't go wrong by assuming a fiance or fiancee means there is an actual wedding in the next year or less, but don't be shocked if it doesn't and the person just wanted a stronger word than boyfriend or girfriend. I usually only hear the -to-be forms during actual wedding planning conversations with people who don't know both parties. \"Where will you and your husband-to-be live after you're married?\" for example. This solves some time-travel problems that would otherwise be in the question: \"you and your fiance\" won't be living anywhere after you're married, because he won't be your fiance then, but he's not your husband now which makes the question odd if someone just asks about \"you and your husband\". The -to-be fixes that. Like when people say \"I was on vacation with my then-fiance\" if by the time they tell the story, he's been promoted to husband. Of course if they know you, they can just ask \"Where will you and John live after you're married?\" so it has a more formal use. Perhaps because of that, the -to-be forms are more formal to my ears than fiance and fiancee. They sometimes appear in advertising: \"everything for the bride-to-be\" for example as well as in conversations. A bit like mother-to-be, they're not everyday speech unless someone is being amusing by mocking that kind of talking.","output":"Betrothal carries two implications for me - first, that it wasn't the decision of the people involved, and was perhaps a decision taken when one or the other was still a child. And second, that while there is a promise of marriage, there's no date or certainty to it. In contrast engagement means \"we're going to get married\". (There was once the idea of \"engaged to be engaged\" - people who were still in school or otherwise too young to get married or even plan a wedding, but wanted to say they would get married some day.) Old fashioned people like me say you're not engaged unless you have \"a ring and a date\" but I know plenty of people who use the words fiance and fiancee to mean \"person I love who I will probably end up marrying\" and in many cases \"person I love, live with, and am raising children with who I will probably end up marrying\" but they have no firm plans to actually do that. Language moves. You won't go wrong by assuming a fiance or fiancee means there is an actual wedding in the next year or less, but don't be shocked if it doesn't and the person just wanted a stronger word than boyfriend or girfriend. I usually only hear the -to-be forms during actual wedding planning conversations with people who don't know both parties. \"Where will you and your husband-to-be live after you're married?\" for example. This solves some time-travel problems that would otherwise be in the question: \"you and your fiance\" won't be living anywhere after you're married, because he won't be your fiance then, but he's not your husband now which makes the question odd if someone just asks about \"you and your husband\". The -to-be fixes that. Like when people say \"I was on vacation with my then-fiance\" if by the time they tell the story, he's been promoted to husband. Of course if they know you, they can just ask \"Where will you and John live after you're married?\" so it has a more formal use. Perhaps because of that, the -to-be forms are more formal to my ears than fiance and fiancee. They sometimes appear in advertising: \"everything for the bride-to-be\" for example as well as in conversations. A bit like mother-to-be, they're not everyday speech unless someone is being amusing by mocking that kind of talking."}
{"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\nHow would this sentence be written? Would a comma go before \"and then\" or no? Without comma: \"Brian stole my phone while I was golfing and then Jacob hit him in the face.\" With comma: \"Brian stole my phone while I was golfing, and then Jacob hit him in the face.\"","question":"How would this sentence be written? Would a comma go before \"and then\" or no? Without comma: \"Brian stole my phone while I was golfing and then Jacob hit him in the face.\" With comma: \"Brian stole my phone while I was golfing, and then Jacob hit him in the face.\"","answer":"I follow Chicago Manual of Style for grammar. I would write: \"Brian stole my phone while I was golfing, and then Jacob hit him in the face.\" In this example, 'and' is a coordinating conjunction between two complete clauses, so you would use the comma irrespective of 'then.' When people say \"it's up to the author,\" I think what they mean is that it's up to the author to assess the meaning of the whole sentence and determine the punctuation according to very real guidelines. Also, using 'and then' does suggest a correlation - but specifically timing. Did Jacob hit Brian because he stole the phone? Or did he hit him for some other reason, but it just happened to be right after he stole the phone? One thing I'm trying to do when I write 'and then' is work out if I really need 'then'. Often 'and' suffices, and I'm just writing 'then' out of habit. Another option to describe a true causal relationship would be: \"Brian stole my phone while I was golfing, so Jacob hit him in the face.\" The comma would be needed for clarity, and you've got a tighter sentence. But it totally depends on the context - if you want that causal relationship or timing relationship.","output":"I follow Chicago Manual of Style for grammar. I would write: \"Brian stole my phone while I was golfing, and then Jacob hit him in the face.\" In this example, 'and' is a coordinating conjunction between two complete clauses, so you would use the comma irrespective of 'then.' When people say \"it's up to the author,\" I think what they mean is that it's up to the author to assess the meaning of the whole sentence and determine the punctuation according to very real guidelines. Also, using 'and then' does suggest a correlation - but specifically timing. Did Jacob hit Brian because he stole the phone? Or did he hit him for some other reason, but it just happened to be right after he stole the phone? One thing I'm trying to do when I write 'and then' is work out if I really need 'then'. Often 'and' suffices, and I'm just writing 'then' out of habit. Another option to describe a true causal relationship would be: \"Brian stole my phone while I was golfing, so Jacob hit him in the face.\" The comma would be needed for clarity, and you've got a tighter sentence. But it totally depends on the context - if you want that causal relationship or timing relationship."}
{"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\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen something is bound to be of little substance, or the discussion of it surely only giving rise to opinion or sophistry, sometimes the phrase \"merely philosophical\" is used. In this article I'm composing, which is philosophical in nature, I should like to avoid the word \"philosophical\", since if preceded by \"merely\" it might be taken as belittling Philosophy, which is not intended. At the same time I don't want to come on so strong as to claim that the topic is of little substance, only to make clear that any results will not elucidate the topic at hand. I have looked for synonyms but not come up with anything suitable. I'm asking here in the hope that you will, as English is not my first language. Article description: After settling on an etymological analysis of an account, I am trying to extract what knowledge the account can be said to convey, for the moment withholding judgment over any assertions of the purpose or intent of the account being recorded, as well as abstaining from addressing the larger context in which the account is presented. Currently the sentence in question reads, \"Arguments over the purpose of the account are merely philosophical (in the general sense).\" I would like to improve on this. Note: It seems that I want to write something along the lines of, \"merely philosophical\/purely academic\/just a scholastic exercise\" without offending philosophers, academics, or scholars, which I respect and consider myself a fellow to, and of whose work I have partaken to write the article. In all honesty, I don't think I'm weaseling something in here, though, but simply pointing out that work done by these fellows, however fine, will not affect the topic as it stands; that it must be treated as a stand-alone topic. Perhaps there is no good way of telling anyone which battles to choose, and offending the sensibilities of my peers is inevitable, but I would like to avoid it if I can.","question":"When something is bound to be of little substance, or the discussion of it surely only giving rise to opinion or sophistry, sometimes the phrase \"merely philosophical\" is used. In this article I'm composing, which is philosophical in nature, I should like to avoid the word \"philosophical\", since if preceded by \"merely\" it might be taken as belittling Philosophy, which is not intended. At the same time I don't want to come on so strong as to claim that the topic is of little substance, only to make clear that any results will not elucidate the topic at hand. I have looked for synonyms but not come up with anything suitable. I'm asking here in the hope that you will, as English is not my first language. Article description: After settling on an etymological analysis of an account, I am trying to extract what knowledge the account can be said to convey, for the moment withholding judgment over any assertions of the purpose or intent of the account being recorded, as well as abstaining from addressing the larger context in which the account is presented. Currently the sentence in question reads, \"Arguments over the purpose of the account are merely philosophical (in the general sense).\" I would like to improve on this. Note: It seems that I want to write something along the lines of, \"merely philosophical\/purely academic\/just a scholastic exercise\" without offending philosophers, academics, or scholars, which I respect and consider myself a fellow to, and of whose work I have partaken to write the article. In all honesty, I don't think I'm weaseling something in here, though, but simply pointing out that work done by these fellows, however fine, will not affect the topic as it stands; that it must be treated as a stand-alone topic. Perhaps there is no good way of telling anyone which battles to choose, and offending the sensibilities of my peers is inevitable, but I would like to avoid it if I can.","answer":"You might be looking for academic. academic interest: The questions are not only of academic interest, but ... rendered academic: The question of whether he was killed using an axe or a machete is rendered purely academic ... academic pursuit: Interest in etymology used to be a purely academic pursuit ...","output":"You might be looking for academic. academic interest: The questions are not only of academic interest, but ... rendered academic: The question of whether he was killed using an axe or a machete is rendered purely academic ... academic pursuit: Interest in etymology used to be a purely academic pursuit ..."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn general sense of the language we would say that a door \"opens\" or \"closes\". But I am looking for a one-word answer (preferably) that would indicate its motion around the hinge. Does it swivel, swerve, flap? (you get the idea) NOTE: I am not talking about spin doors that revolve or sliding doors, just the conventional ones with hinge(s). And, please go through the entire question. This is not a duplicate of What does the door do? or Is there a word that means both opening and closing a door?","question":"In general sense of the language we would say that a door \"opens\" or \"closes\". But I am looking for a one-word answer (preferably) that would indicate its motion around the hinge. Does it swivel, swerve, flap? (you get the idea) NOTE: I am not talking about spin doors that revolve or sliding doors, just the conventional ones with hinge(s). And, please go through the entire question. This is not a duplicate of What does the door do? or Is there a word that means both opening and closing a door?","answer":"The door swings on its hinge. To move backward and forward, especially rotating about or hanging from a fixed point. Turns, as suggested by other answerers, sounds like another great possibility. But a quick look at the actual usage stats brings up something interesting. Here are the top 50 collocations for \"the door [v*]\" from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the British National Corpus (BNC): | COCA | BNC | | 1 | OPENED 992 | WAS 402 2 | WAS 943 | OPENED 327 3 | OPEN 830 | OPEN 175 4 | IS 659 | CLOSED 151 5 | OPENS 611 | SHUT 103 6 | SHUT 588 | IS 73 7 | CLOSED 573 | SWUNG 57 8 | SWUNG 249 | HAD 53 9 | CLOSES 164 | SLAMMED 42 10 | HAD 158 | LEADING 21 11 | SLAMMED 137 | OPENS 21 12 | LEADING 98 | WOULD 20 13 | SLAMS 92 | BURST 19 14 | WOULD 88 | 'S 19 15 | SLID 80 | LOCKED 19 16 | 'S 71 | WILL 18 17 | LOCKED 66 | FLEW 17 18 | FLEW 63 | WERE 16 19 | CREAKED 57 | BEING 13 20 | CLOSE 56 | SLID 13 21 | SWINGS 50 | HAS 11 22 | HAS 49 | BANGED 11 23 | SHUTS 49 | CLICKED 11 24 | CLICKED 46 | MADE 10 25 | SLAM 45 | CLOSE 9 26 | UNLOCKED 43 | CRASHED 9 27 | BURST 40 | MUST 9 28 | BANGED 40 | DID 8 29 | WEARING 39 | SAYING 8 30 | SAID 36 | CREAKED 7 31 | CRACKED 34 | CAN 7 32 | DID 34 | LOOKING 7 33 | WERE 34 | SHUTS 7 34 | WILL 34 | BEGAN 6 35 | CAME 30 | CLOSES 6 36 | ARE 29 | OPENING 6 37 | STOOD 28 | STOOD 6 38 | LOOKING 25 | WENT 6 39 | COULD 23 | FELL 5 40 | BEING 22 | BROKE 5 41 | DOES 21 | CAME 5 42 | GAVE 21 | HISSED 5 43 | BURSTS 20 | MIGHT 5 44 | CLOSING 20 | SLAM 5 45 | CRASHED 20 | SWINGING 5 46 | FLIES 20 | UNLOCKED 5 47 | REMAINED 19 | WO 5 48 | CAN 18 | CLANGED 4 49 | HIT 18 | FACING 4 50 | COMES 16 | INTERRUPTED 4 As you can see, out of these swing is the top (and arguably only) verb that fits your bill, while turn is not even on the list.","output":"The door swings on its hinge. To move backward and forward, especially rotating about or hanging from a fixed point. Turns, as suggested by other answerers, sounds like another great possibility. But a quick look at the actual usage stats brings up something interesting. Here are the top 50 collocations for \"the door [v*]\" from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the British National Corpus (BNC): | COCA | BNC | | 1 | OPENED 992 | WAS 402 2 | WAS 943 | OPENED 327 3 | OPEN 830 | OPEN 175 4 | IS 659 | CLOSED 151 5 | OPENS 611 | SHUT 103 6 | SHUT 588 | IS 73 7 | CLOSED 573 | SWUNG 57 8 | SWUNG 249 | HAD 53 9 | CLOSES 164 | SLAMMED 42 10 | HAD 158 | LEADING 21 11 | SLAMMED 137 | OPENS 21 12 | LEADING 98 | WOULD 20 13 | SLAMS 92 | BURST 19 14 | WOULD 88 | 'S 19 15 | SLID 80 | LOCKED 19 16 | 'S 71 | WILL 18 17 | LOCKED 66 | FLEW 17 18 | FLEW 63 | WERE 16 19 | CREAKED 57 | BEING 13 20 | CLOSE 56 | SLID 13 21 | SWINGS 50 | HAS 11 22 | HAS 49 | BANGED 11 23 | SHUTS 49 | CLICKED 11 24 | CLICKED 46 | MADE 10 25 | SLAM 45 | CLOSE 9 26 | UNLOCKED 43 | CRASHED 9 27 | BURST 40 | MUST 9 28 | BANGED 40 | DID 8 29 | WEARING 39 | SAYING 8 30 | SAID 36 | CREAKED 7 31 | CRACKED 34 | CAN 7 32 | DID 34 | LOOKING 7 33 | WERE 34 | SHUTS 7 34 | WILL 34 | BEGAN 6 35 | CAME 30 | CLOSES 6 36 | ARE 29 | OPENING 6 37 | STOOD 28 | STOOD 6 38 | LOOKING 25 | WENT 6 39 | COULD 23 | FELL 5 40 | BEING 22 | BROKE 5 41 | DOES 21 | CAME 5 42 | GAVE 21 | HISSED 5 43 | BURSTS 20 | MIGHT 5 44 | CLOSING 20 | SLAM 5 45 | CRASHED 20 | SWINGING 5 46 | FLIES 20 | UNLOCKED 5 47 | REMAINED 19 | WO 5 48 | CAN 18 | CLANGED 4 49 | HIT 18 | FACING 4 50 | COMES 16 | INTERRUPTED 4 As you can see, out of these swing is the top (and arguably only) verb that fits your bill, while turn is not even on the list."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nDo you say \u201cAll but one person forgets something\u201d or \u201cAll but one person forget something\u201d? I'm assuming that if all means five people, for example, then the example can be rewritten as Four people forget something, so the latter sentence would be correct, but I'm not sure.","question":"Do you say \u201cAll but one person forgets something\u201d or \u201cAll but one person forget something\u201d? I'm assuming that if all means five people, for example, then the example can be rewritten as Four people forget something, so the latter sentence would be correct, but I'm not sure.","answer":"Since all swans but one are white is indisputably correct, I would perhaps say ?all but one swan are white; the singular *all but one swan is white doesn't make sense. However, I think all swans but one are white is (nearly?) always superior to all but one swan are\/is white, and so I would probably never write the latter either way. (But I would use all but one swan when it is not followed by a finite verb.)","output":"Since all swans but one are white is indisputably correct, I would perhaps say ?all but one swan are white; the singular *all but one swan is white doesn't make sense. However, I think all swans but one are white is (nearly?) always superior to all but one swan are\/is white, and so I would probably never write the latter either way. (But I would use all but one swan when it is not followed by a finite verb.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs there a way to imply I didn't see a person earlier using \"saw\" instead of \"see\" or \"seen\"? edit: I'd go with I never saw you as suggested by Rathony in the comments. I would've upvoted\/accepted it had he answered it rather commented. Thanks though. :)","question":"Is there a way to imply I didn't see a person earlier using \"saw\" instead of \"see\" or \"seen\"? edit: I'd go with I never saw you as suggested by Rathony in the comments. I would've upvoted\/accepted it had he answered it rather commented. Thanks though. :)","answer":"\"I saw no trace of you\" or \"I saw no sign of you\"","output":"\"I saw no trace of you\" or \"I saw no sign of you\""}
{"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\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"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 negatif:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\"Debris are called toxins.\" In this sentence, should I use \"is\" or \"are\"? I understand \"debris\" is an uncountable noun, so normally I would use \"is\". But I am referring to different kinds of debris. Toxins are referring to a collection of debris. So is \"are\" the correct way? Or should I reformat this sentence?","question":"\"Debris are called toxins.\" In this sentence, should I use \"is\" or \"are\"? I understand \"debris\" is an uncountable noun, so normally I would use \"is\". But I am referring to different kinds of debris. Toxins are referring to a collection of debris. So is \"are\" the correct way? Or should I reformat this sentence?","answer":"I have only heard \"debris is\/was\" and if there are many, use \"pieces\/piles of debris are\/were\". From ncsu.edu (styling mine) Debris doesn't have a grammatical plural in English. If you want to talk about a lot of debris\u2014or if you want to pick it up\u2014you have to gather it into plural piles. You may be wondering how a grammarian can tell that debris is singular instead of plural. There are two clear signs: First, debris always takes a singular verb: \"Debris is knee deep in the backyard.\" Second, we always refer to it by a singular pronoun: \"The debris is knee deep. I don't know what to do with it.\" Debris is not the only noun in English without a plural. Collective nouns that define a set of inanimate objects (luggage, dinnerware) are also regularly singular, as are nouns that refer to noncountable masses of substances (bacon, lox). As Hurricane Fran has taught us, however, debris would be easier to pluralize than to carry to the curb.","output":"I have only heard \"debris is\/was\" and if there are many, use \"pieces\/piles of debris are\/were\". From ncsu.edu (styling mine) Debris doesn't have a grammatical plural in English. If you want to talk about a lot of debris\u2014or if you want to pick it up\u2014you have to gather it into plural piles. You may be wondering how a grammarian can tell that debris is singular instead of plural. There are two clear signs: First, debris always takes a singular verb: \"Debris is knee deep in the backyard.\" Second, we always refer to it by a singular pronoun: \"The debris is knee deep. I don't know what to do with it.\" Debris is not the only noun in English without a plural. Collective nouns that define a set of inanimate objects (luggage, dinnerware) are also regularly singular, as are nouns that refer to noncountable masses of substances (bacon, lox). As Hurricane Fran has taught us, however, debris would be easier to pluralize than to carry to the curb."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMany sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, for a start) suggest the word \"fluke\" has mostly positive connotations when used in the sense of \"accident.\" That is, \"a fluke\" properly describes a lucky accident, not just any accident. However, I sometimes hear this word used to refer to negative and to unmarked accidents. Is such usage, strictly speaking, correct? To me, the best proof in support would be an example of the broader use by a first-rate writer.","question":"Many sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, for a start) suggest the word \"fluke\" has mostly positive connotations when used in the sense of \"accident.\" That is, \"a fluke\" properly describes a lucky accident, not just any accident. However, I sometimes hear this word used to refer to negative and to unmarked accidents. Is such usage, strictly speaking, correct? To me, the best proof in support would be an example of the broader use by a first-rate writer.","answer":"The OP said: To me, the best proof in support would be an example of the broader use by a first-rate writer Here is an example of fluke being used, first as an unlucky accident, and second, as a lucky accident. The quotation is perhaps too long, but it illustrates that the first speaker used fluke as unlucky, and the second as lucky. From E. Phillips Oppenheim, The Vanished Messenger \"But how on earth did you get to know about me,\" Mr. Dunster asked, \"and my errand? You couldn't possibly have got me here in an ordinary way. It was an entire fluke.\" \"There, you speak with some show of reason. I have a nephew whom you have met, who is devoted to me.\" \"Mr. Gerald Fentolin,\" Mr. Dunster remarked drily. \"Precisely,\" Mr. Fentolin declared. \"Well, I admit frankly the truth of what you say. Your - shall we say capture, was by way of being a gigantic fluke. My nephew's instructions simply were to travel down by the train to Harwich with you, to endeavour to make your acquaintance, to follow you on to your destination, and, if any chance to do so occurred, to relieve you of your pocket-book. That, however, I never ventured to expect. What really happened was, as you have yourself suggested, almost in the nature of a miracle. My nephew showed himself to be possessed of gifts which were a revelation to me. He not only succeeded in travelling with you by the special train, but after its wreck he was clever enough to bring you here, instead of delivering you over to the mercies of a village doctor. I really cannot find words to express my appreciation of my nephew's conduct.\" \"I could,\" Mr. Dunster muttered, \"very easily!\" As for the neutral meaning of fluke, I cite from The Free Dictionary A chance occurrence: That spring snowstorm was a total fluke (There are other dictionary definitions of fluke that support a neutral or negative meaning, but this answer is too long already.)","output":"The OP said: To me, the best proof in support would be an example of the broader use by a first-rate writer Here is an example of fluke being used, first as an unlucky accident, and second, as a lucky accident. The quotation is perhaps too long, but it illustrates that the first speaker used fluke as unlucky, and the second as lucky. From E. Phillips Oppenheim, The Vanished Messenger \"But how on earth did you get to know about me,\" Mr. Dunster asked, \"and my errand? You couldn't possibly have got me here in an ordinary way. It was an entire fluke.\" \"There, you speak with some show of reason. I have a nephew whom you have met, who is devoted to me.\" \"Mr. Gerald Fentolin,\" Mr. Dunster remarked drily. \"Precisely,\" Mr. Fentolin declared. \"Well, I admit frankly the truth of what you say. Your - shall we say capture, was by way of being a gigantic fluke. My nephew's instructions simply were to travel down by the train to Harwich with you, to endeavour to make your acquaintance, to follow you on to your destination, and, if any chance to do so occurred, to relieve you of your pocket-book. That, however, I never ventured to expect. What really happened was, as you have yourself suggested, almost in the nature of a miracle. My nephew showed himself to be possessed of gifts which were a revelation to me. He not only succeeded in travelling with you by the special train, but after its wreck he was clever enough to bring you here, instead of delivering you over to the mercies of a village doctor. I really cannot find words to express my appreciation of my nephew's conduct.\" \"I could,\" Mr. Dunster muttered, \"very easily!\" As for the neutral meaning of fluke, I cite from The Free Dictionary A chance occurrence: That spring snowstorm was a total fluke (There are other dictionary definitions of fluke that support a neutral or negative meaning, but this answer is too long already.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe have people at work rotating into our group through a rotation program. I call the people rotating in\/out \"rotatees\" but MS Word and apparently StackExchange puts red squigglies underneath that word so I'm wondering what is the correct word for someone rotating in and out of our group in a professional, work sense. They have their feature team that they work with but for now, all new employees under 1 yr exp with the company come thru our team to learn some debugging and routing skills for a 6 week period. I don't know think they see themselves as a separate identifiable group when they come into my team, they just see themselves as serving time with us for 6 wks before they go back to what they were hired to do.","question":"We have people at work rotating into our group through a rotation program. I call the people rotating in\/out \"rotatees\" but MS Word and apparently StackExchange puts red squigglies underneath that word so I'm wondering what is the correct word for someone rotating in and out of our group in a professional, work sense. They have their feature team that they work with but for now, all new employees under 1 yr exp with the company come thru our team to learn some debugging and routing skills for a 6 week period. I don't know think they see themselves as a separate identifiable group when they come into my team, they just see themselves as serving time with us for 6 wks before they go back to what they were hired to do.","answer":"\"Rotatee\" has some usage. In the armed forces, soldiers are \"rotated\" out of combat duty, such people are called rotatees. However, the amount of use is very low, and most dictionaries have not picked up the word (perhaps because it is a common misspelling of \"rotates\") So you can go on using \"rotatees\" (if everybody on your team now understands the term). It might be a bit company jargon but that is okay. Or you can use a longer descriptive phrase such as \"colleagues who have joined the team on rotation\", or \"short term team members\" (there are lots of possibilities)","output":"\"Rotatee\" has some usage. In the armed forces, soldiers are \"rotated\" out of combat duty, such people are called rotatees. However, the amount of use is very low, and most dictionaries have not picked up the word (perhaps because it is a common misspelling of \"rotates\") So you can go on using \"rotatees\" (if everybody on your team now understands the term). It might be a bit company jargon but that is okay. Or you can use a longer descriptive phrase such as \"colleagues who have joined the team on rotation\", or \"short term team members\" (there are lots of possibilities)"}
{"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 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":"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 trying to understand the exact meaning and usage of take an interest in. There are several examples of the collocation in various dictionaries: #1 #2 What is the most common circumstances in which we use the idiom in place of, say, just to be interested in. Examples from the dicitonaries: Do you take an interest in your children? You should take an interest in everything your child does. Why don't we just say Are you interested in your children. You should be interested in everything your child does. What is the differences? Or this one: \u2018What do you mean?\u2019 asked Pat, now taking an interest in the proceedings. As far as I got, the meaning of take an interest here is that your interest is getting increased. But why don't we say now I'm becoming more interested in the proceedings instead?","question":"I'm trying to understand the exact meaning and usage of take an interest in. There are several examples of the collocation in various dictionaries: #1 #2 What is the most common circumstances in which we use the idiom in place of, say, just to be interested in. Examples from the dicitonaries: Do you take an interest in your children? You should take an interest in everything your child does. Why don't we just say Are you interested in your children. You should be interested in everything your child does. What is the differences? Or this one: \u2018What do you mean?\u2019 asked Pat, now taking an interest in the proceedings. As far as I got, the meaning of take an interest here is that your interest is getting increased. But why don't we say now I'm becoming more interested in the proceedings instead?","answer":"take an interest implies a personal involvement, beyond just wanting to study something (being interested). This would be the case in: You should take an interest in everything your child does. In the case of: You should be interested in everything your child does. it is like you are watching your children\/studying their actions, and that appeals to you somehow. However this does not require any action on your part. The same for: 'What do you mean?' asked Pat, now taking an interest in the proceedings. shows his involvement, while: Now I'm becoming more interested in the proceedings. is like you are reading an article in the newspaper or hearing someone talk about it.","output":"take an interest implies a personal involvement, beyond just wanting to study something (being interested). This would be the case in: You should take an interest in everything your child does. In the case of: You should be interested in everything your child does. it is like you are watching your children\/studying their actions, and that appeals to you somehow. However this does not require any action on your part. The same for: 'What do you mean?' asked Pat, now taking an interest in the proceedings. shows his involvement, while: Now I'm becoming more interested in the proceedings. is like you are reading an article in the newspaper or hearing someone talk about it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI came across the following question and found it strange. When have you felt insecure because you were a first-timer? Shouldn't it be \"when did you feel....?\" Thank you","question":"I came across the following question and found it strange. When have you felt insecure because you were a first-timer? Shouldn't it be \"when did you feel....?\" Thank you","answer":"No, the tense is appropriate. It is written in the present perfect because it is asking about any moment in your past up to the present at which you might have felt this emotion. Beginning the sentence with when is a little confusing. It would sound perfectly idiomatic if we just asked: Have you felt insecure because you were a first timer? meaning have you felt insecure for this reason. The question could also be phrased in the past tense but would fit more comfortably into a different context, one in which the questioner already knew that you had felt insecure but wanted to know when - what had caused you to feel that way: When did you feel insecure because you were a first timer? So both constructions are idiomatic. Their likely use really depends on the context.","output":"No, the tense is appropriate. It is written in the present perfect because it is asking about any moment in your past up to the present at which you might have felt this emotion. Beginning the sentence with when is a little confusing. It would sound perfectly idiomatic if we just asked: Have you felt insecure because you were a first timer? meaning have you felt insecure for this reason. The question could also be phrased in the past tense but would fit more comfortably into a different context, one in which the questioner already knew that you had felt insecure but wanted to know when - what had caused you to feel that way: When did you feel insecure because you were a first timer? So both constructions are idiomatic. Their likely use really depends on the context."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI know that a lot of people use the word \"Einstein\" to convey someone as a genius, but I was wondering if Einstein, as a verb, is an official term.","question":"I know that a lot of people use the word \"Einstein\" to convey someone as a genius, but I was wondering if Einstein, as a verb, is an official term.","answer":"It's not an official word in dictionaries unless (in lowercase) as a unit of radiant energy. I've very infrequently heard it used informally to mean genius, but it's not officially recognized. Though I did find one thing interesting about this - I googled for \"einsteined\" (as a verb), and the Urban Dictionary has an interesting definition: Verb. the act of being called out on acting or doing something lame\/dumb. Guy #1: OK, I'm going to go home and watch a movie with my mom. See all you later! Guy #2: Wow, you watch movies with your mom? That's so lame. Guy #3: (to Guy#1)You just got einsteined, man. I've never seen\/heard this, but it just might be best to keep in mind in case you ever decide to use it.","output":"It's not an official word in dictionaries unless (in lowercase) as a unit of radiant energy. I've very infrequently heard it used informally to mean genius, but it's not officially recognized. Though I did find one thing interesting about this - I googled for \"einsteined\" (as a verb), and the Urban Dictionary has an interesting definition: Verb. the act of being called out on acting or doing something lame\/dumb. Guy #1: OK, I'm going to go home and watch a movie with my mom. See all you later! Guy #2: Wow, you watch movies with your mom? That's so lame. Guy #3: (to Guy#1)You just got einsteined, man. I've never seen\/heard this, but it just might be best to keep in mind in case you ever decide to use it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm wondering if there should be an \"s\" when telling about ages. I have heard from my native English friend says \"I'm 24 year old\" is it correct?","question":"I'm wondering if there should be an \"s\" when telling about ages. I have heard from my native English friend says \"I'm 24 year old\" is it correct?","answer":"When describing someone by their age, you would drop the 's'. This is because when you express a unit of measurement (in this case time, or age) as an adjective, it become singular. The 20-year-old student you're referring to was last seen in the park. I am a 24-year-old college graduate. However, when someone is stating their age, you would attach an 's'. This occurs because when a unit of measurement is used as a noun, it becomes plural. He is 32 years old. I am 40 years old. I think anyway, hope this helps some. :)","output":"When describing someone by their age, you would drop the 's'. This is because when you express a unit of measurement (in this case time, or age) as an adjective, it become singular. The 20-year-old student you're referring to was last seen in the park. I am a 24-year-old college graduate. However, when someone is stating their age, you would attach an 's'. This occurs because when a unit of measurement is used as a noun, it becomes plural. He is 32 years old. I am 40 years old. I think anyway, hope this helps some. :)"}
{"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\nAre the names of game tokens considered proper nouns, and hence need to be capitalized? Apparently not for chess, as king, queen, bishop etc. are written in lowercase. But what about games whose terms and conventions are less ingrained, for example Settlers of Catan? Which would you use? A. If you roll a seven, you can move the robber. (treated as common noun) B. If you roll a seven, you can move the Robber. (treated as proper noun)","question":"Are the names of game tokens considered proper nouns, and hence need to be capitalized? Apparently not for chess, as king, queen, bishop etc. are written in lowercase. But what about games whose terms and conventions are less ingrained, for example Settlers of Catan? Which would you use? A. If you roll a seven, you can move the robber. (treated as common noun) B. If you roll a seven, you can move the Robber. (treated as proper noun)","answer":"You'd capitalize a specific piece, but not the generic. For example, the Ace of Spades, but ace\/king\/queen\/jack. The Robber, but \"a robber token.\" A knight in chess, but King's Bishop or Queen's Rook. In regards to your specific example, Mayfair Games capitalizes \"The Robber\" in its support material for the Catan games. See here.","output":"You'd capitalize a specific piece, but not the generic. For example, the Ace of Spades, but ace\/king\/queen\/jack. The Robber, but \"a robber token.\" A knight in chess, but King's Bishop or Queen's Rook. In regards to your specific example, Mayfair Games capitalizes \"The Robber\" in its support material for the Catan games. See here."}
{"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 scientific field and when my reports are reviewed I commonly have them kicked back asking to add a second \"were\" before \"compared\" to this kind of sentence: The items were entered into the database and the results compared... The items were entered into the database and the results were compared... Is the second \"were\" necessary? I've been writing like this for a while and never thought twice about it, but when asked I can't explain why this works. I believe the issue is similar to this post: How to write past perfect forms of two verbs in one sentence If so, can someone please explain in a little more detail? Thanks in advance!","question":"I work in a scientific field and when my reports are reviewed I commonly have them kicked back asking to add a second \"were\" before \"compared\" to this kind of sentence: The items were entered into the database and the results compared... The items were entered into the database and the results were compared... Is the second \"were\" necessary? I've been writing like this for a while and never thought twice about it, but when asked I can't explain why this works. I believe the issue is similar to this post: How to write past perfect forms of two verbs in one sentence If so, can someone please explain in a little more detail? Thanks in advance!","answer":"The items were entered into the database and the results compared... The items were entered into the database and the results were compared... There is no doubt whatsoever that both of these sentences are grammatical. They involve an ellipsis of the passive auxiliary were. The ellipsis of auxiliaries in coordinated sentences is quite a common and natural. Indeed we quite often see auxiliaries and lexical verbs elided. However, the problem here is that the sentence can garden path your reader. What this means is that the reader may start interpreting the second clause in a different way from intended, and then, when they get to the end of the sentence, they may have to go back and re-parse what they've read. In particular the ellipsis of the passive auxiliary in this particular example means that the subject occurs next to what looks like a tensed (past simple) verb form. In actual fact it is a past participle but the reader won't know this till they get to the end of the sentence (and perhaps backtrack and reread). The second clause begins: ... the results compared This may well read as if the results were doing the comparing - as opposed to somebody was comparing the results. Whilst this is not a fatal problem once we get to the end of the sentence, the editor involved may feel that it is a problem best avoided for the sake of ease of reading.","output":"The items were entered into the database and the results compared... The items were entered into the database and the results were compared... There is no doubt whatsoever that both of these sentences are grammatical. They involve an ellipsis of the passive auxiliary were. The ellipsis of auxiliaries in coordinated sentences is quite a common and natural. Indeed we quite often see auxiliaries and lexical verbs elided. However, the problem here is that the sentence can garden path your reader. What this means is that the reader may start interpreting the second clause in a different way from intended, and then, when they get to the end of the sentence, they may have to go back and re-parse what they've read. In particular the ellipsis of the passive auxiliary in this particular example means that the subject occurs next to what looks like a tensed (past simple) verb form. In actual fact it is a past participle but the reader won't know this till they get to the end of the sentence (and perhaps backtrack and reread). The second clause begins: ... the results compared This may well read as if the results were doing the comparing - as opposed to somebody was comparing the results. Whilst this is not a fatal problem once we get to the end of the sentence, the editor involved may feel that it is a problem best avoided for the sake of ease of reading."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI want to convey the meaning of \"stuck in one's ways\" or \"stuck in one's old ways\" in a formal way. Consider the sentence: The organizations are, for now, very much _______________.","question":"I want to convey the meaning of \"stuck in one's ways\" or \"stuck in one's old ways\" in a formal way. Consider the sentence: The organizations are, for now, very much _______________.","answer":"I suggest the word hidebound. adj. \"Unwilling or unable to change because of tradition or convention.\" - Lexico or \"having an inflexible or ultraconservative character.\" - Merriam-Webster","output":"I suggest the word hidebound. adj. \"Unwilling or unable to change because of tradition or convention.\" - Lexico or \"having an inflexible or ultraconservative character.\" - Merriam-Webster"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHere is a paragraph from today's Wall Street Journal. Some businesses in the area closed their doors while authorities briefly closed an elevated train station outside mall where the improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, had been placed. I wonder why it is \"outside mall\", not \"outside the mall\". Why is \"the\" omitted? If you need more context than this paragraph, please visit the link!","question":"Here is a paragraph from today's Wall Street Journal. Some businesses in the area closed their doors while authorities briefly closed an elevated train station outside mall where the improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, had been placed. I wonder why it is \"outside mall\", not \"outside the mall\". Why is \"the\" omitted? If you need more context than this paragraph, please visit the link!","answer":"I'm pretty sure it's a mistake. It should be outside the mall, just as you thought. The sentence is indicating specifically which mall was near the train station: the mall where the IEDs had been placed, which is also the mall that was mentioned at the start of the article.","output":"I'm pretty sure it's a mistake. It should be outside the mall, just as you thought. The sentence is indicating specifically which mall was near the train station: the mall where the IEDs had been placed, which is also the mall that was mentioned at the start of the article."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was born and raised in some anglophone Asian country where people use the word \"flat\" to describe a battery when no electrical current can be generated by it. Some would even use the word \"flat\" to describe their phone when its battery is dead (although their phones are three dimensional). So one day I looked up OED and realised flat British (of a battery) having exhausted its charge. but I couldn't find this definition of flat in the New Oxford American Dictionary. So here are my questions: If I go to the States will people understand me when I say \"My battery is flat\"? How about \"my phone is flat\"? Is this usage of flat even common in the UK?","question":"I was born and raised in some anglophone Asian country where people use the word \"flat\" to describe a battery when no electrical current can be generated by it. Some would even use the word \"flat\" to describe their phone when its battery is dead (although their phones are three dimensional). So one day I looked up OED and realised flat British (of a battery) having exhausted its charge. but I couldn't find this definition of flat in the New Oxford American Dictionary. So here are my questions: If I go to the States will people understand me when I say \"My battery is flat\"? How about \"my phone is flat\"? Is this usage of flat even common in the UK?","answer":"My battery is flat is perfectly fine in British English, but from the comments, it might not be understood in American English, depending on the context. My phone is flat is sometimes used according to a quick Google search, but it isn't particularly common in British English and may be misunderstood. It might be more common to say my phone is dead. This use of flat for an electric battery was first used in 1951 according to the OED (sense 9c). The others related senses are: 9a) wanting in energy and spirit (1604); 9b) depressed, dull or inactive trade (1831); and 9d) a drink that has lost its flavour or sharpness (1617). I found three 1941 antedatings in Starters and Generators (Edward Molloy, \u200eErnest Walter Knott). Page 85: If the clutch is not slipping, the trouble may be insufficient volts reaching the motor, due to a flat battery or a bad connection or switch introducing resistance in the circuit, an electrical fault in the starter, or, very rarely, a mechanical fault in the starter. Page 86: A flat battery should be replaced, but the reason for the battery being discharged should be investigated. Page 98: Under this no-gap condition, the plunger will remain home on a very reduced voltage (which may occur with a flat battery) and will be less susceptible to vibration, and the contact pressure is a fixed and known amount, being the force of the spring (11), and does not vary with voltage.","output":"My battery is flat is perfectly fine in British English, but from the comments, it might not be understood in American English, depending on the context. My phone is flat is sometimes used according to a quick Google search, but it isn't particularly common in British English and may be misunderstood. It might be more common to say my phone is dead. This use of flat for an electric battery was first used in 1951 according to the OED (sense 9c). The others related senses are: 9a) wanting in energy and spirit (1604); 9b) depressed, dull or inactive trade (1831); and 9d) a drink that has lost its flavour or sharpness (1617). I found three 1941 antedatings in Starters and Generators (Edward Molloy, \u200eErnest Walter Knott). Page 85: If the clutch is not slipping, the trouble may be insufficient volts reaching the motor, due to a flat battery or a bad connection or switch introducing resistance in the circuit, an electrical fault in the starter, or, very rarely, a mechanical fault in the starter. Page 86: A flat battery should be replaced, but the reason for the battery being discharged should be investigated. Page 98: Under this no-gap condition, the plunger will remain home on a very reduced voltage (which may occur with a flat battery) and will be less susceptible to vibration, and the contact pressure is a fixed and known amount, being the force of the spring (11), and does not vary with voltage."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSo I realize that hyperboles exist, but in school we're taught about them as if they are truly important to what we are going to be doing in life. I realize their usefulness, but why do we need to learn about them? There are plenty of people in this world using them without realizing it. Is there a reasoning behind us needing to know about hyperboles?","question":"So I realize that hyperboles exist, but in school we're taught about them as if they are truly important to what we are going to be doing in life. I realize their usefulness, but why do we need to learn about them? There are plenty of people in this world using them without realizing it. Is there a reasoning behind us needing to know about hyperboles?","answer":"Hyperbole is the most important thing in the world. You can't possibly have an intelligent conversation without understanding hyperbole. You can't make it through breakfast without understanding hyperbole. Without hyperbole, all literature, if not civilization itself, would come to an end. But okay seriously, you could ask this question about anything that someone might try to teach you, regarding language or any other subject. Why do I need to know about prepositions? Why do I need to know about subject\/verb agreement? Why do I need to know about algebra? Etc. Hyperbole is a tool of language that helps you to express yourself. The better you understand it, the more clearly you can say what you want to say, and understand what others say.","output":"Hyperbole is the most important thing in the world. You can't possibly have an intelligent conversation without understanding hyperbole. You can't make it through breakfast without understanding hyperbole. Without hyperbole, all literature, if not civilization itself, would come to an end. But okay seriously, you could ask this question about anything that someone might try to teach you, regarding language or any other subject. Why do I need to know about prepositions? Why do I need to know about subject\/verb agreement? Why do I need to know about algebra? Etc. Hyperbole is a tool of language that helps you to express yourself. The better you understand it, the more clearly you can say what you want to say, and understand what others say."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe alumni of a school, college, or university are the people who used to be students there. But what do you call the university or school one person graduated from in one word or one phrase?","question":"The alumni of a school, college, or university are the people who used to be students there. But what do you call the university or school one person graduated from in one word or one phrase?","answer":"Good old FU. That's my alma mater al\u00b7ma ma\u00b7ter \u00e4lm\u0259 \u02c8m\u00e4d\u0259r noun the school, college, or university that one once attended. the anthem of a school, college, or university. Source: Google It sounds funny because it's a Latin phrase. The words literally mean: alma, \"nourishing\/kind\" mater, \"mother\" Source: Wikipedia But few English speakers think about that when referring to a school. It's the kind of thing only us word nerds care about.","output":"Good old FU. That's my alma mater al\u00b7ma ma\u00b7ter \u00e4lm\u0259 \u02c8m\u00e4d\u0259r noun the school, college, or university that one once attended. the anthem of a school, college, or university. Source: Google It sounds funny because it's a Latin phrase. The words literally mean: alma, \"nourishing\/kind\" mater, \"mother\" Source: Wikipedia But few English speakers think about that when referring to a school. It's the kind of thing only us word nerds care about."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have some doubts about which form, \"the rich\" or \"the rich people\", that I should use here: Some people think that the rich don't pay enough tax. Some people think that the rich people don't pay enough tax. Which of the two sentences is acceptable English? And what part of speech is the word \"rich\" in both #1 and #2, adjective or noun?","question":"I have some doubts about which form, \"the rich\" or \"the rich people\", that I should use here: Some people think that the rich don't pay enough tax. Some people think that the rich people don't pay enough tax. Which of the two sentences is acceptable English? And what part of speech is the word \"rich\" in both #1 and #2, adjective or noun?","answer":"In Sentence 1, the word rich functions as a mass noun. In Sentence 2, rich is an adjective modifying people. To express it in a more natural way, you really should remove the word \"the\" from the second sentence: 1.Some people think that the rich don't pay enough tax. 2.Some people think that rich people don't pay enough tax. When used as a mass noun, we use the word \"the\" in front of the word \"rich.\" The same goes for poor: You will always have the poor among you. (Matt 26:11, NLT) but this article gets omitted with the word is used as an adjective modifying people: Everything was shiny and new. Even the sun seemed brighter. There were no poor people here. Where had they gone? (Charles Fleming, 2004) Check out the Macmillan entry for rich for more on this: rich (adj) 1 owning a lot of money, property, or valuable possessions : *His invention has made him a rich man._ a. the rich people who have a great deal of money, property, or valuable possessions : a tax-cutting program that will only benefit the rich (the) rich and (the) poor : the increasing gap between the rich and the poor","output":"In Sentence 1, the word rich functions as a mass noun. In Sentence 2, rich is an adjective modifying people. To express it in a more natural way, you really should remove the word \"the\" from the second sentence: 1.Some people think that the rich don't pay enough tax. 2.Some people think that rich people don't pay enough tax. When used as a mass noun, we use the word \"the\" in front of the word \"rich.\" The same goes for poor: You will always have the poor among you. (Matt 26:11, NLT) but this article gets omitted with the word is used as an adjective modifying people: Everything was shiny and new. Even the sun seemed brighter. There were no poor people here. Where had they gone? (Charles Fleming, 2004) Check out the Macmillan entry for rich for more on this: rich (adj) 1 owning a lot of money, property, or valuable possessions : *His invention has made him a rich man._ a. the rich people who have a great deal of money, property, or valuable possessions : a tax-cutting program that will only benefit the rich (the) rich and (the) poor : the increasing gap between the rich and the poor"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn Shakespeare's' As You Like It I have came across a challenging sentence. Without further ado, I am directly quoting the text: for call you that keeping for a gentleman of my birth that differs not from the stalling of an ox? Unfortunately, I understand nothing from this. Why there is \"you\" after \"call\"? Where is \"that\" in \"that differs not from\" linked to? Please help me to understand it. I mean I want to understand it in terms of structure. Putting the words in their normal places and without changing them how this sentence would say? For those who want to see the context, here is the much more connected version: He (my big brother Oliver) keeps my brother Jaques at school, and report speaks goldenly of his profit. For my part, he keeps me rustically at home, or, to speak more properly, stays me here at home unkept; for call you that \"keeping\" for a gentleman of my birth, that differs not from the stalling of an ox? Moreover, to make helping easier for those who willing to help I am putting the vocabulary notes here: report speaks.... propit: Rumor has it that Jaques is flourishing as a student. profit: proficiency stays: detains unkept: uncared for, neglected gentleman of my birth: i.e., the son of a knight stalling: lodging in a stall; rendering unable to proceed","question":"In Shakespeare's' As You Like It I have came across a challenging sentence. Without further ado, I am directly quoting the text: for call you that keeping for a gentleman of my birth that differs not from the stalling of an ox? Unfortunately, I understand nothing from this. Why there is \"you\" after \"call\"? Where is \"that\" in \"that differs not from\" linked to? Please help me to understand it. I mean I want to understand it in terms of structure. Putting the words in their normal places and without changing them how this sentence would say? For those who want to see the context, here is the much more connected version: He (my big brother Oliver) keeps my brother Jaques at school, and report speaks goldenly of his profit. For my part, he keeps me rustically at home, or, to speak more properly, stays me here at home unkept; for call you that \"keeping\" for a gentleman of my birth, that differs not from the stalling of an ox? Moreover, to make helping easier for those who willing to help I am putting the vocabulary notes here: report speaks.... propit: Rumor has it that Jaques is flourishing as a student. profit: proficiency stays: detains unkept: uncared for, neglected gentleman of my birth: i.e., the son of a knight stalling: lodging in a stall; rendering unable to proceed","answer":"It's simply a question. Call you that \"keeping?\" means Do you call that \"keeping?\" This form of question appears throughout Shakespeare's works and those of his contemporaries. Later in the play Corin asks Touchstone, And how like you this shepherd's life, Master Touchstone? Jaques asks Duke Senior, Good my lord, like you this fellow? And when Jaques wants Antonio to sing another verse of \"Under The Greenwood Tree\", he says, Come, more; another stanzo: call you 'em stanzos? He is complaining that his brother looks after him no better than he would look after an ox. An ox is kept only to work, and so is he. Perhaps we would say, \"Do you call it \"keeping\" which is no better than the way an ox is kept?\" It's something like, Do you call that \"music\" that is a man playing the spoons? Oliver doesn't actually keep him in a stall, but Orlando feels he's treated no better than the ox, as he's about to explain. This page might be helpful.","output":"It's simply a question. Call you that \"keeping?\" means Do you call that \"keeping?\" This form of question appears throughout Shakespeare's works and those of his contemporaries. Later in the play Corin asks Touchstone, And how like you this shepherd's life, Master Touchstone? Jaques asks Duke Senior, Good my lord, like you this fellow? And when Jaques wants Antonio to sing another verse of \"Under The Greenwood Tree\", he says, Come, more; another stanzo: call you 'em stanzos? He is complaining that his brother looks after him no better than he would look after an ox. An ox is kept only to work, and so is he. Perhaps we would say, \"Do you call it \"keeping\" which is no better than the way an ox is kept?\" It's something like, Do you call that \"music\" that is a man playing the spoons? Oliver doesn't actually keep him in a stall, but Orlando feels he's treated no better than the ox, as he's about to explain. This page might be helpful."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIt was the most gut-retching thing I have ever heard. Wrenching sounds like it would make sense, but so does retching.","question":"It was the most gut-retching thing I have ever heard. Wrenching sounds like it would make sense, but so does retching.","answer":"I think you want \"gut-wrenching\"; \"retching\" involves something coming up from your gut and out of your mouth: also called puking or throwing up, although normally retching refers to the sound and motion of throwing up with or without any actual regurgitation. Something that is gut-wrenching is extremely disconcerting in a visceral sort of way. You might throw up as a reaction but that is not the usual outcome, and certainly it's not a necessary condition. The scene at a shopping mall in Tucson last weekend was gut-wrenching to all who witnessed it, and even to most of those who only heard about it in the news.","output":"I think you want \"gut-wrenching\"; \"retching\" involves something coming up from your gut and out of your mouth: also called puking or throwing up, although normally retching refers to the sound and motion of throwing up with or without any actual regurgitation. Something that is gut-wrenching is extremely disconcerting in a visceral sort of way. You might throw up as a reaction but that is not the usual outcome, and certainly it's not a necessary condition. The scene at a shopping mall in Tucson last weekend was gut-wrenching to all who witnessed it, and even to most of those who only heard about it in the news."}
{"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\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 negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWashington Post (April 28) carried an article under the headline \u201cJohn Boehner just called Ted Cruz \u2018Lucifer in the flesh.\u2019 He does this sometimes,\u201d and the Stanford Daily (April 28) detailed the episode as: \u201cSegueing into the topic, Kennedy asked Boehner to be frank given that the event was not being broadcasted, and the former Speaker responded in kind. When specifically asked his opinions on Ted Cruz, Boehner made a face, drawing laughter from the crowd. \"Lucifer in the flesh,\" the former Speaker said. \u201cI have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch . in my life.\u201d Both Oxford and Cambridge English Dictionary defines \u201cLucifer\u201d as another name for Satan. What does \u201cLucifer in the flesh\u201d used in this specific Boehner\u2019s comment mean ? Does \"flesh\" here have any sexual connotation?","question":"Washington Post (April 28) carried an article under the headline \u201cJohn Boehner just called Ted Cruz \u2018Lucifer in the flesh.\u2019 He does this sometimes,\u201d and the Stanford Daily (April 28) detailed the episode as: \u201cSegueing into the topic, Kennedy asked Boehner to be frank given that the event was not being broadcasted, and the former Speaker responded in kind. When specifically asked his opinions on Ted Cruz, Boehner made a face, drawing laughter from the crowd. \"Lucifer in the flesh,\" the former Speaker said. \u201cI have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch . in my life.\u201d Both Oxford and Cambridge English Dictionary defines \u201cLucifer\u201d as another name for Satan. What does \u201cLucifer in the flesh\u201d used in this specific Boehner\u2019s comment mean ? Does \"flesh\" here have any sexual connotation?","answer":"As you understand, Lucifer means the same thing as Satan, considered in Christianity to be the leader of evil spirits. The word flesh sometimes has a sexual connotation, but not in this case. Here, it's part of an expression in the flesh, which the Cambridge English Dictionary defines as meaning \"physically in \u200bfront of you,\" with the example sentence \"I\u2019ve \u200bseen her \u200bperform on \u200btelevision, but never in the flesh.\" It's usually synonymous with the expression \"in person.\" In this case, since it is applied to an entity that is normally considered a spiritual being, it might also have a more literal meaning: not just \"Lucifer, present in person\" but \"Lucifer in a physical human body.\" A synonym in this sense would be incarnate: we can say \"Lucifer incarnate\" to describe a person as evil. It seems to me to have a strong, but vague meaning: \"a very evil\/bad\/terrible person.\" I don't think the phrase carries any more specific connotations. In a religious context, the phrase might be used literally, but in most other cases it will just be a hyperbolic insult.","output":"As you understand, Lucifer means the same thing as Satan, considered in Christianity to be the leader of evil spirits. The word flesh sometimes has a sexual connotation, but not in this case. Here, it's part of an expression in the flesh, which the Cambridge English Dictionary defines as meaning \"physically in \u200bfront of you,\" with the example sentence \"I\u2019ve \u200bseen her \u200bperform on \u200btelevision, but never in the flesh.\" It's usually synonymous with the expression \"in person.\" In this case, since it is applied to an entity that is normally considered a spiritual being, it might also have a more literal meaning: not just \"Lucifer, present in person\" but \"Lucifer in a physical human body.\" A synonym in this sense would be incarnate: we can say \"Lucifer incarnate\" to describe a person as evil. It seems to me to have a strong, but vague meaning: \"a very evil\/bad\/terrible person.\" I don't think the phrase carries any more specific connotations. In a religious context, the phrase might be used literally, but in most other cases it will just be a hyperbolic insult."}
{"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 wrote an email to someone this morning and said that I had not yet 'put pen to paper' and then I attempted to express that in modern terms. But I stumbled to express 'paper', uncertain what 'substance' I am producing when I take up the 'pen' of my keyboard. What, exactly, would be the modern idiom, using computing over the internet, to express 'putting pen to paper' ?","question":"I wrote an email to someone this morning and said that I had not yet 'put pen to paper' and then I attempted to express that in modern terms. But I stumbled to express 'paper', uncertain what 'substance' I am producing when I take up the 'pen' of my keyboard. What, exactly, would be the modern idiom, using computing over the internet, to express 'putting pen to paper' ?","answer":"I have found lots of posts using \"fingers to keyboard.\" Here are a few examples: Putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) (source) Motivation to put pen to paper - or fingers to keyboard. (source) Writing tips for anyone who puts pen to paper or fingers to keyboard. (source) This new old idiom sounds quite modern now, doesn't it?","output":"I have found lots of posts using \"fingers to keyboard.\" Here are a few examples: Putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) (source) Motivation to put pen to paper - or fingers to keyboard. (source) Writing tips for anyone who puts pen to paper or fingers to keyboard. (source) This new old idiom sounds quite modern now, doesn't it?"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn some old Toefl test, there is a question like this: ______in this town? I think Mr. Kim is the richest man. A. Who do you think is the richest man B. Who you think is the richest man I would choose B since it sounds better. But what's wrong with A (or B)?","question":"In some old Toefl test, there is a question like this: ______in this town? I think Mr. Kim is the richest man. A. Who do you think is the richest man B. Who you think is the richest man I would choose B since it sounds better. But what's wrong with A (or B)?","answer":"______in this town? I think Mr. Kim is the richest man. A. Who do you think is the richest man. B. Who you think is the richest man. In a question, the subject and the verb must be inverted, which means the verb must come before the subject. Making it clearer, I will use this statement : I think he is the richest man. We are making question about him, so Who is he? I dont know. Now, I'll 1. take out the word him and add in the question word who in the beginning of the sentence. I will also 2. change the word I to you Who you think is the richest man. Now, I will 3. put the verb in front of the noun.The clause that should be inverted is \"you think\". Since the verb think is a normal verb which can't be inverted, the correct way to invert this sentence is adding the helping verb do right before \"you think\". Who do you think is the richest man. The correct answer is therefore, (A).","output":"______in this town? I think Mr. Kim is the richest man. A. Who do you think is the richest man. B. Who you think is the richest man. In a question, the subject and the verb must be inverted, which means the verb must come before the subject. Making it clearer, I will use this statement : I think he is the richest man. We are making question about him, so Who is he? I dont know. Now, I'll 1. take out the word him and add in the question word who in the beginning of the sentence. I will also 2. change the word I to you Who you think is the richest man. Now, I will 3. put the verb in front of the noun.The clause that should be inverted is \"you think\". Since the verb think is a normal verb which can't be inverted, the correct way to invert this sentence is adding the helping verb do right before \"you think\". Who do you think is the richest man. The correct answer is therefore, (A)."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"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\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nRufus Wainwright's Cover of Hallelujah The literal meaning of hallelujah is \"Praise Yah\", however the song uses it in different ways and I have always wondered what it really means in the song. The baffled king composing Hallelujah And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah And every breath we drew was Hallelujah It\u2019s a cold and it\u2019s a broken Hallelujah The holy or the broken Hallelujah With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah Complete lyrics: http:\/\/www.azlyrics.com\/lyrics\/leonardcohen\/hallelujah.html","question":"Rufus Wainwright's Cover of Hallelujah The literal meaning of hallelujah is \"Praise Yah\", however the song uses it in different ways and I have always wondered what it really means in the song. The baffled king composing Hallelujah And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah And every breath we drew was Hallelujah It\u2019s a cold and it\u2019s a broken Hallelujah The holy or the broken Hallelujah With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah Complete lyrics: http:\/\/www.azlyrics.com\/lyrics\/leonardcohen\/hallelujah.html","answer":"Far be it from me to try to interpret the master Mr Cohen's lyrics. He can make words mean what he wants them to mean. Think of his songs as poetry. I will only point out that there are two ways to use a word in the philosophy of language. We can 'use' the word for its literal meaning, as we usually do. So \"hello\" means \"Good Day\", and we have sentences like \"He said hello\". But we can also 'mention' a word - this is called the use-mention distinction. When we mention a word, we use it as a \"signifier\", or a symbol. It doesn't just have its literal meaning, but is also a metaphor for an entire class of things. So \"hello\" can also mean \"a greeting\", and we can have sentences like \"They kissed their hellos\". In many of the lines of this song, Mr Cohen is not only using but also mentioning Hallelujah. So Hallelujah can mean \"Praise Jah\", but it can also be mentioned to mean \"A word or song of worship\". E.g., the broken king composing a song of worship. That's how he employs the words grammatically. As far as what he means: who can say but him?","output":"Far be it from me to try to interpret the master Mr Cohen's lyrics. He can make words mean what he wants them to mean. Think of his songs as poetry. I will only point out that there are two ways to use a word in the philosophy of language. We can 'use' the word for its literal meaning, as we usually do. So \"hello\" means \"Good Day\", and we have sentences like \"He said hello\". But we can also 'mention' a word - this is called the use-mention distinction. When we mention a word, we use it as a \"signifier\", or a symbol. It doesn't just have its literal meaning, but is also a metaphor for an entire class of things. So \"hello\" can also mean \"a greeting\", and we can have sentences like \"They kissed their hellos\". In many of the lines of this song, Mr Cohen is not only using but also mentioning Hallelujah. So Hallelujah can mean \"Praise Jah\", but it can also be mentioned to mean \"A word or song of worship\". E.g., the broken king composing a song of worship. That's how he employs the words grammatically. As far as what he means: who can say but him?"}
{"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 need a title for my essay that is saying that works of words are better than pictures. I was thinking of \"a picture is worth a thousand words\", but that advocates pictures, not words.","question":"I need a title for my essay that is saying that works of words are better than pictures. I was thinking of \"a picture is worth a thousand words\", but that advocates pictures, not words.","answer":"I'm not sure whether it fully fits your essay, but the phrase The book is always better (than the movie)1 referring to film adaptations versus the books they're based on, gets a fair amount of usage. There are t-shirts, memes, many blog posts, etc. To some extent, the first half has also become a stand-alone phrase, as in the article \"10 reasons why books are always better than boys\". Of course this phrase contrasts books with the films that are based on those books. Since books are made up of many words in a particular sequence and films consist largely of many pictures in a particular sequence (and are even sometimes called moving pictures), I think the analogy is fairly clear and the phrase could work for you. There is even some use of these two phrases in contrast with one another, in the form of the question \"If a picture is worth a thousand words, why is the book always better than the movie?\" It's been asked on Yahoo Answers, there is at least one meme out there, and it's apparently the slogan of a copywriting company, to link to a few examples. 1 The phrase the book was better is probably more common, but the more extreme version seems to suit your purposes better. However, if you wanted to hedge your bets, you could use The book is (almost) always better or you could use The book was better: with an appropriate sub-title.","output":"I'm not sure whether it fully fits your essay, but the phrase The book is always better (than the movie)1 referring to film adaptations versus the books they're based on, gets a fair amount of usage. There are t-shirts, memes, many blog posts, etc. To some extent, the first half has also become a stand-alone phrase, as in the article \"10 reasons why books are always better than boys\". Of course this phrase contrasts books with the films that are based on those books. Since books are made up of many words in a particular sequence and films consist largely of many pictures in a particular sequence (and are even sometimes called moving pictures), I think the analogy is fairly clear and the phrase could work for you. There is even some use of these two phrases in contrast with one another, in the form of the question \"If a picture is worth a thousand words, why is the book always better than the movie?\" It's been asked on Yahoo Answers, there is at least one meme out there, and it's apparently the slogan of a copywriting company, to link to a few examples. 1 The phrase the book was better is probably more common, but the more extreme version seems to suit your purposes better. However, if you wanted to hedge your bets, you could use The book is (almost) always better or you could use The book was better: with an appropriate sub-title."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe informal word for telling on people is \"dobbing\" (and we call that person a \"dibber-dobber\", at least here in Australia. Is there an actual word for it? Example: Sue went to my mother and told on me when I said that I was having an abortion. Sue is such a [insert word].","question":"The informal word for telling on people is \"dobbing\" (and we call that person a \"dibber-dobber\", at least here in Australia. Is there an actual word for it? Example: Sue went to my mother and told on me when I said that I was having an abortion. Sue is such a [insert word].","answer":"Inform (on somebody) \u2014 M-W verb to give information (as of another's wrongdoing) to an authority \"informed on a member of his own gang\" He informed on the gang. He's been informing on us! Related to the noun Informer \u2014 M-W noun a person who gives information to the police about secret or criminal activities \"the informer who told the police about that conspiracy has angered a lot of dangerous people\" or informant \u2014 M-W She's an informer. She's an informant. EDIT: For the added example in OP, I'd suggest tattle-tale, telltale, etc. as mentioned in other answers. \"a person, especially a child, who reveals secrets or informs on others\" \"Sue went to my mother and told on me when I said that I was having an abortion. Sue is such a ____.\"","output":"Inform (on somebody) \u2014 M-W verb to give information (as of another's wrongdoing) to an authority \"informed on a member of his own gang\" He informed on the gang. He's been informing on us! Related to the noun Informer \u2014 M-W noun a person who gives information to the police about secret or criminal activities \"the informer who told the police about that conspiracy has angered a lot of dangerous people\" or informant \u2014 M-W She's an informer. She's an informant. EDIT: For the added example in OP, I'd suggest tattle-tale, telltale, etc. as mentioned in other answers. \"a person, especially a child, who reveals secrets or informs on others\" \"Sue went to my mother and told on me when I said that I was having an abortion. Sue is such a ____.\""}
{"instruction":"Apa itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"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\nWhat's the right word to describe a situation in a sports competition or in elections, in which both competitors are equal on all parameters and it is absolutely not clear which one of them will be the winner?","question":"What's the right word to describe a situation in a sports competition or in elections, in which both competitors are equal on all parameters and it is absolutely not clear which one of them will be the winner?","answer":"As JeremyC mentions, there is no single word for this, but there are multiple expressions. He already mentions \"wide open\", but there are others: It's anyone's game. It's too close to call (there is no way to confidently predict the winner). It's a toss up (random, like tossing a coin) It's a dead heat (as in a race, when neither runner is clearly ahead) It's an even match\/contest (neither participant has a clear advantage) It's down to the wire (as in horse racing, with a wire across the finish line, and none of the horses clearly in the lead) It's neck and neck (another horse racing expression, when the horses are too close together to see which is clearly in the lead) Finally, there's the expression \"photo finish\", which is used after the race is over, but there is still no clear winner. Again, with horse racing, a photo would be taken at the finish line, then developed and examined to see which horse (if any) was ahead. Naturally this can be used for any competition:","output":"As JeremyC mentions, there is no single word for this, but there are multiple expressions. He already mentions \"wide open\", but there are others: It's anyone's game. It's too close to call (there is no way to confidently predict the winner). It's a toss up (random, like tossing a coin) It's a dead heat (as in a race, when neither runner is clearly ahead) It's an even match\/contest (neither participant has a clear advantage) It's down to the wire (as in horse racing, with a wire across the finish line, and none of the horses clearly in the lead) It's neck and neck (another horse racing expression, when the horses are too close together to see which is clearly in the lead) Finally, there's the expression \"photo finish\", which is used after the race is over, but there is still no clear winner. Again, with horse racing, a photo would be taken at the finish line, then developed and examined to see which horse (if any) was ahead. Naturally this can be used for any competition:"}
{"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThere is a fictional god named Tyr in the Forgotten Realms fantasy universe. His church teaches that To keep Tyr's favor, one must respect fallen enemies, never make sacrifice of a corpse, and keep one's alignment lawful good. What is meant by \"never make sacrifice of a corpse\"? How would you sacrifice a corpse? It's already dead. A similar question on RPG SE was closed, as apparently this is a phrase with meaning outside of the fantasy universe. That being said, googling the phrase results in only RPG and fantasy specific hits, without any apparent definition.","question":"There is a fictional god named Tyr in the Forgotten Realms fantasy universe. His church teaches that To keep Tyr's favor, one must respect fallen enemies, never make sacrifice of a corpse, and keep one's alignment lawful good. What is meant by \"never make sacrifice of a corpse\"? How would you sacrifice a corpse? It's already dead. A similar question on RPG SE was closed, as apparently this is a phrase with meaning outside of the fantasy universe. That being said, googling the phrase results in only RPG and fantasy specific hits, without any apparent definition.","answer":"Anything can be sacrificed \u2014 the modern trope of live sacrifice as being the inherent meaning of \u201csacrifice\u201d is an unfortunately lurid distortion. (I blame pulp fiction and TV's reliance on bloody sacrifice as a shorthand for \u201cthese are bad people\u201d, but I have no cite for that.) Most online dictionaries limit themselves to the \u201ckill an animal\u201d meaning, but the Merriam online dictionary is more expansive, and even shows the distinction between the meaning that conflates sacrifice with killing and the meaning that doesn't, by including in its fuller definition two senses that are nearly identical except for that conflation: sacrifice noun 1 : an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar 2 : something offered in sacrifice Both senses are primarily the broader meaning of religious sacrifice as an offering of anything. Despite the semantic narrowing to just sacrificial killing that the word is undergoing in modern English use, reflected in sense (1) above, sacrifice can still be correctly and meaningfully applied to something already dead. When that misunderstanding is dispensed with, it's easy to understand what \u201cmake sacrifice of a corpse\u201d means. The specifics of how a corpse could be made a sacrifice depend inherently on the rites of (real or fictious) religions of the world in question \u2014 the most familiar real-world method to the English-speaking world is to burn the sacrifice, in the sense of the biblical \u201cburnt offering.\u201d Other sacrificial rituals may not involve destruction of the offering at all, and may be only symbolic (which in a fantasy setting, can easily be magically\/metaphysically real beyond \u201conly\u201d symbolism). In a fantasy setting, such rites could be quite different from modern Western assumptions of what \u201ca religious sacrifice\u201d looks like, limited only by the imagination of the setting's author(s). To observe this prohibition, then, a follower of the fictitious god Tyr would have to avoid participating in any rites of other in-setting religions that involve sacrificing a corpse.","output":"Anything can be sacrificed \u2014 the modern trope of live sacrifice as being the inherent meaning of \u201csacrifice\u201d is an unfortunately lurid distortion. (I blame pulp fiction and TV's reliance on bloody sacrifice as a shorthand for \u201cthese are bad people\u201d, but I have no cite for that.) Most online dictionaries limit themselves to the \u201ckill an animal\u201d meaning, but the Merriam online dictionary is more expansive, and even shows the distinction between the meaning that conflates sacrifice with killing and the meaning that doesn't, by including in its fuller definition two senses that are nearly identical except for that conflation: sacrifice noun 1 : an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar 2 : something offered in sacrifice Both senses are primarily the broader meaning of religious sacrifice as an offering of anything. Despite the semantic narrowing to just sacrificial killing that the word is undergoing in modern English use, reflected in sense (1) above, sacrifice can still be correctly and meaningfully applied to something already dead. When that misunderstanding is dispensed with, it's easy to understand what \u201cmake sacrifice of a corpse\u201d means. The specifics of how a corpse could be made a sacrifice depend inherently on the rites of (real or fictious) religions of the world in question \u2014 the most familiar real-world method to the English-speaking world is to burn the sacrifice, in the sense of the biblical \u201cburnt offering.\u201d Other sacrificial rituals may not involve destruction of the offering at all, and may be only symbolic (which in a fantasy setting, can easily be magically\/metaphysically real beyond \u201conly\u201d symbolism). In a fantasy setting, such rites could be quite different from modern Western assumptions of what \u201ca religious sacrifice\u201d looks like, limited only by the imagination of the setting's author(s). To observe this prohibition, then, a follower of the fictitious god Tyr would have to avoid participating in any rites of other in-setting religions that involve sacrificing a corpse."}
{"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\nConsider the following example \u2014 I want to write down several sequential actions in future. Should I write: I will go home, will have dinner, will play tennis, etc. or: I will go home, have dinner, play tennis, etc. And the same for would, have, and other auxiliaries. Is there a common rule? P.S.: There is another question on a similar topic, but I don't know if separating verbs by comma and by and is equivalent.","question":"Consider the following example \u2014 I want to write down several sequential actions in future. Should I write: I will go home, will have dinner, will play tennis, etc. or: I will go home, have dinner, play tennis, etc. And the same for would, have, and other auxiliaries. Is there a common rule? P.S.: There is another question on a similar topic, but I don't know if separating verbs by comma and by and is equivalent.","answer":"Your example sentence treats the three activities as a sequential list, so the timing of them is given by the order they happen in. The introductory phrase for the list is \"I will\", so that is applied to all items in the list -- and that also goes for lists introduced with modal auxiliaries: \"If I had the money, I would a, b, and c\" means \"~~ I would a, I would b, and I would c\". You can, of course, repeat the subject + modal for emphasis (particularly with \"will\", which is used for making promises): \"I will do a, I will do b, and I will do c, even if it kills... er... someone!\" But, given that you clearly state that the actions are a sequence, it is plain that all of the actions will occur in the future, because the first action has the \"will\", and the other actions follow it in sequence.","output":"Your example sentence treats the three activities as a sequential list, so the timing of them is given by the order they happen in. The introductory phrase for the list is \"I will\", so that is applied to all items in the list -- and that also goes for lists introduced with modal auxiliaries: \"If I had the money, I would a, b, and c\" means \"~~ I would a, I would b, and I would c\". You can, of course, repeat the subject + modal for emphasis (particularly with \"will\", which is used for making promises): \"I will do a, I will do b, and I will do c, even if it kills... er... someone!\" But, given that you clearly state that the actions are a sequence, it is plain that all of the actions will occur in the future, because the first action has the \"will\", and the other actions follow it in sequence."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI watched a (Hollywood?) film the other day where a character visiting his just-hospitalised wife (who it seems will actually survive) says \"If I would have lost you [I don't know what I'd do]\". I'd always thought this was an error made by non-native speakers (I myself would only expect \"If I had lost you\"), but there was nothing to suggest that in the movie. Is it a regionalism? EDIT: Actually, that wasn't true about only expecting \"If I had lost you\". I'd have been perfectly happy with \"If I'd have lost you\", so long as I didn't think too hard about what was being elided. I'd usually elide \"have\" there to just a schwa (neutral vowel) anyway, and think no more about it.","question":"I watched a (Hollywood?) film the other day where a character visiting his just-hospitalised wife (who it seems will actually survive) says \"If I would have lost you [I don't know what I'd do]\". I'd always thought this was an error made by non-native speakers (I myself would only expect \"If I had lost you\"), but there was nothing to suggest that in the movie. Is it a regionalism? EDIT: Actually, that wasn't true about only expecting \"If I had lost you\". I'd have been perfectly happy with \"If I'd have lost you\", so long as I didn't think too hard about what was being elided. I'd usually elide \"have\" there to just a schwa (neutral vowel) anyway, and think no more about it.","answer":"I think what has happened is the following: Most English speakers would say the clause as If I'd lost you (however they might write it), and thus should pronounce it as \/\u026afaydl\u0254styu\/. But the stressed \/-dl\u0254st-\/ syllable in \/\u026afaydl\u0254styu\/ is very hard to pronounce. The normal result of (1) and (2) is insertion of an epenthetic shwa between \/d\/ and \/l\/, separating the cluster and producing \/\u026afayd\u0259'l\u0254styu\/. I am a native Midwestern US speaker, and although I never say If I would have instead of If I had, in fact I rarely say either, and normally contract to If I'd. And \/\u026afayd\u0259'l\u0254styu\/ sounds perfectly fine as a contraction to me. It does not unpack for me into anything except If I had lost you. However, grammar school grammar being what it is in the Anglophone world, other people's parsers unpack \/\u026afayd\u0259'l\u0254styu\/ in various ways. Some believe, for instance, that it should (or might) be unpacked as If I would have lost you -- and some even believe that this use of the modal auxiliary would is in fact The Conditional Mood, label and all. And I know of at least one other case of someone's unpacking it as If I had have lost you, which makes my teeth itch. Generally what actually gets said is contracted, or otherwise subject to some kind of conversational shortening or fast speech rules. Then it gets written down and improved by scriveners, and those naughty contractions gotta go, leaving imaginative reconstructions behind. Mutations like this are just one more way that English syntax grows. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.","output":"I think what has happened is the following: Most English speakers would say the clause as If I'd lost you (however they might write it), and thus should pronounce it as \/\u026afaydl\u0254styu\/. But the stressed \/-dl\u0254st-\/ syllable in \/\u026afaydl\u0254styu\/ is very hard to pronounce. The normal result of (1) and (2) is insertion of an epenthetic shwa between \/d\/ and \/l\/, separating the cluster and producing \/\u026afayd\u0259'l\u0254styu\/. I am a native Midwestern US speaker, and although I never say If I would have instead of If I had, in fact I rarely say either, and normally contract to If I'd. And \/\u026afayd\u0259'l\u0254styu\/ sounds perfectly fine as a contraction to me. It does not unpack for me into anything except If I had lost you. However, grammar school grammar being what it is in the Anglophone world, other people's parsers unpack \/\u026afayd\u0259'l\u0254styu\/ in various ways. Some believe, for instance, that it should (or might) be unpacked as If I would have lost you -- and some even believe that this use of the modal auxiliary would is in fact The Conditional Mood, label and all. And I know of at least one other case of someone's unpacking it as If I had have lost you, which makes my teeth itch. Generally what actually gets said is contracted, or otherwise subject to some kind of conversational shortening or fast speech rules. Then it gets written down and improved by scriveners, and those naughty contractions gotta go, leaving imaginative reconstructions behind. Mutations like this are just one more way that English syntax grows. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn a general context, is there any difference in meaning or tone between \"diplomacy\" and \"foreign affairs\"? Consider the following case. (at a speech) I will talk about effects the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership agreement) may have on Japanese diplomacy (or foreign affairs).","question":"In a general context, is there any difference in meaning or tone between \"diplomacy\" and \"foreign affairs\"? Consider the following case. (at a speech) I will talk about effects the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership agreement) may have on Japanese diplomacy (or foreign affairs).","answer":"Foreign affairs and foreign policy are terms which describe a country's overall relations with foreign places; the policies in place, incidents that take place, treaties, alliances, trade agreements, military and security co-operation, as well as hostile relationships - even war. Diplomacy involves the day to day contacts and relations between countries involving ambassadors, government officials, conversations between foreign ministers and others in the relevant governments etc.","output":"Foreign affairs and foreign policy are terms which describe a country's overall relations with foreign places; the policies in place, incidents that take place, treaties, alliances, trade agreements, military and security co-operation, as well as hostile relationships - even war. Diplomacy involves the day to day contacts and relations between countries involving ambassadors, government officials, conversations between foreign ministers and others in the relevant governments etc."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI don't think we call it a wind, because it's not a wind if the air is hitting you, because the car is moving at a high speed. Is there a specific word for stagnant air (doesn't have to be stagnant since there can be a little wind in there too) that rushes into the car, because you are driving at a high speed?","question":"I don't think we call it a wind, because it's not a wind if the air is hitting you, because the car is moving at a high speed. Is there a specific word for stagnant air (doesn't have to be stagnant since there can be a little wind in there too) that rushes into the car, because you are driving at a high speed?","answer":"In America, we call it wind. For example, there are song lyrics about riding in a car (or maybe on a motorcycle) with the \"wind in my hair.\" This is also part of why the front glass on an American car or motorcycle is called a \"windshield\".","output":"In America, we call it wind. For example, there are song lyrics about riding in a car (or maybe on a motorcycle) with the \"wind in my hair.\" This is also part of why the front glass on an American car or motorcycle is called a \"windshield\"."}
{"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\nIn Arthur Conan Doyle's The adventure of Black Peter, Watson casually refers to a previous exploit of Holmes:- In the memorable year '95 a curious and incongruous succession of cases had engaged his attention, ranging from this famous investigation of the sudden death of Cardinal Tosca...down to his arrest of Wilson, the notorious canary trainer, which removed a plague-spot from the East End of London. According to Green's Dictionary of Slang a canary might be a mistress a prostitute a thief's female accomplice a female singer among other less-likely definitions. So it seems possible that a canary trainer was a brothel-keeper. Online I turned up The Canary Trainer, a Sherlock Holmes pastiche, revolving around Opera singers, which doesn't seem to fit in with the previous definitions. I realise that actress and harlot were pretty nearly synonymous in Victorian times, but don't think the same stigma attached to opera singers, in which case training of singers can hardly be said to be \"a plague-spot\". So, does anyone know what a canary trainer did?","question":"In Arthur Conan Doyle's The adventure of Black Peter, Watson casually refers to a previous exploit of Holmes:- In the memorable year '95 a curious and incongruous succession of cases had engaged his attention, ranging from this famous investigation of the sudden death of Cardinal Tosca...down to his arrest of Wilson, the notorious canary trainer, which removed a plague-spot from the East End of London. According to Green's Dictionary of Slang a canary might be a mistress a prostitute a thief's female accomplice a female singer among other less-likely definitions. So it seems possible that a canary trainer was a brothel-keeper. Online I turned up The Canary Trainer, a Sherlock Holmes pastiche, revolving around Opera singers, which doesn't seem to fit in with the previous definitions. I realise that actress and harlot were pretty nearly synonymous in Victorian times, but don't think the same stigma attached to opera singers, in which case training of singers can hardly be said to be \"a plague-spot\". So, does anyone know what a canary trainer did?","answer":"I apologize for the tardiness in answering, but sometimes a person needs time to reflect and for that eureka moment to occur :) What I offer is not the answer as to who was Watson's Notorious canary trainer, which the Op didn't in any case ask for, but rather a fuller and more complete explanation of what a canary bird trainer does. If like me you believed a canary trainer was somewhat synonymous with an ordinary breeder or someone who taught canaries to perform and sing on command, you sadly underestimated the complexity and importance of his role. It seems that in order for canaries to produce the most pleasing and sweetest of song, they have to be bred and instructed carefully, they can even be taught to sing a particular tune or melody. In The Canary Handbook by Matthew M. Vriends, Tanya M. Heming-Vriends, we're told that Canaries were discovered to be excellent mimickers and the Germans (especially) exploited the bird's natural talents. Special automatic musical instruments were made which mimicked the voice of the canary \u2014 and these were played continuously to young cocks until they also had mastered the song. These canary breeders soon realized that each bird was unique, and had its own particular tone. Birds with the most mellow or musical tones were selectively bred to produce cocks with even better songs. Some of those with the best songs were then used to train young cocks, so that the talent could be used in two ways. Indeed, some of the birds were sold exclusively as trainers, others as songsters. [...] It is not difficult to breed canaries, but to produce fine, prizewinning singing canaries is a question of expertise, dedication, and ongoing enthusiasm [...] Every young cock must be trained before he becomes a useful and calm singer. The training begins during the breeding in the nest and continues in the singing cage. Source Online I found a succinct description of what a songbird trainer could teach ... the extraordinary fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries to train birds to sing popular music on command. Bullfinches, linnets, canaries and other songbirds were taught popular tunes as well as songs written specially for birds. Once trained, these songsters were used as primordial, feathered music machines, delivering music in people\u2019s homes, 100 years before the arrival of the phonograph and the advent of recorded sound. Source So now onto why Sherlock Holmes's canary trainer was called notorious. I suggest two hypotheses, the first is related to the trading and exportation of these songbirds. The demand for these highly trained songbirds, such as Goldfinches, linnets, blackbirds, thrushes and nightingales steadily increased in the 18th and 19th century, among the upper and middle classes, and lasted until the early 20th century. Furthermore, in the US the demand for these delicate and charming caged birds was quite considerable. In a book entitled Canaries: Their Care and Management by Alexander Wetmore, 1923, it states I suppose American buyers would have ordered only from the most reputable breeders, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of these canary birds on their arrival couldn't sing (only the male species can sing); were ill-kept and consequently suffered from diseases; or just sang \"poorly\". An easy trade, and an easier way to swindle and cheat customers who lived many thousands of miles away. My second hypothesis is connected to the East End of Victorian London, a notorious breeding ground for petty crimes and the mistreatment of domestic animals if ever there was one. During the 18th century the trade for singing birds was unique to the area of London, it being said that \"Londoners would buy anything with a beak and a tail\". A new profession was born, that of bird-catchers And as the 19th century progressed, so too the demand for cage birds. Here is an extract taken from The Art and Mystery of Song-Bird Torture by James Greenwood, 1874. A writer and social journalist for the London Daily Telegraph in the 1860s. IN all my spring morning experience of country rambling, I never before had heard such distinct and emphatic bird-music, crisp, sharp, and ringing out at regular intervals, as though the tiny creature from whose throat the sounds proceeded was actuated by duty rather than pleasure. No wasteful and extravagant flourishes of melody - no whimsical jumble of notes short and notes long, with wanton twitterings between, such as a free bird among green boughs delights to indulge in by way of demonstrating what a happy and independent fellow he is ; but a shrewdly calculated and systematic performance, as though after every renewed effort, he wound himself up for the next, and was bound to deliver himself to the instant of a certain quality and quantity of music, as per contract. The London journalist discovers that the songbird, who travels in a parcel, belongs to two bird-catchers. He ventures to make their acquaintance and discovers to his horror that the finch has been deliberately blinded by one of the bird-catchers. It was common belief at that time that the darker the singing birds' environments were, the better they sang 1, as a result many \"breeders\" permanently destroyed their songbirds' eyesights with red-hot needles or wire. The sightless finch is used as a bait, and as the story unfolds we learn more about the ingenious technique employed by the unscrupulous bird capturers. Greenwood continued investigations lead him to the bird market and animal shops in Sclater Street, where he describes in detail the appalling and abysmal conditions the jailed birds were forced to endure. Did this have anything to do with the \"notorious\" canary trainer? Was he by chance from Shoreditch, East London? Was he a bird dealer, trader and trainer? Could his shop be the plague spot which Watson refers to? Finally, one more anecdote which convinces me further that Arthur Conyan Doyle's Canary Trainer was not an euphemism, or slang term for a unsavoury or immoral profession, but as @slam suggested, a man who trained canaries to sing. Sclater Street At the turn of the century of course, things were so different, bird fanciers would gather and compare notes with fellow fanciers, and acquaintances, and to show off their birds. Canaries were a popular favourite, and there were allegedly some 'dodgy dealing' going on, when certain dealers would paint, or dye a common bird yellow, and pass it off as a canary. On Sundays, the little shops were inundated with trade in birds, but it was during the week, when their real trade took over, and people would travel from all over the country to visit the yards and stables at the back of these shops, where the most exotic animals imaginable could be purchased, from African lions, Indian elephants, various apes, boa-constrictors, giraffes, zebras, even Polar bears.","output":"I apologize for the tardiness in answering, but sometimes a person needs time to reflect and for that eureka moment to occur :) What I offer is not the answer as to who was Watson's Notorious canary trainer, which the Op didn't in any case ask for, but rather a fuller and more complete explanation of what a canary bird trainer does. If like me you believed a canary trainer was somewhat synonymous with an ordinary breeder or someone who taught canaries to perform and sing on command, you sadly underestimated the complexity and importance of his role. It seems that in order for canaries to produce the most pleasing and sweetest of song, they have to be bred and instructed carefully, they can even be taught to sing a particular tune or melody. In The Canary Handbook by Matthew M. Vriends, Tanya M. Heming-Vriends, we're told that Canaries were discovered to be excellent mimickers and the Germans (especially) exploited the bird's natural talents. Special automatic musical instruments were made which mimicked the voice of the canary \u2014 and these were played continuously to young cocks until they also had mastered the song. These canary breeders soon realized that each bird was unique, and had its own particular tone. Birds with the most mellow or musical tones were selectively bred to produce cocks with even better songs. Some of those with the best songs were then used to train young cocks, so that the talent could be used in two ways. Indeed, some of the birds were sold exclusively as trainers, others as songsters. [...] It is not difficult to breed canaries, but to produce fine, prizewinning singing canaries is a question of expertise, dedication, and ongoing enthusiasm [...] Every young cock must be trained before he becomes a useful and calm singer. The training begins during the breeding in the nest and continues in the singing cage. Source Online I found a succinct description of what a songbird trainer could teach ... the extraordinary fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries to train birds to sing popular music on command. Bullfinches, linnets, canaries and other songbirds were taught popular tunes as well as songs written specially for birds. Once trained, these songsters were used as primordial, feathered music machines, delivering music in people\u2019s homes, 100 years before the arrival of the phonograph and the advent of recorded sound. Source So now onto why Sherlock Holmes's canary trainer was called notorious. I suggest two hypotheses, the first is related to the trading and exportation of these songbirds. The demand for these highly trained songbirds, such as Goldfinches, linnets, blackbirds, thrushes and nightingales steadily increased in the 18th and 19th century, among the upper and middle classes, and lasted until the early 20th century. Furthermore, in the US the demand for these delicate and charming caged birds was quite considerable. In a book entitled Canaries: Their Care and Management by Alexander Wetmore, 1923, it states I suppose American buyers would have ordered only from the most reputable breeders, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of these canary birds on their arrival couldn't sing (only the male species can sing); were ill-kept and consequently suffered from diseases; or just sang \"poorly\". An easy trade, and an easier way to swindle and cheat customers who lived many thousands of miles away. My second hypothesis is connected to the East End of Victorian London, a notorious breeding ground for petty crimes and the mistreatment of domestic animals if ever there was one. During the 18th century the trade for singing birds was unique to the area of London, it being said that \"Londoners would buy anything with a beak and a tail\". A new profession was born, that of bird-catchers And as the 19th century progressed, so too the demand for cage birds. Here is an extract taken from The Art and Mystery of Song-Bird Torture by James Greenwood, 1874. A writer and social journalist for the London Daily Telegraph in the 1860s. IN all my spring morning experience of country rambling, I never before had heard such distinct and emphatic bird-music, crisp, sharp, and ringing out at regular intervals, as though the tiny creature from whose throat the sounds proceeded was actuated by duty rather than pleasure. No wasteful and extravagant flourishes of melody - no whimsical jumble of notes short and notes long, with wanton twitterings between, such as a free bird among green boughs delights to indulge in by way of demonstrating what a happy and independent fellow he is ; but a shrewdly calculated and systematic performance, as though after every renewed effort, he wound himself up for the next, and was bound to deliver himself to the instant of a certain quality and quantity of music, as per contract. The London journalist discovers that the songbird, who travels in a parcel, belongs to two bird-catchers. He ventures to make their acquaintance and discovers to his horror that the finch has been deliberately blinded by one of the bird-catchers. It was common belief at that time that the darker the singing birds' environments were, the better they sang 1, as a result many \"breeders\" permanently destroyed their songbirds' eyesights with red-hot needles or wire. The sightless finch is used as a bait, and as the story unfolds we learn more about the ingenious technique employed by the unscrupulous bird capturers. Greenwood continued investigations lead him to the bird market and animal shops in Sclater Street, where he describes in detail the appalling and abysmal conditions the jailed birds were forced to endure. Did this have anything to do with the \"notorious\" canary trainer? Was he by chance from Shoreditch, East London? Was he a bird dealer, trader and trainer? Could his shop be the plague spot which Watson refers to? Finally, one more anecdote which convinces me further that Arthur Conyan Doyle's Canary Trainer was not an euphemism, or slang term for a unsavoury or immoral profession, but as @slam suggested, a man who trained canaries to sing. Sclater Street At the turn of the century of course, things were so different, bird fanciers would gather and compare notes with fellow fanciers, and acquaintances, and to show off their birds. Canaries were a popular favourite, and there were allegedly some 'dodgy dealing' going on, when certain dealers would paint, or dye a common bird yellow, and pass it off as a canary. On Sundays, the little shops were inundated with trade in birds, but it was during the week, when their real trade took over, and people would travel from all over the country to visit the yards and stables at the back of these shops, where the most exotic animals imaginable could be purchased, from African lions, Indian elephants, various apes, boa-constrictors, giraffes, zebras, even Polar bears."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn English grammar, the following pattern is regarded as a wrong pattern. My parents will send me to a mental hospital if I will kill someone.","question":"In English grammar, the following pattern is regarded as a wrong pattern. My parents will send me to a mental hospital if I will kill someone.","answer":"The sentence \"My parents will send me to a mental hospital if I will kill someone\" is not grammatically wrong, but it sounds awkward and probably does not convey the meaning you have in mind. The meaning of \"if I will kill someone\" can vary with context: \"if it is true that I will kill someone\" \"if I intend to kill someone\" \"if I agree to kill someone\" None of these options works particularly well for the sentence in question. Compare with the following sentences, which (to my ears at least) sound perfectly normal: \"If you won't clean up your room, I won't let you have any dessert.\" \"If you'll be good, I'll give you a present.\" \"If the machine won't work, I won't waste my time trying to use it.\" \"If you'll just listen to what I have to say, I think you'll change your mind.\" But I take it you mean \"My parents will send me to a mental hospital if I kill someone\", which can be re-worded as \"In the event that I kill someone, my parents will send me to a mental hospital\". This is known as \"first conditional\". Not all languages do this the same way. In Latin, for example, this is called \"future more vivid\" and takes the form \"future + future\" instead of English's \"present + future\".","output":"The sentence \"My parents will send me to a mental hospital if I will kill someone\" is not grammatically wrong, but it sounds awkward and probably does not convey the meaning you have in mind. The meaning of \"if I will kill someone\" can vary with context: \"if it is true that I will kill someone\" \"if I intend to kill someone\" \"if I agree to kill someone\" None of these options works particularly well for the sentence in question. Compare with the following sentences, which (to my ears at least) sound perfectly normal: \"If you won't clean up your room, I won't let you have any dessert.\" \"If you'll be good, I'll give you a present.\" \"If the machine won't work, I won't waste my time trying to use it.\" \"If you'll just listen to what I have to say, I think you'll change your mind.\" But I take it you mean \"My parents will send me to a mental hospital if I kill someone\", which can be re-worded as \"In the event that I kill someone, my parents will send me to a mental hospital\". This is known as \"first conditional\". Not all languages do this the same way. In Latin, for example, this is called \"future more vivid\" and takes the form \"future + future\" instead of English's \"present + future\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSomebody telephoned Emma. What is correct form if I want to ask a question? Who telephoned Emma? vs Who did telephone Emma?","question":"Somebody telephoned Emma. What is correct form if I want to ask a question? Who telephoned Emma? vs Who did telephone Emma?","answer":"According to the Cambridge Dictionary, telephone can in principle be used as a verb, but as this NGRAM shows, call and phone are a lot more common. Who called Emma? would be the most widely used of your two sentences. When you have a question word like who for the subject, it is not necessary to do an subject-auxiliary verb inversion. It is only necessary to insert do if inversion is required and there isn't already an auxiliary verb. While did is not necessary, it can be added for emphasis: for example: A: Did John call Emma? - inversion required because there is no question-word, and there is no auxiliary verb, so did must be added B: No. A: Well, who did call Emma? - did is optional, for emphasis Note that, if the question word represents the object, however, you do need to do subject-auxiliary inversion: Who did you call? - you is subject, must be inverted with did","output":"According to the Cambridge Dictionary, telephone can in principle be used as a verb, but as this NGRAM shows, call and phone are a lot more common. Who called Emma? would be the most widely used of your two sentences. When you have a question word like who for the subject, it is not necessary to do an subject-auxiliary verb inversion. It is only necessary to insert do if inversion is required and there isn't already an auxiliary verb. While did is not necessary, it can be added for emphasis: for example: A: Did John call Emma? - inversion required because there is no question-word, and there is no auxiliary verb, so did must be added B: No. A: Well, who did call Emma? - did is optional, for emphasis Note that, if the question word represents the object, however, you do need to do subject-auxiliary inversion: Who did you call? - you is subject, must be inverted with did"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHere's a conversation: Speaker 1: I have already seen this film. Speaker 2: When have you seen it? [OR] When did you see it? Speaker 1: Last month. The two questions uttered by Speaker 2 are in the present perfect and the simple past. Are both of the responses from Speaker 2 correct?","question":"Here's a conversation: Speaker 1: I have already seen this film. Speaker 2: When have you seen it? [OR] When did you see it? Speaker 1: Last month. The two questions uttered by Speaker 2 are in the present perfect and the simple past. Are both of the responses from Speaker 2 correct?","answer":"Both versions of (b) are valid, but one difference is \"When did you see it?\" is far more common... Only my opinion, but on average I feel that \"when have you seen it?\" is more likely to be accusatory or incredulous. There's often a sense of \"I don't believe you! Prove it by telling me exactly when!\".","output":"Both versions of (b) are valid, but one difference is \"When did you see it?\" is far more common... Only my opinion, but on average I feel that \"when have you seen it?\" is more likely to be accusatory or incredulous. There's often a sense of \"I don't believe you! Prove it by telling me exactly when!\"."}
{"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhy are there inconsistencies in the pronunciation of the consonants of the alphabet? For example: 'b' is pronounced like 'bee' but 'm' is pronounced as 'em' rather than 'me'. The pronunciation of 'h' matches nothing and 'j' and 'k' are orphaned twins. In Turkish (the only other language I have any knowledge of), the consonants are consistently sounded as if they have an 'e' appended.","question":"Why are there inconsistencies in the pronunciation of the consonants of the alphabet? For example: 'b' is pronounced like 'bee' but 'm' is pronounced as 'em' rather than 'me'. The pronunciation of 'h' matches nothing and 'j' and 'k' are orphaned twins. In Turkish (the only other language I have any knowledge of), the consonants are consistently sounded as if they have an 'e' appended.","answer":"This is actually a very good question, and it has deep roots. Like many things, it goes back to Latin, which had very regular rules for naming its letters. English inherited the Latin system, extended it in various ways, and applied its own sound changes, resulting in the system we have today. Vowels All of the vowels in Latin were named with their long vowel sound. The vowels in English do the same, though the long vowels have gone through the Great Vowel Shift. This covers: A E I O U Stops Sounds that were stops in Latin are pronounced with the stop sound followed by [e:]. The vowel sound has shifted to [i:] in English. B C \u2014 Note that this was [k] in Latin, but is now [s] in English, due to French which had a k > s sound change D G P T V \u2014 Was not distinguished from U in Latin. It's not clear why it was added to this group. Sonorants and fricatives Sounds that were sonorants or fricatives in Latin were pronounced with [e] followed by the sound. F L M N R \u2014 The vowel has changed here due to a sound change in English S X \u2014 An exception, added to this group because Latin didn't allow x at the beginning of a word Miscellaneous H \u2014 See other answers for the history of this sound J \u2014 Didn't exist in Latin. The name came to English by way of French, where it was something like \"jah\" [d\u0292a:], which English sound changes turned into the modern \"jay\" K \u2014 Was [ka:] in Latin, from Greek kappa, which English sound changes again changed into the \"kay\" that we say today Q \u2014 Was [ku:] in Latin, mostly unchanged today W \u2014 A \"double-u\", obviously. Didn't exist in Latin. Y \u2014 Quoting Wikipedia: Old English borrowed Latin Y to write the native Old English sound \/y\/. When the letter came to be analyzed as a V atop an I (First Grammatical Treatise), it was renamed VI (\/u: i:\/), which was simplified to one syllable (\/wi:\/), and by the Great Vowel Shift became Modern English 'wy'. Z \u2014 Existed in Latin only in borrowings from Greek. Originally [zed], from Greek zeta, but changed to [zi:] (\"zee\") in American English.","output":"This is actually a very good question, and it has deep roots. Like many things, it goes back to Latin, which had very regular rules for naming its letters. English inherited the Latin system, extended it in various ways, and applied its own sound changes, resulting in the system we have today. Vowels All of the vowels in Latin were named with their long vowel sound. The vowels in English do the same, though the long vowels have gone through the Great Vowel Shift. This covers: A E I O U Stops Sounds that were stops in Latin are pronounced with the stop sound followed by [e:]. The vowel sound has shifted to [i:] in English. B C \u2014 Note that this was [k] in Latin, but is now [s] in English, due to French which had a k > s sound change D G P T V \u2014 Was not distinguished from U in Latin. It's not clear why it was added to this group. Sonorants and fricatives Sounds that were sonorants or fricatives in Latin were pronounced with [e] followed by the sound. F L M N R \u2014 The vowel has changed here due to a sound change in English S X \u2014 An exception, added to this group because Latin didn't allow x at the beginning of a word Miscellaneous H \u2014 See other answers for the history of this sound J \u2014 Didn't exist in Latin. The name came to English by way of French, where it was something like \"jah\" [d\u0292a:], which English sound changes turned into the modern \"jay\" K \u2014 Was [ka:] in Latin, from Greek kappa, which English sound changes again changed into the \"kay\" that we say today Q \u2014 Was [ku:] in Latin, mostly unchanged today W \u2014 A \"double-u\", obviously. Didn't exist in Latin. Y \u2014 Quoting Wikipedia: Old English borrowed Latin Y to write the native Old English sound \/y\/. When the letter came to be analyzed as a V atop an I (First Grammatical Treatise), it was renamed VI (\/u: i:\/), which was simplified to one syllable (\/wi:\/), and by the Great Vowel Shift became Modern English 'wy'. Z \u2014 Existed in Latin only in borrowings from Greek. Originally [zed], from Greek zeta, but changed to [zi:] (\"zee\") in American English."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCan you set the time frame of an event with present perfect? I'm wondering if you can refer to specific events (but without using actual time references like \"yesterday\") by using present perfect. I have done these exercise routines before. And I always did them after I ate a light breakfast. Does this make sense? Can I switch to simple past because I am referring to some events that must have happened at certain times? Or do I have to avoid being specific by using present perfect to explain everything related to these events? I have done these exercise routines before. And I have always done them after I have eaten a light breakfast.","question":"Can you set the time frame of an event with present perfect? I'm wondering if you can refer to specific events (but without using actual time references like \"yesterday\") by using present perfect. I have done these exercise routines before. And I always did them after I ate a light breakfast. Does this make sense? Can I switch to simple past because I am referring to some events that must have happened at certain times? Or do I have to avoid being specific by using present perfect to explain everything related to these events? I have done these exercise routines before. And I have always done them after I have eaten a light breakfast.","answer":"Actually this sounds more natural to me when written as a statement of habit: I have done these exercise routines before. I always do them after I eat a light breakfast. You've done the exercises before, always after eating a light breakfast. You're discussing a habitual routine that you carry out. It makes perfect sense to discuss this as a habit; When I do them, I always do them after a light breakfast. In speaking, \"I have done\" is likely to be contracted to \"I've done\". (Also notice that I removed the and from the beginning of the second sentence; you can either use a semicolon and join the two sentences into one with and, or if you want two sentences you must omit the and.)","output":"Actually this sounds more natural to me when written as a statement of habit: I have done these exercise routines before. I always do them after I eat a light breakfast. You've done the exercises before, always after eating a light breakfast. You're discussing a habitual routine that you carry out. It makes perfect sense to discuss this as a habit; When I do them, I always do them after a light breakfast. In speaking, \"I have done\" is likely to be contracted to \"I've done\". (Also notice that I removed the and from the beginning of the second sentence; you can either use a semicolon and join the two sentences into one with and, or if you want two sentences you must omit the and.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm looking for terms that personify cold. For example, 'the cold bit at my nose'. They will be part of a post\/article on the cold weather, so the more options the better. Edit: see comments below, which both answer the question and indicate why this is flagged as 'too broad'.","question":"I'm looking for terms that personify cold. For example, 'the cold bit at my nose'. They will be part of a post\/article on the cold weather, so the more options the better. Edit: see comments below, which both answer the question and indicate why this is flagged as 'too broad'.","answer":"Jack Frost is one. Jack Frost is the personification of frost, ice, snow, sleet, and freezing cold weather, a variant of Old Man Winter held responsible for frosty weather, for nipping the nose and toes in such weather, coloring the foliage in autumn, and leaving fernlike patterns on cold windows in winter. from Jack Frost","output":"Jack Frost is one. Jack Frost is the personification of frost, ice, snow, sleet, and freezing cold weather, a variant of Old Man Winter held responsible for frosty weather, for nipping the nose and toes in such weather, coloring the foliage in autumn, and leaving fernlike patterns on cold windows in winter. from Jack Frost"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhy do we write: solve for x and not solve for an\/the x or Where t represents the number of tickets and not Where the t represents the number of tickets","question":"Why do we write: solve for x and not solve for an\/the x or Where t represents the number of tickets and not Where the t represents the number of tickets","answer":"In math and computer programing, variables and constants (such as x and t in your examples) are treated like proper nouns (like names of people or places) rather than common nouns (names of a type of object). Just as you wouldn't say \"I wonder what the Bob is doing today?\" or \"The Mary is coming over for dinner tonight.\" you also wouldn't talk about \"the x\" or \"the y\" in an equation. I believe this is because in math, variables are used like names; they only ever refer to one particular \"thing\" in an equation. There's no need to make any sort of distinction about which x you are referring to. x is x. If someone were inexperienced with math or perhaps if they were speaking to someone about mathematical notation, they might think of x or t as letters rather than as names and therefore use articles like \"the\" when referring to them (e.g. \"the [letter] x in this equation refers to...\") but that mentality is not common among those who work with equations on a regular basis.","output":"In math and computer programing, variables and constants (such as x and t in your examples) are treated like proper nouns (like names of people or places) rather than common nouns (names of a type of object). Just as you wouldn't say \"I wonder what the Bob is doing today?\" or \"The Mary is coming over for dinner tonight.\" you also wouldn't talk about \"the x\" or \"the y\" in an equation. I believe this is because in math, variables are used like names; they only ever refer to one particular \"thing\" in an equation. There's no need to make any sort of distinction about which x you are referring to. x is x. If someone were inexperienced with math or perhaps if they were speaking to someone about mathematical notation, they might think of x or t as letters rather than as names and therefore use articles like \"the\" when referring to them (e.g. \"the [letter] x in this equation refers to...\") but that mentality is not common among those who work with equations on a regular basis."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am not sure what difference, if any, exists between the following two phrases: bias the report in Peter's favor. bias Peter in favor of the report. I'd appreciate your help.","question":"I am not sure what difference, if any, exists between the following two phrases: bias the report in Peter's favor. bias Peter in favor of the report. I'd appreciate your help.","answer":"The report is about Peter. The authors place in the report enough information favorable to Peter and eliminate enough information unfavorable to Peter so as to slant the report in his favor. I.e., people reading the report will think highly of Peter. Peter has to decide whether the report (which isn't necessarily about him) is good or bad. People decide to tell Peter how good the report is and also decide not to tell him bad things about the report so that Peter will have a favorable opinion of the report.","output":"The report is about Peter. The authors place in the report enough information favorable to Peter and eliminate enough information unfavorable to Peter so as to slant the report in his favor. I.e., people reading the report will think highly of Peter. Peter has to decide whether the report (which isn't necessarily about him) is good or bad. People decide to tell Peter how good the report is and also decide not to tell him bad things about the report so that Peter will have a favorable opinion of the report."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAs far as I understand, in American English there must stand that instead of which in the sentence \"Of these two birds the male is that which is colored brighter\" the clause being restrictive. On the other hand, \"that that\" is definitely not an option. Does it mean that the sentence is impossible in formal writing and must be reworded?","question":"As far as I understand, in American English there must stand that instead of which in the sentence \"Of these two birds the male is that which is colored brighter\" the clause being restrictive. On the other hand, \"that that\" is definitely not an option. Does it mean that the sentence is impossible in formal writing and must be reworded?","answer":"There's nothing wrong with that which here. You are mistaken in your belief that that must be employed with restrictive relative clauses: both that and wh- relatives may be used in this context. The idea of employing only that with restrictive relatives was first advanced in 1851, at a time when grammar-writers were inclined to rationalize the language. It was given wide currency by the Fowler brothers' The King's English, which argued that \"[I]f we are to be at the expense of maintaining two different relatives, we may as well give each of them definite work to do\", and by the elder Fowler's even more influential Modern English Usage. It was subsequently adopted by some fairly reputable style guides. But it is not a rule in any register, formal or informal. Some people follow it, others do not; and even those who follow it acknowledge many situations where it not only may be suspended but must be. Fowler himself acknowledged that \"[I]t would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers.\"","output":"There's nothing wrong with that which here. You are mistaken in your belief that that must be employed with restrictive relative clauses: both that and wh- relatives may be used in this context. The idea of employing only that with restrictive relatives was first advanced in 1851, at a time when grammar-writers were inclined to rationalize the language. It was given wide currency by the Fowler brothers' The King's English, which argued that \"[I]f we are to be at the expense of maintaining two different relatives, we may as well give each of them definite work to do\", and by the elder Fowler's even more influential Modern English Usage. It was subsequently adopted by some fairly reputable style guides. But it is not a rule in any register, formal or informal. Some people follow it, others do not; and even those who follow it acknowledge many situations where it not only may be suspended but must be. Fowler himself acknowledged that \"[I]t would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers.\""}
{"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\n...\u2423part of a sentence\u2423... ...part of a sentence\u2423... ...\u2423part of a sentence... Notice the spaces before\/after the dots. Which usage is the correct one ?","question":"...\u2423part of a sentence\u2423... ...part of a sentence\u2423... ...\u2423part of a sentence... Notice the spaces before\/after the dots. Which usage is the correct one ?","answer":"This is a matter of pure style. I've worked in houses where the style sheet called for spaces before and after points of ellipsis, and in other shops where you close up the spaces fore and aft. What matters most is being consistent once you've selected one style or the other. My preference is for the Chicago Manual of Style method, which closes up the spaces. There are other, more subtle rules about the use of points of ellipsis, and the section here in reference to Chicago explores some of the finer nuances. One general rule to know, which is pertinent to your examples above, is that points of ellipsis are trailing punctuation - they follow words, but do not precede them. For example: Right: \"The archeologist opened the door of the tomb...\" Wrong: \"...opened the door.\" -but- Right: \"He...opened the door.\" You might start a line of text with points of ellipsis if you are writing creative dialogue in fiction, and are trying for some kind of special effect, but that is a matter outside the realm of formal composition.","output":"This is a matter of pure style. I've worked in houses where the style sheet called for spaces before and after points of ellipsis, and in other shops where you close up the spaces fore and aft. What matters most is being consistent once you've selected one style or the other. My preference is for the Chicago Manual of Style method, which closes up the spaces. There are other, more subtle rules about the use of points of ellipsis, and the section here in reference to Chicago explores some of the finer nuances. One general rule to know, which is pertinent to your examples above, is that points of ellipsis are trailing punctuation - they follow words, but do not precede them. For example: Right: \"The archeologist opened the door of the tomb...\" Wrong: \"...opened the door.\" -but- Right: \"He...opened the door.\" You might start a line of text with points of ellipsis if you are writing creative dialogue in fiction, and are trying for some kind of special effect, but that is a matter outside the realm of formal composition."}
{"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\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI know there is a word for this! Person A is a seller. Person B is a buyer. Person A is worried Person B will take the her product and not pay. Person B is worried of the inverse. These two hire an unbiased Person C to mediate the transaction by taking the money from Person B and products from Person A and only releasing either item when both items are held by him. Many words that seem like they would work, such as mediator, seem to be very general: \"to make people involved in a conflict come to an agreement.\" I am hoping there is a more specific term for this situation.","question":"I know there is a word for this! Person A is a seller. Person B is a buyer. Person A is worried Person B will take the her product and not pay. Person B is worried of the inverse. These two hire an unbiased Person C to mediate the transaction by taking the money from Person B and products from Person A and only releasing either item when both items are held by him. Many words that seem like they would work, such as mediator, seem to be very general: \"to make people involved in a conflict come to an agreement.\" I am hoping there is a more specific term for this situation.","answer":"The closest I can think of is escrow. It refers to giving money to a trusted third party, who holds it (in escrow) until goods or services are delivered. I have never heard it applied to holding goods as well, but see no reason why it shouldn\u2019t be.","output":"The closest I can think of is escrow. It refers to giving money to a trusted third party, who holds it (in escrow) until goods or services are delivered. I have never heard it applied to holding goods as well, but see no reason why it shouldn\u2019t be."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn the April 2020 issue of The Atlantic, George Packer offers this interesting but brief discussion of the term deep state in his article \"The President Is Winning His War on American Institutions\": To Trump and his supporters, the swamp was full of scheming conspirators in drab D.C. office wear, coup plotters hidden in plain sight at desks, in lunchrooms, and on jogging paths around the federal capital: the deep state. A former Republican congressional aide named Mike Lofgren had introduced the phrase into the political bloodstream with an essay in 2014 and a book two years later. Lofgren meant the nexus of corporations, banks, and defense contractors that had gained so much financial and political control\u2014sources of Washington\u2019s corruption. But conservatives at Breitbart News, Fox News, and elsewhere began applying the term to career officials in law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, whom they accused of being Democratic partisans in cahoots with the liberal media first to prevent and then to undo Trump\u2019s election. Like fake news and corruption, Trump reverse-engineered deep state into a weapon against his enemies, real or perceived. A quick Google Books search indicates that Mike Lofgren writing in 2014 was by no means the first author to deploy the term deep state in a political sense. Here is how the term appears in Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9\/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (University of California Press, 2007): But this book also focuses on something else: the top 1 percent's direct or indirect control of certain specific domains of government, beginning in the 1940s with the creation of CIA. It is a story that looks beyond the well-defined public entities of open politics to include the more amorphous and fluid realm of private control behind them. This realm of wealthy private influence, the overworld, is a milieu of those who either by wealth or background have power great enough to have an observable influence on their society and its politics. Those parts of the government responding to their influence I call the \"deep state\" (if covert) or \"security state\" (if military). Both represent top-down or closed power, as opposed to the open power of the public state or res publica that represents the people as a whole. I argue in this book that the power of the American public state needs to be revived and its out-of-control deep state radically curtailed. I am not an opponent of deep states per se: publics are not infallible and sometimes need to be opposed. But in our current crisis the proper balance between the public state and the deep state has been lost, and the deep state's secret top-down powers have become a major threat to democracy. A well-functioning deep state serves to impose needed wisdom and discipline, but in recent years America's unchecked deep state has been imposing both folly and indiscipline. Still, the phrase doesn't seem to have been widely used in U.S. political discussions during the first decade of the 2000s. William Safire, Safire's Political Dictionary (2008) has entries for deep background, deep freeze, and deep-six, but not for deep state. The Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang (2004) is likewise silent about the term. Even as recent a collection of U.S. political terms as Chuck McCutcheon & David Mark, Dog Whistles, Walk-Backs and Washington Handshakes: Decoding the Jargon, Slang, and Bluster of American Political Speech (2014) doesn't address deep state at all. Presented with this seeming vacuum of information, I am looking for answers to the following questions about deep state as a U.S. political term: What was the original meaning of deep state as applied to politics, and when did the term arise in that context? When did the sense of the expression shift (if indeed it did shift) from that original meaning to the meaning (according to George Packer) \"the nexus of corporations, banks, and defense contractors that had gained so much financial and political control [in the United States]\"? When did the expression shift again to begin referring to supposed institutional (that is, government-embedded) opponents of right-wing politicians and their policies?","question":"In the April 2020 issue of The Atlantic, George Packer offers this interesting but brief discussion of the term deep state in his article \"The President Is Winning His War on American Institutions\": To Trump and his supporters, the swamp was full of scheming conspirators in drab D.C. office wear, coup plotters hidden in plain sight at desks, in lunchrooms, and on jogging paths around the federal capital: the deep state. A former Republican congressional aide named Mike Lofgren had introduced the phrase into the political bloodstream with an essay in 2014 and a book two years later. Lofgren meant the nexus of corporations, banks, and defense contractors that had gained so much financial and political control\u2014sources of Washington\u2019s corruption. But conservatives at Breitbart News, Fox News, and elsewhere began applying the term to career officials in law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, whom they accused of being Democratic partisans in cahoots with the liberal media first to prevent and then to undo Trump\u2019s election. Like fake news and corruption, Trump reverse-engineered deep state into a weapon against his enemies, real or perceived. A quick Google Books search indicates that Mike Lofgren writing in 2014 was by no means the first author to deploy the term deep state in a political sense. Here is how the term appears in Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9\/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (University of California Press, 2007): But this book also focuses on something else: the top 1 percent's direct or indirect control of certain specific domains of government, beginning in the 1940s with the creation of CIA. It is a story that looks beyond the well-defined public entities of open politics to include the more amorphous and fluid realm of private control behind them. This realm of wealthy private influence, the overworld, is a milieu of those who either by wealth or background have power great enough to have an observable influence on their society and its politics. Those parts of the government responding to their influence I call the \"deep state\" (if covert) or \"security state\" (if military). Both represent top-down or closed power, as opposed to the open power of the public state or res publica that represents the people as a whole. I argue in this book that the power of the American public state needs to be revived and its out-of-control deep state radically curtailed. I am not an opponent of deep states per se: publics are not infallible and sometimes need to be opposed. But in our current crisis the proper balance between the public state and the deep state has been lost, and the deep state's secret top-down powers have become a major threat to democracy. A well-functioning deep state serves to impose needed wisdom and discipline, but in recent years America's unchecked deep state has been imposing both folly and indiscipline. Still, the phrase doesn't seem to have been widely used in U.S. political discussions during the first decade of the 2000s. William Safire, Safire's Political Dictionary (2008) has entries for deep background, deep freeze, and deep-six, but not for deep state. The Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang (2004) is likewise silent about the term. Even as recent a collection of U.S. political terms as Chuck McCutcheon & David Mark, Dog Whistles, Walk-Backs and Washington Handshakes: Decoding the Jargon, Slang, and Bluster of American Political Speech (2014) doesn't address deep state at all. Presented with this seeming vacuum of information, I am looking for answers to the following questions about deep state as a U.S. political term: What was the original meaning of deep state as applied to politics, and when did the term arise in that context? When did the sense of the expression shift (if indeed it did shift) from that original meaning to the meaning (according to George Packer) \"the nexus of corporations, banks, and defense contractors that had gained so much financial and political control [in the United States]\"? When did the expression shift again to begin referring to supposed institutional (that is, government-embedded) opponents of right-wing politicians and their policies?","answer":"Background in gizli devlet and derin devlet Turkish gizli devlet, translated into English 'secret state', foreshadows and overlaps with Turkish derin devlet, 'deep state'. The former shows up as early as 20 Oct 1955 in the title of a pamphlet: The delegation asked the authorities to confiscate four anti-Jewish publications which recently appeared on the stands here. One of them is the \"Secret State and Program of Conspiracy\" by Cevat Rifat Atilhan, a notorious anti-Semte [sic]. That translation of gizli devlet shows up again in the title of a 1957 pamphlet by the same author in 1970 (The National Union Catalog 1956 through 1967): Gizli Devlet ve porgrami The secret state Istanbul? The (check-out with free account) 1999 Warrant for genocide: key elements of Turko-Armenian conflict (Dadrian, Vahakn N), cites a 1996 book by Suat Parlar, The Secret State: From Ottoman days to the present. In this context of gizli devlet, the Turkish 'secret state', alongside frequent association of the English phrase 'secret state' with state-level security and intelligence forces, Robert D. Kaplan, a contributing editor for The Atlantic Monthly (later The Atlantic), details a political sense of derin devlet, Turkish for 'deep state', in \"A different democracy\" (paywalled; 01 Jul 1998, The Boston Globe): ...what Turks call \"the deep state\", symbolized by the military, hides behind the white-lie facade of the superficial civilian cabinet. Kaplan goes on to observe, of the Turkish military, that it is less a fighting machine than the country's best-organized, most respected secular institution, with deep historical roots. Kaplan reports that at the time, the term derin devlet, 'deep state', was used to describe the military's covert response to these Turkish political events: In 1996, a democratically elected, hopelessly divided Parliament...led to a weak minority government of Muslim fundamentalists. ... The Turkish military...began undermining [the] government through intimidation, press briefings, and regulations that curtailed the business activities of [the government's] religious supporters. Kaplan's is the earliest significant use of 'deep state', the translation of derin devlet, that I found. It is followed by a fair sprinkling of other uses: a (paywalled) 2000 USA newspaper article by Stephen Kinzer, \"Pope's attacker carries secrets home\", \"He must know a great deal about the connection of the extreme right wing to intelligence services, police and other elements of what we call 'deep state'.\" a (check-out) 2001 USA book by Daniel G. Bates, Peoples and cultures of the Middle East, In Turkey, for example, peope complain bitterly about the so-called \"deep state\" or the perceived collusion among business, military, and political leaders. a (paywalled) 2001 British newspaper article by Chris Morris, \"Turkey jails spy and ex-police chief for running hit squad\", ...it sparked genuine fears among ordinary Turks that gangs within the state had been given unfettered control, and could be a threat to democracy. Suspicion of what Turks call \"deep state links\" is still extremely strong. another (paywalled) 2001 British newspaper article by Chris Morris, \"Gang rule keeps Kurdish lands lawless\", [Diyarkabir's] popular police chief, Gaffir Okkan...was assassinated in a professional ambush in the city centre. .... The official explanation is that Okkan was murdered by the radical Islamic group Turkish Hizbullah. On the streets of Diyarbakir, however, nearly everyone seems convinced that what they call the \"deep state\" was involved. a (paywalled) 2002 Canadian article by Patrick Graham, \"Troubled Turkey goes to polls\", This is part of a turf war between the Islamists and Turkey's long-established secularists, led by the army, who remain loyal to the legacy of the country's founder, Kemal Ataturk. The last time an Islamist government got out of line it was removed by the military in what analysts call a post-modern coup.... The military, along with judges and the bureaucracy, are the ultimate arbiters of Turkish life and would prevent Islamic fundamentalism from taking over Turkey no matter what the cost. But the legitimacy and reputation of the \"deep state,\" as some call it, suffered badly in the 1990s.... a 2003 essay by Soli \u00d6zel, \"Turkey at the polls: After the tsunami\", At the scandal's heart was the lawless \"dirty war\" that Turkey's shadowy \"deep state\" had been waging in the southeast. a (paywalled) 2003 British newspaper article by Helen Smith, \"New breed of Islamic politicians start to find their feet\", Mr Erbakan's humiliating removal and the prohibition of his Welfare party in 1998 apparently convinced the AKP that provoking Turkey's \"deep state\" \u2014 the military, bureaucracy, media and judicial circles that make up its ruling elite \u2014 would be political suicide. a (paywalled) 2003 British newspaper article by Jonny Dymond, \"West must help Turkey fight back\", The rubble had not been cleared from the two synagogues bombed last weekend when the Briutish consulate was ripped apart and the HSBC headquarters destroyed. .... Some theorise that the military-bureaucratic complex \u2014 the \"deep state\", the government within a government \u2014 had allowed the attacks to happen. Two uses of 'deep state' in 2004 represent the term in its original Turkish sense. One is a footnote in a USA Naval Postgraduate School thesis by Michael Naoum, \"The Greek-Turkish rapprochement process, 1999-2004: paradigm shift or EPI-phenomenon\", The forces described by Onis are also known as the \"deep state.\" The other 2004 use is in a (paywalled) newspaper article, \"Struggle for the soul of Islam\": In Turkey the government and the state are not always synonymous. The state bureaucracy can prove hard to control for even the most adept party in power. And Turkey's so-called deep state, made up of ruling elites from the military, judicial branch, business and media, has long wielded tremendous power behind the scenes. A 2005 use in a book by Speros Vyronis, The mechanism of catastrophe: the Turkish pogrom of September 6-7, 1955, and the destruction of the Greek community of Istanbul, suggests that Turkish derin devlet is simply a more recent term for what was called gizli devlet: Governmental control of Turkey's judicial system involved the bondage and corruption of the latter, as well as the tradition of the \"gizli devlet,\" that is, the \"hidden state\" (or, as it's been called more recently, the \"derin devlet,\" or \"deep state\"). Five more uses in 2005 confirm that the sense of the Turkish derin devlet, 'deep state', encompasses not just intelligence agencies, but intelligence agencies acting in cahoots with assorted others, including gangsters, drug dealers, and other government agencies and branches, outside the rule of law. In 2006, a book by Peter Galbraith, The end of Iraq: how American incompetence created a war without end mentions the Turkish 'deep state': Some Turkish strategic thinkers, including those within the so-called \"deep state\" comprising the military and intelligence establishments, see Iraqi Kurdistan as a potential asset. Extension beyond Turkey Ryan Gingeras, in a 04 Feb 2019 article, \"How the deep state came to America: A history\" (Texas National Security Review) offers an in-depth account of \"the history of how and why the phrase entered American parlance.\" He observes that the \"first scholarly effort to internationalize the concept of the deep state came in an essay pubished in 2009 by Norwegian scholar Ola Tunander\", but goes on to recount that Tunander presented this view of the deep state before a conference held in Melbourne in 2006. ... Attending the conference was the scholar perhaps best known for popularizing the concept of \"parapolitic,\" Peter Dale Scott. Up until that point, Scott later explained, he had never heard of the deep state but was taken by Tunander's analysis of Italy and its applicability elsewhere. \"I was very gratified,\" he told me in 2007, to realize \"how closely, how very closely, my analysis of America fit Ola Tunander's [thinking] of both America and other states.\" The history by Gingeras accurately details when the sense of 'deep state' shifted from its original sense, a straightforward reference to the Turkish concept, to a broader application to other state political systems. The extension of the term 'deep state' to USA political systems, for example, began to appear in Peter Dale Scott's works, from Tunander's generalized concept, starting in 2007. For example, the term appears several times in a 2007 essay (dated 2004 at archive.org, but internal references date to 2007, so the essay must have been published that year or later), \"9\/11, JFK, and War: Recurring patterns in America's deep events\" (bolding mine; see also quotes in the OP from Scott's 2007 book, The Road to 9\/11): If history is what is recorded, then deep history is the sum of events which tend to be officially obscured or even suppressed in traditional books and media. Important deep events include the politicial assassinations of the 1960s, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and now 9\/11. All these deep events have involved what I call the deep state, that part of the state which is not publicly accountable, and pursues its goals by means which will not be approved by a pubic examination. The CIA (with its on-going relationships to drug-traffickers) is an obvious aspect of the deep state, but not the ony one, perhaps not even the dirtiest. When I talk of a deep state, this term (as opposed to others, like deep politics), is not my own invention. It is a translation of the Turkish gizli devlet, or derin devlet, a term used to describe the networks revealed by the so-called Susurluk incident of 1996, when the victims traveling together in what became a deadly car crash were identified as \"an MP, a police chief, a beauty queen and her lover, a top Turkish gangster and hitman called Abdullah Catli.\" Later uses in the same essay establish that Scott, when referring to the 'deep state', sometimes merely means 'intelligence agencies'. For example, on p 4: 3) Commission recommendations to increase power of intelligence agencies, or deep state Scott, however, again makes the connection between the gizli devlet and the deep state in Turkey on p 21: The pattern moreover is that exhibited by the gizli devlet or deep state in Turkey, where a Parliamentary Investigation into the Susuruk Report concluded that the deep state had used the drug-trafficking Grey Wolves and fomented conflicts in the 1970s between the Turkish right and left. The alliance between the deep state and drug traffickers has surfaced in other countries as well, incuding France, Italy, Mexico, Panama, Pakistan, Taiwan, and Japan. Scott, according to his statement in a 2007 podcast interview with Gingeras, credits Tunander with the original broader application of the term 'deep state' beyond Turkish political systems, to USA and other nation's political systems. Appropriation degenerates the concept The 2019 Gingeras article in Texas National Security Review points to the amplification beginning in 2008 of the 'deep state' from Scott's 2007 book, The Road to 9\/11, as the initial route to popularization of the term: It was as a result of this book, and the exposure [Scott] received thereafter from Alex Jones and others, that many Americans first entertained the notion that a deep state lorded over the United States. (The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Alex Jones as \"almost certainly the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America.\") Gingeras notes the fuzziness of the 'deep state' concept: Yet defining what exactly constitutes a deep state, let alone documenting its existence, is another matter. The story of how the deep state entered American consciousness underscores the inexact science and fancifulness that hampers any discussion of secret states and shadow governments. .... Since it was first coined over 20 years ago, no precise definition for what it means has fully taken hold. Use of the phrase generally denotes belief in an informal or parallel government that exists to countermand legitimate, usually more democratic, institutions. Who constitutes this shadow government depends widely on whom you ask and where or when the discussion takes place. While the term originated with reference to the hold security institutions have over state and society (such as in Turkey), the list of deep state actors can include social groups accused of exploiting everyday citizens, like the mafia, \u201cbig business\u201d or ideological extremists. Michael Lofgren's use of 'deep state' in his 2014 essay, \"Anatomy of the Deep State\" represents a re-appropriation of the concept first developed by Tunander, then particularized by Scott, and finally degenerated by Alex Jones and company. Lofgren's belated 2014 appearance in the 'deep state' circus ring, along with the earlier hand-off of US application of the term from a left-aligned scholar to a right-aligned conspiracy theorist, supports and reinforces Gingeras's 2019 conclusions, among them that More often than not, the search for a deep state provides license for those seeking to conflate and marginalize political dissidents and opponents.","output":"Background in gizli devlet and derin devlet Turkish gizli devlet, translated into English 'secret state', foreshadows and overlaps with Turkish derin devlet, 'deep state'. The former shows up as early as 20 Oct 1955 in the title of a pamphlet: The delegation asked the authorities to confiscate four anti-Jewish publications which recently appeared on the stands here. One of them is the \"Secret State and Program of Conspiracy\" by Cevat Rifat Atilhan, a notorious anti-Semte [sic]. That translation of gizli devlet shows up again in the title of a 1957 pamphlet by the same author in 1970 (The National Union Catalog 1956 through 1967): Gizli Devlet ve porgrami The secret state Istanbul? The (check-out with free account) 1999 Warrant for genocide: key elements of Turko-Armenian conflict (Dadrian, Vahakn N), cites a 1996 book by Suat Parlar, The Secret State: From Ottoman days to the present. In this context of gizli devlet, the Turkish 'secret state', alongside frequent association of the English phrase 'secret state' with state-level security and intelligence forces, Robert D. Kaplan, a contributing editor for The Atlantic Monthly (later The Atlantic), details a political sense of derin devlet, Turkish for 'deep state', in \"A different democracy\" (paywalled; 01 Jul 1998, The Boston Globe): ...what Turks call \"the deep state\", symbolized by the military, hides behind the white-lie facade of the superficial civilian cabinet. Kaplan goes on to observe, of the Turkish military, that it is less a fighting machine than the country's best-organized, most respected secular institution, with deep historical roots. Kaplan reports that at the time, the term derin devlet, 'deep state', was used to describe the military's covert response to these Turkish political events: In 1996, a democratically elected, hopelessly divided Parliament...led to a weak minority government of Muslim fundamentalists. ... The Turkish military...began undermining [the] government through intimidation, press briefings, and regulations that curtailed the business activities of [the government's] religious supporters. Kaplan's is the earliest significant use of 'deep state', the translation of derin devlet, that I found. It is followed by a fair sprinkling of other uses: a (paywalled) 2000 USA newspaper article by Stephen Kinzer, \"Pope's attacker carries secrets home\", \"He must know a great deal about the connection of the extreme right wing to intelligence services, police and other elements of what we call 'deep state'.\" a (check-out) 2001 USA book by Daniel G. Bates, Peoples and cultures of the Middle East, In Turkey, for example, peope complain bitterly about the so-called \"deep state\" or the perceived collusion among business, military, and political leaders. a (paywalled) 2001 British newspaper article by Chris Morris, \"Turkey jails spy and ex-police chief for running hit squad\", ...it sparked genuine fears among ordinary Turks that gangs within the state had been given unfettered control, and could be a threat to democracy. Suspicion of what Turks call \"deep state links\" is still extremely strong. another (paywalled) 2001 British newspaper article by Chris Morris, \"Gang rule keeps Kurdish lands lawless\", [Diyarkabir's] popular police chief, Gaffir Okkan...was assassinated in a professional ambush in the city centre. .... The official explanation is that Okkan was murdered by the radical Islamic group Turkish Hizbullah. On the streets of Diyarbakir, however, nearly everyone seems convinced that what they call the \"deep state\" was involved. a (paywalled) 2002 Canadian article by Patrick Graham, \"Troubled Turkey goes to polls\", This is part of a turf war between the Islamists and Turkey's long-established secularists, led by the army, who remain loyal to the legacy of the country's founder, Kemal Ataturk. The last time an Islamist government got out of line it was removed by the military in what analysts call a post-modern coup.... The military, along with judges and the bureaucracy, are the ultimate arbiters of Turkish life and would prevent Islamic fundamentalism from taking over Turkey no matter what the cost. But the legitimacy and reputation of the \"deep state,\" as some call it, suffered badly in the 1990s.... a 2003 essay by Soli \u00d6zel, \"Turkey at the polls: After the tsunami\", At the scandal's heart was the lawless \"dirty war\" that Turkey's shadowy \"deep state\" had been waging in the southeast. a (paywalled) 2003 British newspaper article by Helen Smith, \"New breed of Islamic politicians start to find their feet\", Mr Erbakan's humiliating removal and the prohibition of his Welfare party in 1998 apparently convinced the AKP that provoking Turkey's \"deep state\" \u2014 the military, bureaucracy, media and judicial circles that make up its ruling elite \u2014 would be political suicide. a (paywalled) 2003 British newspaper article by Jonny Dymond, \"West must help Turkey fight back\", The rubble had not been cleared from the two synagogues bombed last weekend when the Briutish consulate was ripped apart and the HSBC headquarters destroyed. .... Some theorise that the military-bureaucratic complex \u2014 the \"deep state\", the government within a government \u2014 had allowed the attacks to happen. Two uses of 'deep state' in 2004 represent the term in its original Turkish sense. One is a footnote in a USA Naval Postgraduate School thesis by Michael Naoum, \"The Greek-Turkish rapprochement process, 1999-2004: paradigm shift or EPI-phenomenon\", The forces described by Onis are also known as the \"deep state.\" The other 2004 use is in a (paywalled) newspaper article, \"Struggle for the soul of Islam\": In Turkey the government and the state are not always synonymous. The state bureaucracy can prove hard to control for even the most adept party in power. And Turkey's so-called deep state, made up of ruling elites from the military, judicial branch, business and media, has long wielded tremendous power behind the scenes. A 2005 use in a book by Speros Vyronis, The mechanism of catastrophe: the Turkish pogrom of September 6-7, 1955, and the destruction of the Greek community of Istanbul, suggests that Turkish derin devlet is simply a more recent term for what was called gizli devlet: Governmental control of Turkey's judicial system involved the bondage and corruption of the latter, as well as the tradition of the \"gizli devlet,\" that is, the \"hidden state\" (or, as it's been called more recently, the \"derin devlet,\" or \"deep state\"). Five more uses in 2005 confirm that the sense of the Turkish derin devlet, 'deep state', encompasses not just intelligence agencies, but intelligence agencies acting in cahoots with assorted others, including gangsters, drug dealers, and other government agencies and branches, outside the rule of law. In 2006, a book by Peter Galbraith, The end of Iraq: how American incompetence created a war without end mentions the Turkish 'deep state': Some Turkish strategic thinkers, including those within the so-called \"deep state\" comprising the military and intelligence establishments, see Iraqi Kurdistan as a potential asset. Extension beyond Turkey Ryan Gingeras, in a 04 Feb 2019 article, \"How the deep state came to America: A history\" (Texas National Security Review) offers an in-depth account of \"the history of how and why the phrase entered American parlance.\" He observes that the \"first scholarly effort to internationalize the concept of the deep state came in an essay pubished in 2009 by Norwegian scholar Ola Tunander\", but goes on to recount that Tunander presented this view of the deep state before a conference held in Melbourne in 2006. ... Attending the conference was the scholar perhaps best known for popularizing the concept of \"parapolitic,\" Peter Dale Scott. Up until that point, Scott later explained, he had never heard of the deep state but was taken by Tunander's analysis of Italy and its applicability elsewhere. \"I was very gratified,\" he told me in 2007, to realize \"how closely, how very closely, my analysis of America fit Ola Tunander's [thinking] of both America and other states.\" The history by Gingeras accurately details when the sense of 'deep state' shifted from its original sense, a straightforward reference to the Turkish concept, to a broader application to other state political systems. The extension of the term 'deep state' to USA political systems, for example, began to appear in Peter Dale Scott's works, from Tunander's generalized concept, starting in 2007. For example, the term appears several times in a 2007 essay (dated 2004 at archive.org, but internal references date to 2007, so the essay must have been published that year or later), \"9\/11, JFK, and War: Recurring patterns in America's deep events\" (bolding mine; see also quotes in the OP from Scott's 2007 book, The Road to 9\/11): If history is what is recorded, then deep history is the sum of events which tend to be officially obscured or even suppressed in traditional books and media. Important deep events include the politicial assassinations of the 1960s, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and now 9\/11. All these deep events have involved what I call the deep state, that part of the state which is not publicly accountable, and pursues its goals by means which will not be approved by a pubic examination. The CIA (with its on-going relationships to drug-traffickers) is an obvious aspect of the deep state, but not the ony one, perhaps not even the dirtiest. When I talk of a deep state, this term (as opposed to others, like deep politics), is not my own invention. It is a translation of the Turkish gizli devlet, or derin devlet, a term used to describe the networks revealed by the so-called Susurluk incident of 1996, when the victims traveling together in what became a deadly car crash were identified as \"an MP, a police chief, a beauty queen and her lover, a top Turkish gangster and hitman called Abdullah Catli.\" Later uses in the same essay establish that Scott, when referring to the 'deep state', sometimes merely means 'intelligence agencies'. For example, on p 4: 3) Commission recommendations to increase power of intelligence agencies, or deep state Scott, however, again makes the connection between the gizli devlet and the deep state in Turkey on p 21: The pattern moreover is that exhibited by the gizli devlet or deep state in Turkey, where a Parliamentary Investigation into the Susuruk Report concluded that the deep state had used the drug-trafficking Grey Wolves and fomented conflicts in the 1970s between the Turkish right and left. The alliance between the deep state and drug traffickers has surfaced in other countries as well, incuding France, Italy, Mexico, Panama, Pakistan, Taiwan, and Japan. Scott, according to his statement in a 2007 podcast interview with Gingeras, credits Tunander with the original broader application of the term 'deep state' beyond Turkish political systems, to USA and other nation's political systems. Appropriation degenerates the concept The 2019 Gingeras article in Texas National Security Review points to the amplification beginning in 2008 of the 'deep state' from Scott's 2007 book, The Road to 9\/11, as the initial route to popularization of the term: It was as a result of this book, and the exposure [Scott] received thereafter from Alex Jones and others, that many Americans first entertained the notion that a deep state lorded over the United States. (The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Alex Jones as \"almost certainly the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America.\") Gingeras notes the fuzziness of the 'deep state' concept: Yet defining what exactly constitutes a deep state, let alone documenting its existence, is another matter. The story of how the deep state entered American consciousness underscores the inexact science and fancifulness that hampers any discussion of secret states and shadow governments. .... Since it was first coined over 20 years ago, no precise definition for what it means has fully taken hold. Use of the phrase generally denotes belief in an informal or parallel government that exists to countermand legitimate, usually more democratic, institutions. Who constitutes this shadow government depends widely on whom you ask and where or when the discussion takes place. While the term originated with reference to the hold security institutions have over state and society (such as in Turkey), the list of deep state actors can include social groups accused of exploiting everyday citizens, like the mafia, \u201cbig business\u201d or ideological extremists. Michael Lofgren's use of 'deep state' in his 2014 essay, \"Anatomy of the Deep State\" represents a re-appropriation of the concept first developed by Tunander, then particularized by Scott, and finally degenerated by Alex Jones and company. Lofgren's belated 2014 appearance in the 'deep state' circus ring, along with the earlier hand-off of US application of the term from a left-aligned scholar to a right-aligned conspiracy theorist, supports and reinforces Gingeras's 2019 conclusions, among them that More often than not, the search for a deep state provides license for those seeking to conflate and marginalize political dissidents and opponents."}
{"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\nContext: I would like to congratulate all the students for being placed in XYZ company. My question is that why \"being\" has been used in the sentence as \"being\" is used for present continuous passive. I think this sentence mean that the \"students are being placed\" but this is not possible because the placement process is already finished. What is the meaning of this kind of context? Is that grammatically right?","question":"Context: I would like to congratulate all the students for being placed in XYZ company. My question is that why \"being\" has been used in the sentence as \"being\" is used for present continuous passive. I think this sentence mean that the \"students are being placed\" but this is not possible because the placement process is already finished. What is the meaning of this kind of context? Is that grammatically right?","answer":"This is not the present continuous, but rather a gerund phrase which acts (more or less) like a noun. Example: I would like to congratulate the students on their perfect haircuts (ordinary noun) I would like to congratulate the students on having perfect haircuts (gerund phrase which acts like a noun) Gerunds and gerund phrases are pretty common in English, so you should become familiar with this grammar. Other examples: Her hobbies are playing the piano and horseback riding, when she isn't saving the world from evil. He plans on going to the game tonight.","output":"This is not the present continuous, but rather a gerund phrase which acts (more or less) like a noun. Example: I would like to congratulate the students on their perfect haircuts (ordinary noun) I would like to congratulate the students on having perfect haircuts (gerund phrase which acts like a noun) Gerunds and gerund phrases are pretty common in English, so you should become familiar with this grammar. Other examples: Her hobbies are playing the piano and horseback riding, when she isn't saving the world from evil. He plans on going to the game tonight."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen deciding among colleagues between two options, everyone present agreed on the same solution. When reporting the result to a member that hadn't taken part, I reported it as \"unilateral consensus\". I was thinking of unanimous. Merriam Webters's definition of unilateral includes \"having parts arranged on one side\". Since every member was on the same side, can unilateral still be used in this case? Searching for \"unilateral consensus\" or \"unilateral agreement\" I find they mostly refer to cases when only one of many parties benefitted from an agreement.","question":"When deciding among colleagues between two options, everyone present agreed on the same solution. When reporting the result to a member that hadn't taken part, I reported it as \"unilateral consensus\". I was thinking of unanimous. Merriam Webters's definition of unilateral includes \"having parts arranged on one side\". Since every member was on the same side, can unilateral still be used in this case? Searching for \"unilateral consensus\" or \"unilateral agreement\" I find they mostly refer to cases when only one of many parties benefitted from an agreement.","answer":"No, it can't. Unilateral has the specific meaning 'carried out by, or pertaining to, only one side'. It assumes that there are two sides in an argument, or several groups\/countries involved in a situation.","output":"No, it can't. Unilateral has the specific meaning 'carried out by, or pertaining to, only one side'. It assumes that there are two sides in an argument, or several groups\/countries involved in a situation."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI don't know the meaning of \"Theoretical possibility\" . I am learning modal verb \"can\" which is used to refer \"Theoretical possibilty\".I don't know if something is a theoretical possibility what does it mean. I have been searching its meaning on Internet but didn't find any explaination. I wish someone here could explain me the meaning of it with context. Thanks in advance.","question":"I don't know the meaning of \"Theoretical possibility\" . I am learning modal verb \"can\" which is used to refer \"Theoretical possibilty\".I don't know if something is a theoretical possibility what does it mean. I have been searching its meaning on Internet but didn't find any explaination. I wish someone here could explain me the meaning of it with context. Thanks in advance.","answer":"Something is said to be theoretically possible if there is no reason why it could never happen. Actually though, we are practically certain it never will. How many tables does a restaurant in a large hotel need for breakfast? It is theoretically possible that all the guests will come at the same time so, in theory, we need enough tables so that all the guests can have breakfast at the same time. In practice, as opposed to theory, we know that they will not all come at the same time, so how many do we really think is the most that will turn up at once? The practical assumed limit will be much lower than the theoretical limit. A life insurance company knows that it is theoretically possible that all its policyholders will die tomorrow, and all its pensioners will live to be a hundred and ten. In practice we know, or almost know, that will not happen. So saying that something is theoretically possible means that it could happen, but is so absurdly unlikely we can ignore it in real life. It is theoretically possible I will win the lottery jackpot every week for the next year, but I am planning on the assumption I might not. Actually though I do not enter the lottery so it is not even theoretically possible I could win it - it is absolutely and completely impossible.","output":"Something is said to be theoretically possible if there is no reason why it could never happen. Actually though, we are practically certain it never will. How many tables does a restaurant in a large hotel need for breakfast? It is theoretically possible that all the guests will come at the same time so, in theory, we need enough tables so that all the guests can have breakfast at the same time. In practice, as opposed to theory, we know that they will not all come at the same time, so how many do we really think is the most that will turn up at once? The practical assumed limit will be much lower than the theoretical limit. A life insurance company knows that it is theoretically possible that all its policyholders will die tomorrow, and all its pensioners will live to be a hundred and ten. In practice we know, or almost know, that will not happen. So saying that something is theoretically possible means that it could happen, but is so absurdly unlikely we can ignore it in real life. It is theoretically possible I will win the lottery jackpot every week for the next year, but I am planning on the assumption I might not. Actually though I do not enter the lottery so it is not even theoretically possible I could win it - it is absolutely and completely impossible."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI can understand everything from this article except one single word that causes me trouble in getting the complete meaning of the following sentence: The dietary swaps appeared to cause significant changes to the cells lining the gut as well as the bacteria that live in the bowel - with the US volunteers faring better. I understand that the new diet caused important changes to the cells, modifying their structure, but what exactly happened to the gut by lining it and also to the bacteria (were they lined too or what?) I quite can't get. Checking The Free Dictionary for the verb to line, I couldn't find an appropriate sense for the context in question. So, please let me know which one of the following dictionary definitions matches: v. lined, lin\u00b7ing, lines v.tr. To mark, incise, or cover with a line or lines. To represent with lines. To place in a series or row. To form a bordering line along: Small stalls lined the alley.","question":"I can understand everything from this article except one single word that causes me trouble in getting the complete meaning of the following sentence: The dietary swaps appeared to cause significant changes to the cells lining the gut as well as the bacteria that live in the bowel - with the US volunteers faring better. I understand that the new diet caused important changes to the cells, modifying their structure, but what exactly happened to the gut by lining it and also to the bacteria (were they lined too or what?) I quite can't get. Checking The Free Dictionary for the verb to line, I couldn't find an appropriate sense for the context in question. So, please let me know which one of the following dictionary definitions matches: v. lined, lin\u00b7ing, lines v.tr. To mark, incise, or cover with a line or lines. To represent with lines. To place in a series or row. To form a bordering line along: Small stalls lined the alley.","answer":"The closest match is the fourth definition. What \"lining the gut\" refers to is cells in the body whose location is the inside of the gut. They are spread around the gut's walls creating a bordering protective layer of cells. For instance, we often refer to the lining of the stomach, which is a layer of mucous cells which produce mucus to protect the stomach from its own secretions. As such, the first definition of the noun \"lining\" may help you more than the definition of the verb. The key part of the phrase in doubt when parsed is \"cells that line the gut\", so they should be understood to be spread along the inside of the gut in such a way as to create a layer of protection as described in the definition I linked above. The bacteria simply \"live\" in the bowel, so I imagine them to be \"floating around\" and not providing a protective layer in the way the cells in the gut do. As a final source of help, my mother used to \"line her frying pan with butter\" before she put it on the heat so as to protect it (and the foodstuffs inside) from immediately burning. We also talk about \"lining our stomachs\" (not to be confused with the noun use above) before we go to the pub and imbibe quantities of alcohol. This means eating some food which is intended to soak up\/absorb some of the alcohol and reducing the chances of ill-effect from the impending alcohol.","output":"The closest match is the fourth definition. What \"lining the gut\" refers to is cells in the body whose location is the inside of the gut. They are spread around the gut's walls creating a bordering protective layer of cells. For instance, we often refer to the lining of the stomach, which is a layer of mucous cells which produce mucus to protect the stomach from its own secretions. As such, the first definition of the noun \"lining\" may help you more than the definition of the verb. The key part of the phrase in doubt when parsed is \"cells that line the gut\", so they should be understood to be spread along the inside of the gut in such a way as to create a layer of protection as described in the definition I linked above. The bacteria simply \"live\" in the bowel, so I imagine them to be \"floating around\" and not providing a protective layer in the way the cells in the gut do. As a final source of help, my mother used to \"line her frying pan with butter\" before she put it on the heat so as to protect it (and the foodstuffs inside) from immediately burning. We also talk about \"lining our stomachs\" (not to be confused with the noun use above) before we go to the pub and imbibe quantities of alcohol. This means eating some food which is intended to soak up\/absorb some of the alcohol and reducing the chances of ill-effect from the impending alcohol."}
{"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 is a discussion concerning how to translate the Norwegian expression ''Rene ord for Pengene\" to English. The expression has the meaning that one has been quite forthright. Is it reasonable in this case to coin the neologism ''Clean Words for the Money'' by means of a literal translation.","question":"There is a discussion concerning how to translate the Norwegian expression ''Rene ord for Pengene\" to English. The expression has the meaning that one has been quite forthright. Is it reasonable in this case to coin the neologism ''Clean Words for the Money'' by means of a literal translation.","answer":"I would probably translate it to: Telling it like it is. This is an expression that means being upfront without any pretense. It could also be translated to: Offering my two cents. This means sharing my opinion in a plain manner. I like this as a translation because it retains the sense of words for the money.","output":"I would probably translate it to: Telling it like it is. This is an expression that means being upfront without any pretense. It could also be translated to: Offering my two cents. This means sharing my opinion in a plain manner. I like this as a translation because it retains the sense of words for the money."}
{"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 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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI would like to know the exact meaning of this phrase (cut my legs out from under me,) because I've been searching for it everywhere, but 'till now I've only come across the definition of \"cut the ground from under somebody's feet\". And I know it is not the same. Though, I've heard on some TV shows people saying \"cut my legs out from under me\".","question":"I would like to know the exact meaning of this phrase (cut my legs out from under me,) because I've been searching for it everywhere, but 'till now I've only come across the definition of \"cut the ground from under somebody's feet\". And I know it is not the same. Though, I've heard on some TV shows people saying \"cut my legs out from under me\".","answer":"Merriam Webster's definition for have one's legs\/feet\/knees cut out from under (one) is as follows: be knocked down by something that hits one's legs very hard When I learned that I was seriously ill, I felt as if my feet were cut out from under me. often used figuratively. When the program lost the grant its financial legs had been cut out from under it. According to MW's popularity index they list it as \" Bottom 10% of words\" I can't say I've heard it before. While searching online I saw an equivalent French term \"couper l'herbe sous le pied\", and also saw more example sentences. Two of the example sentences quoted below are of Canadian origin. Organized crime has emerged as the number one threat to Canada's overall security, yet the government has cut the legs out from under Canada's security committee \"Having a national formulary as a defining component of a national pharmacare program,\" said Brian Ferguson, \"would cut the legs out from under the provinces to make decisions about how they ration across different parts of their programs.\" (sources for this quote) Perhaps it's an expression that has transitioned from French Canadians to English Canadians? Thinking about this further, I know an expression \"to have your legs kicked out from under you\" which would basically hold the same meaning as MW's definition above.","output":"Merriam Webster's definition for have one's legs\/feet\/knees cut out from under (one) is as follows: be knocked down by something that hits one's legs very hard When I learned that I was seriously ill, I felt as if my feet were cut out from under me. often used figuratively. When the program lost the grant its financial legs had been cut out from under it. According to MW's popularity index they list it as \" Bottom 10% of words\" I can't say I've heard it before. While searching online I saw an equivalent French term \"couper l'herbe sous le pied\", and also saw more example sentences. Two of the example sentences quoted below are of Canadian origin. Organized crime has emerged as the number one threat to Canada's overall security, yet the government has cut the legs out from under Canada's security committee \"Having a national formulary as a defining component of a national pharmacare program,\" said Brian Ferguson, \"would cut the legs out from under the provinces to make decisions about how they ration across different parts of their programs.\" (sources for this quote) Perhaps it's an expression that has transitioned from French Canadians to English Canadians? Thinking about this further, I know an expression \"to have your legs kicked out from under you\" which would basically hold the same meaning as MW's definition above."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"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":"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\nI don't know which to choose, \"new\" or \"strange\" to complete the following sentence. I'm _____ to this neighbourhood. A correct answer seems to be \"new\", but why is \"strange\" wrong?","question":"I don't know which to choose, \"new\" or \"strange\" to complete the following sentence. I'm _____ to this neighbourhood. A correct answer seems to be \"new\", but why is \"strange\" wrong?","answer":"I'm _____ to this neighbourhood. Because the sentence has been constructed for you, you should be able to see that it describes your relationship to the neighbourhood, not the other way around. The option \"strange\" is not correct because \"strange\" in the context of being somewhere new means \"unusual\" or \"odd\" because of your own unfamiliarity with it. Saying \"I'm strange to this neighbourhood\" would mean that it is you who is strange, not the neighbourhood. The word \"neighbourhood\" describes an area, and although it is characterised by having people live there and is sometimes used idiomatically to refer to a community of people, technically it does not mean the people itself (otherwise you would never hear terms such as \"an abandoned neighbourhood\"). That would be the \"community\". A community could find you strange, but I don't feel it is technically correct to say that a geographical area finds you strange. You could say: This neighbourhood is strange to me. Because the sentence has been reversed it shows that the neighbourhood seems strange to you because you are unfamiliar with it. You could also say: I'm a stranger to this neighbourhood. or I'm unfamiliar with this neighbourhood. The answer to your 'fill-in-the-blank' question though has to be: I'm new to this neighbourhood.","output":"I'm _____ to this neighbourhood. Because the sentence has been constructed for you, you should be able to see that it describes your relationship to the neighbourhood, not the other way around. The option \"strange\" is not correct because \"strange\" in the context of being somewhere new means \"unusual\" or \"odd\" because of your own unfamiliarity with it. Saying \"I'm strange to this neighbourhood\" would mean that it is you who is strange, not the neighbourhood. The word \"neighbourhood\" describes an area, and although it is characterised by having people live there and is sometimes used idiomatically to refer to a community of people, technically it does not mean the people itself (otherwise you would never hear terms such as \"an abandoned neighbourhood\"). That would be the \"community\". A community could find you strange, but I don't feel it is technically correct to say that a geographical area finds you strange. You could say: This neighbourhood is strange to me. Because the sentence has been reversed it shows that the neighbourhood seems strange to you because you are unfamiliar with it. You could also say: I'm a stranger to this neighbourhood. or I'm unfamiliar with this neighbourhood. The answer to your 'fill-in-the-blank' question though has to be: I'm new to this neighbourhood."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAre varying spellings available, or was Old English rather uniform, as far as the sources show? Variant spelling may have indicated different verbal dialects, but written dialects, involuntary eye dialect, may allow greater insight into the pronunciation. Is this cleaned up and normalized in OE dictionaries?","question":"Are varying spellings available, or was Old English rather uniform, as far as the sources show? Variant spelling may have indicated different verbal dialects, but written dialects, involuntary eye dialect, may allow greater insight into the pronunciation. Is this cleaned up and normalized in OE dictionaries?","answer":"Old English spelling wasn't entirely uniform. I don't know how to judge the precise degree to which it was non-uniform. Old English words could have more than one spelling, and dictionary entries certainly make use of normalization: the most common normalizations are the use of symbols like \u010b, \u0121 to represent palatal consonants and \u0101, \u014d, etc. to represent long vowels, the exclusive use of w instead of \u01bf, and the use of only one of \u00fe or \u00f0. The letters \u00fe and \u00f0 both represented the same sound(s) in Old English (typically analyzed as a single phoneme \/\u03b8\/ with two conditioned allophones, voiceless [\u03b8] and voiced [\u00f0]), and there are examples of the same word being spelled in some places with \u00fe and in others with \u00f0. For example, Beowulf uses the spellings \u00e6\u00feeling and \u00e6\u00f0eling. \"Old English\" comprises at least four main dialect groups that Wikipedia gives as \"Mercian, Northumbrian, Kentish, and West Saxon\". There were differences in pronunciation between these dialects that were made manifest in various spelling differences. \"Essentials of Old English\" (University of Glasgow) mentions the existence of variation between the letters \"a\" and \"o\" before nasal consonants.","output":"Old English spelling wasn't entirely uniform. I don't know how to judge the precise degree to which it was non-uniform. Old English words could have more than one spelling, and dictionary entries certainly make use of normalization: the most common normalizations are the use of symbols like \u010b, \u0121 to represent palatal consonants and \u0101, \u014d, etc. to represent long vowels, the exclusive use of w instead of \u01bf, and the use of only one of \u00fe or \u00f0. The letters \u00fe and \u00f0 both represented the same sound(s) in Old English (typically analyzed as a single phoneme \/\u03b8\/ with two conditioned allophones, voiceless [\u03b8] and voiced [\u00f0]), and there are examples of the same word being spelled in some places with \u00fe and in others with \u00f0. For example, Beowulf uses the spellings \u00e6\u00feeling and \u00e6\u00f0eling. \"Old English\" comprises at least four main dialect groups that Wikipedia gives as \"Mercian, Northumbrian, Kentish, and West Saxon\". There were differences in pronunciation between these dialects that were made manifest in various spelling differences. \"Essentials of Old English\" (University of Glasgow) mentions the existence of variation between the letters \"a\" and \"o\" before nasal consonants."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI don\u2019t understand why the 3rd-person of verbs that end in -y such as cry, try, or fly follow the rule for pluralizing nouns like fly. Why do they become cries, tries, and flies instead of crys, trys, and flys? This makes no sense because we are not talking about plurals, or even nouns. Plus, this form is not consistent with the 3rd-person form of other verbs like jump->jumps or eat->eats. Is there any rational reason for this or is it simply yet another example of arbitrary and inconsistent English grammar?","question":"I don\u2019t understand why the 3rd-person of verbs that end in -y such as cry, try, or fly follow the rule for pluralizing nouns like fly. Why do they become cries, tries, and flies instead of crys, trys, and flys? This makes no sense because we are not talking about plurals, or even nouns. Plus, this form is not consistent with the 3rd-person form of other verbs like jump->jumps or eat->eats. Is there any rational reason for this or is it simply yet another example of arbitrary and inconsistent English grammar?","answer":"When working with words that end in Y, the rules are the same to pluralize nouns and to conjugate a verb for the present tense in third person singular (he, she, it). The rules are: Where a consonant comes before the Y, change the y to i and add es Where a vowel comes before the Y, just add s For an example of a verb where a consonant comes before the Y, look at how fry becomes fries. (He fries. She fries. It fries.) For an example of a verb where a vowel comes before the Y, look at how fray becomes frays. (He frays. She frays. It frays.) The bonus here is that when you move on to conjugate the verb for the past tense, the rule remains similar: Where a consonant comes before the Y, change the y to i and add ed Where a vowel comes before the Y, just add ed Thus, the past tense for fry becomes fried and the past tense for fray becomes frayed.","output":"When working with words that end in Y, the rules are the same to pluralize nouns and to conjugate a verb for the present tense in third person singular (he, she, it). The rules are: Where a consonant comes before the Y, change the y to i and add es Where a vowel comes before the Y, just add s For an example of a verb where a consonant comes before the Y, look at how fry becomes fries. (He fries. She fries. It fries.) For an example of a verb where a vowel comes before the Y, look at how fray becomes frays. (He frays. She frays. It frays.) The bonus here is that when you move on to conjugate the verb for the past tense, the rule remains similar: Where a consonant comes before the Y, change the y to i and add ed Where a vowel comes before the Y, just add ed Thus, the past tense for fry becomes fried and the past tense for fray becomes frayed."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nPossible Duplicate: \u201cNeither is\u201d or \u201cneither are\u201d Say you take a photo of Billy and Suzy, but they both end up looking funny. Would you say Neither Billy nor Suzy look like themselves? Neither Billy nor Suzy look\/looks like themselves\/himself\/herself? I'm confused because usually with singular subjects, I would use a singular verb, saying \"Neither Billy nor Suzy is coming to the party,\" but this sounds off when I refer to the subjects with a pronoun later in the sentence.","question":"Possible Duplicate: \u201cNeither is\u201d or \u201cneither are\u201d Say you take a photo of Billy and Suzy, but they both end up looking funny. Would you say Neither Billy nor Suzy look like themselves? Neither Billy nor Suzy look\/looks like themselves\/himself\/herself? I'm confused because usually with singular subjects, I would use a singular verb, saying \"Neither Billy nor Suzy is coming to the party,\" but this sounds off when I refer to the subjects with a pronoun later in the sentence.","answer":"If you follow the chain of apparently duplicate questions starting with \"Neither is\" or \"neither are\", you will find general agreement that Neither...nor takes the singular verb. Neither Billy nor Suzy looks like... However none of the other questions address what reflexive pronoun to use. Because the verb is singular, and the reflexive pronoun needs to refer to the subject of the verb, that should be singular too. So it's either himself or herself. The pedantic answer is that it's himself because a generic masculine term includes the feminine. However, themselves has become a generic sexless singular reflexive pronoun, and it's doubly convenient here because we are talking about two people who share the characteristic of a bad photograph. Neither Billy nor Suzy looks like themselves. On the other hand, because the sentence is so short, using a singular verb in this case with themselves seems really odd. The effect is intensified if you remove \"like\" to say that Billy didn't \"look himself\" (ie., \"quite as he normally does,\" or even, \"ill\") in the photo. Neither Billy nor Suzy look like themselves. Neither Billy nor Suzy look themselves in that photo. The end result is that you end up either pedant or miscreant. I'd go for the former, but I can understand that the latter is attractive. Neither Billy nor Suzy looks like himself in that photo. Neither Billy nor Suzy look like themselves in that photo.","output":"If you follow the chain of apparently duplicate questions starting with \"Neither is\" or \"neither are\", you will find general agreement that Neither...nor takes the singular verb. Neither Billy nor Suzy looks like... However none of the other questions address what reflexive pronoun to use. Because the verb is singular, and the reflexive pronoun needs to refer to the subject of the verb, that should be singular too. So it's either himself or herself. The pedantic answer is that it's himself because a generic masculine term includes the feminine. However, themselves has become a generic sexless singular reflexive pronoun, and it's doubly convenient here because we are talking about two people who share the characteristic of a bad photograph. Neither Billy nor Suzy looks like themselves. On the other hand, because the sentence is so short, using a singular verb in this case with themselves seems really odd. The effect is intensified if you remove \"like\" to say that Billy didn't \"look himself\" (ie., \"quite as he normally does,\" or even, \"ill\") in the photo. Neither Billy nor Suzy look like themselves. Neither Billy nor Suzy look themselves in that photo. The end result is that you end up either pedant or miscreant. I'd go for the former, but I can understand that the latter is attractive. Neither Billy nor Suzy looks like himself in that photo. Neither Billy nor Suzy look like themselves in that photo."}
{"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\nAssonance, also known as \"slant rhyme,\" is a repetition of vowel sounds that creates an illusion of rhyming. Wikipedia notes that it's \"used in (mainly modern) English poetry.\" Which leads me to believe that from Shakespeare's times and up to, say, the end of the 19th Century, the concept was frowned on by purists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Keats or Byron ever used it. I realize that in different regions of the English-speaking world different things are pronounced differently. That said, my ear (accustomed to the way certain vowels and consonants are pronounced along the Eastern Seaboard) tells me that \"defiance\" and \"lions\" do not rhyme. If, for instance, you wrote a twenty-page-long poem; and if one of the poem's purposes was to imitate, or stylize, early 19th Century poetry; and if that poem consisted entirely of iambic lines; and if all those lines rhymed; and if all those rhymes were perfect or near-perfect - \"defiance\" and \"lions\" would stick out like an infected thumb. Am I wrong?","question":"Assonance, also known as \"slant rhyme,\" is a repetition of vowel sounds that creates an illusion of rhyming. Wikipedia notes that it's \"used in (mainly modern) English poetry.\" Which leads me to believe that from Shakespeare's times and up to, say, the end of the 19th Century, the concept was frowned on by purists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Keats or Byron ever used it. I realize that in different regions of the English-speaking world different things are pronounced differently. That said, my ear (accustomed to the way certain vowels and consonants are pronounced along the Eastern Seaboard) tells me that \"defiance\" and \"lions\" do not rhyme. If, for instance, you wrote a twenty-page-long poem; and if one of the poem's purposes was to imitate, or stylize, early 19th Century poetry; and if that poem consisted entirely of iambic lines; and if all those lines rhymed; and if all those rhymes were perfect or near-perfect - \"defiance\" and \"lions\" would stick out like an infected thumb. Am I wrong?","answer":"Yes, you are incorrect about assonance (at least as I understand your assumptions.) That makes answering your question a bit tricky, because your presuppositions are wrong to begin with. And, no matter where you're from, odds are you'd pronounce then similarly. About your assertions. Assonance takes place when two or more words close to one another repeat the same vowel sound but start with different consonant sounds. Assonance is common in Sailing to Byzantium by W. B. Yeats, (1865-1939) That is no country for old men. The young In one another\u2019s arms, birds in the trees... Or She Walks in Beauty by George Gordon, Lord Byron (1788-1824) She walks in beauty, like the night Of cloudless climes and starry skies; And all that's best of dark and bright Meet in her aspect and her eyes: Thus mellowed to that tender light Which heaven to gaudy day denies. The stanza rime is ababab, but assonates as aaaaaa. This kind of double-effect was highly prized by Keats, Shelley and Byron, and others. And I'd call Yeats a purist. Interesting is the assonance placement of \"starry skies\" and \"dark and bright\", and \"that's best\" and \"aspect\". There's enough assonance here to float a boat. Shakespeare's famous Sonnet 55 also used assonance: Not marble, nor the gilded monuments Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme; But you shall shine more bright in these contents Than unswept stone, besmear'd with sluttish time. When wasteful war shall statues overturn, And broils root out the work of masonry, Nor Mars his sword nor war's quick fire shall burn The living record of your memory. ... Never underestimate great poets.","output":"Yes, you are incorrect about assonance (at least as I understand your assumptions.) That makes answering your question a bit tricky, because your presuppositions are wrong to begin with. And, no matter where you're from, odds are you'd pronounce then similarly. About your assertions. Assonance takes place when two or more words close to one another repeat the same vowel sound but start with different consonant sounds. Assonance is common in Sailing to Byzantium by W. B. Yeats, (1865-1939) That is no country for old men. The young In one another\u2019s arms, birds in the trees... Or She Walks in Beauty by George Gordon, Lord Byron (1788-1824) She walks in beauty, like the night Of cloudless climes and starry skies; And all that's best of dark and bright Meet in her aspect and her eyes: Thus mellowed to that tender light Which heaven to gaudy day denies. The stanza rime is ababab, but assonates as aaaaaa. This kind of double-effect was highly prized by Keats, Shelley and Byron, and others. And I'd call Yeats a purist. Interesting is the assonance placement of \"starry skies\" and \"dark and bright\", and \"that's best\" and \"aspect\". There's enough assonance here to float a boat. Shakespeare's famous Sonnet 55 also used assonance: Not marble, nor the gilded monuments Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme; But you shall shine more bright in these contents Than unswept stone, besmear'd with sluttish time. When wasteful war shall statues overturn, And broils root out the work of masonry, Nor Mars his sword nor war's quick fire shall burn The living record of your memory. ... Never underestimate great poets."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm fairly sure there is a word or phrase to describe arguing emotively from an extreme, or biased, point of view as if your view is fact, but I can't remember what it may be. (I am wanting to use this word or phrase in a reply, I promise it is not a crossword clue.) Any hints?","question":"I'm fairly sure there is a word or phrase to describe arguing emotively from an extreme, or biased, point of view as if your view is fact, but I can't remember what it may be. (I am wanting to use this word or phrase in a reply, I promise it is not a crossword clue.) Any hints?","answer":"Perhaps you mean begging the question? According to BegTheQuestion.info, it means: \"Begging the question\" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place. A simple example would be \"I think he is unattractive because he is ugly.\" The adjective \"ugly\" does not explain why the subject is \"unattractive\" -- they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question. Interestingly, the term \"begging the question\" is commonly misused to mean, \"to raise the question.\"","output":"Perhaps you mean begging the question? According to BegTheQuestion.info, it means: \"Begging the question\" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place. A simple example would be \"I think he is unattractive because he is ugly.\" The adjective \"ugly\" does not explain why the subject is \"unattractive\" -- they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question. Interestingly, the term \"begging the question\" is commonly misused to mean, \"to raise the question.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am having trouble in figuring it out why there is a difference between their meaning as i think that the root \"content\" is shared by both the words content + ious ; content + ment where contentment means a sense of satisfaction and contentious is being argumentative - newbie (please correct me if i am wrong)","question":"I am having trouble in figuring it out why there is a difference between their meaning as i think that the root \"content\" is shared by both the words content + ious ; content + ment where contentment means a sense of satisfaction and contentious is being argumentative - newbie (please correct me if i am wrong)","answer":"The similarity obscures the different etymologies. Content, taken over exactly from Old French, ultimately comes from Latin contentus, \"contained, satisfied,\" past participle of continere. Related words are contents (that which is contained) or incontinent (inability to contain urination). Contentious, however, came through Middle French contentieux, from Latin contentiosus, \"obstinate, quarrelsome,\" and finally contendere, \"contend, dispute.\" The two words have nothing to do with each other etymologically, as they derive from two different Latin verbs.","output":"The similarity obscures the different etymologies. Content, taken over exactly from Old French, ultimately comes from Latin contentus, \"contained, satisfied,\" past participle of continere. Related words are contents (that which is contained) or incontinent (inability to contain urination). Contentious, however, came through Middle French contentieux, from Latin contentiosus, \"obstinate, quarrelsome,\" and finally contendere, \"contend, dispute.\" The two words have nothing to do with each other etymologically, as they derive from two different Latin verbs."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have difficulties spelling anonymous because I have trouble remembering how to even say it. Is there an easy way to remember its spelling?","question":"I have difficulties spelling anonymous because I have trouble remembering how to even say it. Is there an easy way to remember its spelling?","answer":"Anonymous: A nyone N ot O penly N amed. Y et M ore O ften: U nknown S ource. Does that fit the bill?","output":"Anonymous: A nyone N ot O penly N amed. Y et M ore O ften: U nknown S ource. Does that fit the bill?"}
{"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\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSometimes it is obvious which of the following words to use, sometimes not: regular usual ordinary normal common For example: \"regular coffee\" (not usual, normal or ordinary) , \"ordinary people\" (not regular), \"usual way to do something\" (sometimes \"common way\"). Please help me understand the difference between these words.","question":"Sometimes it is obvious which of the following words to use, sometimes not: regular usual ordinary normal common For example: \"regular coffee\" (not usual, normal or ordinary) , \"ordinary people\" (not regular), \"usual way to do something\" (sometimes \"common way\"). Please help me understand the difference between these words.","answer":"To be perfectly honest, each of these are interchangeable for the most part (given the details explained), and I would guess that certain phrases only sound 'off' because of a lack of familiarity, or, over-familiarity with other constructions: they all indicate a sense of typical circumstance, commonplace. If we look at the origins as far back as required then we can see quite clearly how we've carried each through: Regular: from Late Latin regularis, according to rule, from Latin regula, rod, rule; Usual: from Latin usus, use, from past participle of uti, to use. Ordinary: from Latin ordinarius, from ordo, ordin-, order; Normal: from Late Latin normalis, from Latin, made according to the square, from norma, carpenter's square; Common: from Latin communitatem \"community, fellowship,\" from communis, \"common, public, general, shared by all or many,\" 'according to rule', 'order', 'carpenter's square' and 'fellowship \/ shared by all or many' are all synonymous in trying to say that things are as they should be - any other state is different and, back then, undesirable, and potentially unusable (see: 'to use' above.) So, each of these refer to a state of normality that today all are equally acceptable, the main difference being selfishness: they now refer mostly to one's self rather than being used in an altruistic fashion (i.e. not necessarily 'for the common good' of society.) That's my two-penneth, anyway.","output":"To be perfectly honest, each of these are interchangeable for the most part (given the details explained), and I would guess that certain phrases only sound 'off' because of a lack of familiarity, or, over-familiarity with other constructions: they all indicate a sense of typical circumstance, commonplace. If we look at the origins as far back as required then we can see quite clearly how we've carried each through: Regular: from Late Latin regularis, according to rule, from Latin regula, rod, rule; Usual: from Latin usus, use, from past participle of uti, to use. Ordinary: from Latin ordinarius, from ordo, ordin-, order; Normal: from Late Latin normalis, from Latin, made according to the square, from norma, carpenter's square; Common: from Latin communitatem \"community, fellowship,\" from communis, \"common, public, general, shared by all or many,\" 'according to rule', 'order', 'carpenter's square' and 'fellowship \/ shared by all or many' are all synonymous in trying to say that things are as they should be - any other state is different and, back then, undesirable, and potentially unusable (see: 'to use' above.) So, each of these refer to a state of normality that today all are equally acceptable, the main difference being selfishness: they now refer mostly to one's self rather than being used in an altruistic fashion (i.e. not necessarily 'for the common good' of society.) That's my two-penneth, anyway."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn every Trump speech, almost every sentence is a run-on sentence. Here is a quote from one of his speeches last year Look, having nuclear\u2014my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart\u2014you know, if you\u2019re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world\u2014it\u2019s true!\u2014but when you're a conservative Republican they try\u2014oh, do they do a number\u2014that\u2019s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune\u2014you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we\u2019re a little disadvantaged\u2014but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me\u2014it would have been so easy, and it\u2019s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right\u2014who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners\u2014now it used to be three, now it\u2019s four\u2014but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven\u2019t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it\u2019s gonna take them about another 150 years\u2014but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us. [Source: Slate magazine] I understand a run-on sentence is usually just something like: It will be dark soon we can't be home before nightfall. Is Trump's typical speech habit considered multiple run-on sentences? Or what would the term be. And being a speech, is this an error in English language in general, a grammatical error on his part, something else, or no errors at all? EDIT: Since I have received negative comments over the quotation, I would like to clarify: I don't care about the quotation, I googled an example of a Trump speech to use for reference and found this. Since I apparently found a bad quote, or maybe something he never actually said, here is a different quote for reference. Note that I felt it would be inappropriate to replace the main quotation since this question has already been answered and I feel altering it would be unfair: And in 19 \u2014 and I will tell you this, and I said it very strongly, years ago, I said \u2014 and I love the military, and I want to have the strongest military that we\u2019ve ever had, and we need it more now than ever. [Source: The Wall Street Journal] Similar to the (bad example) speech above, this quote has Trump starting off with one thought, going to the next, interrupting himself to mention his love for the military, and then closing without finishing either prior thoughts. I didn't know what this was called, and was unsure if there was a term for this speaking style and whether or not it was in violation of any English rules.","question":"In every Trump speech, almost every sentence is a run-on sentence. Here is a quote from one of his speeches last year Look, having nuclear\u2014my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart\u2014you know, if you\u2019re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world\u2014it\u2019s true!\u2014but when you're a conservative Republican they try\u2014oh, do they do a number\u2014that\u2019s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune\u2014you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we\u2019re a little disadvantaged\u2014but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me\u2014it would have been so easy, and it\u2019s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right\u2014who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners\u2014now it used to be three, now it\u2019s four\u2014but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven\u2019t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it\u2019s gonna take them about another 150 years\u2014but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us. [Source: Slate magazine] I understand a run-on sentence is usually just something like: It will be dark soon we can't be home before nightfall. Is Trump's typical speech habit considered multiple run-on sentences? Or what would the term be. And being a speech, is this an error in English language in general, a grammatical error on his part, something else, or no errors at all? EDIT: Since I have received negative comments over the quotation, I would like to clarify: I don't care about the quotation, I googled an example of a Trump speech to use for reference and found this. Since I apparently found a bad quote, or maybe something he never actually said, here is a different quote for reference. Note that I felt it would be inappropriate to replace the main quotation since this question has already been answered and I feel altering it would be unfair: And in 19 \u2014 and I will tell you this, and I said it very strongly, years ago, I said \u2014 and I love the military, and I want to have the strongest military that we\u2019ve ever had, and we need it more now than ever. [Source: The Wall Street Journal] Similar to the (bad example) speech above, this quote has Trump starting off with one thought, going to the next, interrupting himself to mention his love for the military, and then closing without finishing either prior thoughts. I didn't know what this was called, and was unsure if there was a term for this speaking style and whether or not it was in violation of any English rules.","answer":"It\u2019s something else. I might not agree with Trump, but he is not incoherent or committing grammatical errors. When a person speaks extemporaneously or \u201coff the cuff\u201d, unless they are well trained in the art of public speaking, this example is a typical result. What you are seeing is mostly the three common forms of self-interruption: parenthesis, interrupting to insert a clarifying remark self-repair, interrupting to go back and edit an error filler, interrupting to signal that the speaker is thinking: words like uh, like, and you know A transcription that preserves every instance of self-repair and filler, such as this one, is probably intended to ridicule rather than to preserve the utterance. The usual practice in journalism is to eliminate self-repair and filler in quotations unless there is something significant about a misstatement. Also, in a transcription, the audible and somatic (gestural) content of the utterance is lost. Without that information, the utterance can seem much more random to the reader than it would have to the audience. Trump\u2019s thoughts are poorly organized, but he does a remarkably good job of remembering where he was before each self-interruption. In computer science terms, he commits no stack overflow errors. The transcript below makes the parenthetical structure of the example clearer with indentation, and de-emphasizes the self-repair and filler. What emerges is a coherent utterance, close to what the audience would have comprehended. Look, having nuclear \u2014my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart \u2014you know, if you\u2019re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I\u2019m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world \u2014it\u2019s true! \u2014but when you're a conservative Republican they try\u2014oh, do they do a number\u2014that\u2019s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune\u2014you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we\u2019re a little disadvantaged \u2014but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me\u2014it would have been so easy, and it\u2019s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what\u2019s going to happen and he was right \u2014who would have thought?), but when you look at what\u2019s going on with the four prisoners \u2014now it used to be three, now it\u2019s four\u2014but when it was three and even now, I would have said it\u2019s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don\u2019t, they haven\u2019t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it\u2019s gonna take them about another 150 years \u2014but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.","output":"It\u2019s something else. I might not agree with Trump, but he is not incoherent or committing grammatical errors. When a person speaks extemporaneously or \u201coff the cuff\u201d, unless they are well trained in the art of public speaking, this example is a typical result. What you are seeing is mostly the three common forms of self-interruption: parenthesis, interrupting to insert a clarifying remark self-repair, interrupting to go back and edit an error filler, interrupting to signal that the speaker is thinking: words like uh, like, and you know A transcription that preserves every instance of self-repair and filler, such as this one, is probably intended to ridicule rather than to preserve the utterance. The usual practice in journalism is to eliminate self-repair and filler in quotations unless there is something significant about a misstatement. Also, in a transcription, the audible and somatic (gestural) content of the utterance is lost. Without that information, the utterance can seem much more random to the reader than it would have to the audience. Trump\u2019s thoughts are poorly organized, but he does a remarkably good job of remembering where he was before each self-interruption. In computer science terms, he commits no stack overflow errors. The transcript below makes the parenthetical structure of the example clearer with indentation, and de-emphasizes the self-repair and filler. What emerges is a coherent utterance, close to what the audience would have comprehended. Look, having nuclear \u2014my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart \u2014you know, if you\u2019re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I\u2019m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world \u2014it\u2019s true! \u2014but when you're a conservative Republican they try\u2014oh, do they do a number\u2014that\u2019s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune\u2014you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we\u2019re a little disadvantaged \u2014but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me\u2014it would have been so easy, and it\u2019s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what\u2019s going to happen and he was right \u2014who would have thought?), but when you look at what\u2019s going on with the four prisoners \u2014now it used to be three, now it\u2019s four\u2014but when it was three and even now, I would have said it\u2019s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don\u2019t, they haven\u2019t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it\u2019s gonna take them about another 150 years \u2014but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI grew up in a very homogenous suburb, and was quite shocked when I moved to Philadelphia for college and started hearing how many different dialects exist even within one city. My untrained ear could not tell you the difference between a New York or Philadelphia accent, but some of my friends swear they can tell the difference between North and South Philadelphians, and spot someone from Jersey in a syllable. Just recently I moved to San Francisco, and I was shocked to hear several people observe that I had an East Coast accent. Throughout your travels around the country, what observations have you made about the different dialects in America? How do different regions differ in terms of syllable emphasis, sentence construction, or even slang?","question":"I grew up in a very homogenous suburb, and was quite shocked when I moved to Philadelphia for college and started hearing how many different dialects exist even within one city. My untrained ear could not tell you the difference between a New York or Philadelphia accent, but some of my friends swear they can tell the difference between North and South Philadelphians, and spot someone from Jersey in a syllable. Just recently I moved to San Francisco, and I was shocked to hear several people observe that I had an East Coast accent. Throughout your travels around the country, what observations have you made about the different dialects in America? How do different regions differ in terms of syllable emphasis, sentence construction, or even slang?","answer":"You might be interested in The TELSUR Project, which is a high-granularity phonological survey of North American dialects. Note that the information presented on that site is very detailed and highly technical. In particular, there is an overview of major dialect regions, of which they distinguish five major groups: West (basically everything west of the Great Plains) North Central (MN, WI, and the Dakotas) Midland (most of the Great Plains and the Midwest) Inland North (MI and inland NY) South (um, the South) The Northeast presents special difficulties, as it has the most diversity of any region, and isn't represented in the regions above. Here is a detail map of Northeast dialect regions. However, there are a multitude of subtle gradations in these divisions, which can be explored by reading through the materials presented on those sites. You might also like to look through the Harvard dialect survey results, which plot an enormous number of phonological and lexical differences across the country.","output":"You might be interested in The TELSUR Project, which is a high-granularity phonological survey of North American dialects. Note that the information presented on that site is very detailed and highly technical. In particular, there is an overview of major dialect regions, of which they distinguish five major groups: West (basically everything west of the Great Plains) North Central (MN, WI, and the Dakotas) Midland (most of the Great Plains and the Midwest) Inland North (MI and inland NY) South (um, the South) The Northeast presents special difficulties, as it has the most diversity of any region, and isn't represented in the regions above. Here is a detail map of Northeast dialect regions. However, there are a multitude of subtle gradations in these divisions, which can be explored by reading through the materials presented on those sites. You might also like to look through the Harvard dialect survey results, which plot an enormous number of phonological and lexical differences across the country."}
{"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 part of an organisation that uses Scrum Agile methodology to develop software solutions. The Scrum Guide defines a 'Product Backlog' in a positive way as a \"living artefact\" i.e. under perpetual review where items with the most 'value' rise to the top. However, as an organisation we also get 'work' that ideally we would deal with immediately but often we don't and so it tends to accumulate to the point where it would take a lot of time and effort to clear. People in the organisation use the word 'backlog' in this pejorative sense. Because 'Product Backlog' is a 'good' term prescribed by Scrum, I want to find another term that better describes the 'bad' accumulation of work. In many ways 'cancer' is a good fit: procrastination or denial makes treatment more difficult and leads to dire outcomes. However, because we are in the healthcare sector, this isn't appropriate! Also, it doesn't fit the usage e.g. \"We have a two-year backlog of blah work right now.\"","question":"I am part of an organisation that uses Scrum Agile methodology to develop software solutions. The Scrum Guide defines a 'Product Backlog' in a positive way as a \"living artefact\" i.e. under perpetual review where items with the most 'value' rise to the top. However, as an organisation we also get 'work' that ideally we would deal with immediately but often we don't and so it tends to accumulate to the point where it would take a lot of time and effort to clear. People in the organisation use the word 'backlog' in this pejorative sense. Because 'Product Backlog' is a 'good' term prescribed by Scrum, I want to find another term that better describes the 'bad' accumulation of work. In many ways 'cancer' is a good fit: procrastination or denial makes treatment more difficult and leads to dire outcomes. However, because we are in the healthcare sector, this isn't appropriate! Also, it doesn't fit the usage e.g. \"We have a two-year backlog of blah work right now.\"","answer":"Technical Debt Depending on the nature of this work, it may be described as technical debt. This refers to work that has to be done to clean up a code base and make it more maintainable. Technical debt tends to accumulate from the implementation of less-than-optimal solutions to urgent problems, although there can be other sources of technical debt. For example, if your companies Widget needs to be upgraded for OAuth support, and the engineers have to choose between a refactor and upgrade of the current authorization system which may take a couple weeks, or one engineer installing the plugin into the system and using a different table, then to meet the deadline you may have to deal with having to separate authentication systems which use up double the storage space and require double the work to maintain. Dedicating a few engineers to the problem for a few weeks can resolve the issues, but because the system is technically \"working\" the way it is now, this work is deprioritized. It tends to linger in the project and this type of pending \"clean up\" work is called technical debt. In your sentence: We have a two-year backlog of technical debt right now.","output":"Technical Debt Depending on the nature of this work, it may be described as technical debt. This refers to work that has to be done to clean up a code base and make it more maintainable. Technical debt tends to accumulate from the implementation of less-than-optimal solutions to urgent problems, although there can be other sources of technical debt. For example, if your companies Widget needs to be upgraded for OAuth support, and the engineers have to choose between a refactor and upgrade of the current authorization system which may take a couple weeks, or one engineer installing the plugin into the system and using a different table, then to meet the deadline you may have to deal with having to separate authentication systems which use up double the storage space and require double the work to maintain. Dedicating a few engineers to the problem for a few weeks can resolve the issues, but because the system is technically \"working\" the way it is now, this work is deprioritized. It tends to linger in the project and this type of pending \"clean up\" work is called technical debt. In your sentence: We have a two-year backlog of technical debt right now."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI came across this sentence while preparing for the IELTS writing exam: There are a number of causes of people not doing physical activities. That causes of should be followed by a noun or gerund. So does people not doing physical activities act as a gerund here? Could somebody please help me understand it grammatically?","question":"I came across this sentence while preparing for the IELTS writing exam: There are a number of causes of people not doing physical activities. That causes of should be followed by a noun or gerund. So does people not doing physical activities act as a gerund here? Could somebody please help me understand it grammatically?","answer":"\u201cWhat grammar is this now?\u201d That grammatical analysis you\u2019ve asked for follows. It\u2019s a clunky sentence, but its parse is not a great mystery. Given: There are a number of causes of people not doing physical activities. The portion set in bold is a non-finite clause featuring the -ing inflection of the verb. It is a negated clause whose subject is people and whose object is physical activities. This entire verb clause serves as the prepositional object for that sentence\u2019s second instance of of. If instead of using a noun, people had been a pronoun standing in for those people, then it would have been in the object form: There are a number of causes of them not doing physical activities. If that clause had been in subject position, there would have been some latitude in choosing its head for purposes of verb agreement: People not doing physical activities are prone to health problems. People not doing physical activities is this country\u2019s most serious health problem. In the first sentence, the tensed verb are is in the plural because it is agreeing with people. In the second sentence, the tensed verb is is in the singular because it is agreeing with (not) doing. But I would say that in your sentence, the head is (not) doing rather than people. That\u2019s because it is not the people themselves whose cause is under discussion, but rather their (not) doing physical activities. Analysis via Computational Linguistics If you run that sentence through the online Stanford Parser tool, it presents this syntactic analysis: Your query There are a number of causes of people not doing physical activities. Tagging There\/EX are\/VBP a\/DT number\/NN of\/IN causes\/NNS of\/IN people\/NNS not\/RB doing\/VBG physical\/JJ activities\/NNS .\/. Parse (ROOT (S (NP (EX There)) (VP (VBP are) (NP (NP (DT a) (NN number)) (PP (IN of) (S (NP (NP (NNS causes)) (PP (IN of) (NP (NNS people)))) (RB not) (VP (VBG doing) (NP (JJ physical) (NNS activities))))))) (. .))) That\u2019s attaching the very last bit somewhat differently than I might, but it\u2019s interesting to see what the computer thinks of it. Mine might run more like what they get for I know three causes of people not doing physical activities: (ROOT (S (NP (PRP I)) (VP (VBP know) (NP (NP (CD three) (NNS causes)) (PP (IN of) (NP (NNS people) (S (RB not) (VP (VBG doing) (NP (JJ physical) (NNS activities)))))))) (. .))) That way people not doing physical activities is the clause that completes of. Happier Rewrites Even though you didn\u2019t ask, there are many other ways to write that sentence if the aim is to make it cleaner. Here are just a few: There are several reasons behind people not doing physical activities. There are several reasons behind them not doing physical activities. There are several reasons behind their not doing physical activities. There are several reasons for people not doing physical activities. There are several reasons for people\u2019s not doing physical activities. There are several reasons for them not doing physical activities. There are several reasons for their not doing physical activities. There are several reasons why people are not doing physical activities. There are several reasons why they are not doing physical activities. The last pair is the best of the rewrites listed, in my estimation, but certainly others are possible. The possessive choices are highly stylized and seldom encountered in normal conversation.","output":"\u201cWhat grammar is this now?\u201d That grammatical analysis you\u2019ve asked for follows. It\u2019s a clunky sentence, but its parse is not a great mystery. Given: There are a number of causes of people not doing physical activities. The portion set in bold is a non-finite clause featuring the -ing inflection of the verb. It is a negated clause whose subject is people and whose object is physical activities. This entire verb clause serves as the prepositional object for that sentence\u2019s second instance of of. If instead of using a noun, people had been a pronoun standing in for those people, then it would have been in the object form: There are a number of causes of them not doing physical activities. If that clause had been in subject position, there would have been some latitude in choosing its head for purposes of verb agreement: People not doing physical activities are prone to health problems. People not doing physical activities is this country\u2019s most serious health problem. In the first sentence, the tensed verb are is in the plural because it is agreeing with people. In the second sentence, the tensed verb is is in the singular because it is agreeing with (not) doing. But I would say that in your sentence, the head is (not) doing rather than people. That\u2019s because it is not the people themselves whose cause is under discussion, but rather their (not) doing physical activities. Analysis via Computational Linguistics If you run that sentence through the online Stanford Parser tool, it presents this syntactic analysis: Your query There are a number of causes of people not doing physical activities. Tagging There\/EX are\/VBP a\/DT number\/NN of\/IN causes\/NNS of\/IN people\/NNS not\/RB doing\/VBG physical\/JJ activities\/NNS .\/. Parse (ROOT (S (NP (EX There)) (VP (VBP are) (NP (NP (DT a) (NN number)) (PP (IN of) (S (NP (NP (NNS causes)) (PP (IN of) (NP (NNS people)))) (RB not) (VP (VBG doing) (NP (JJ physical) (NNS activities))))))) (. .))) That\u2019s attaching the very last bit somewhat differently than I might, but it\u2019s interesting to see what the computer thinks of it. Mine might run more like what they get for I know three causes of people not doing physical activities: (ROOT (S (NP (PRP I)) (VP (VBP know) (NP (NP (CD three) (NNS causes)) (PP (IN of) (NP (NNS people) (S (RB not) (VP (VBG doing) (NP (JJ physical) (NNS activities)))))))) (. .))) That way people not doing physical activities is the clause that completes of. Happier Rewrites Even though you didn\u2019t ask, there are many other ways to write that sentence if the aim is to make it cleaner. Here are just a few: There are several reasons behind people not doing physical activities. There are several reasons behind them not doing physical activities. There are several reasons behind their not doing physical activities. There are several reasons for people not doing physical activities. There are several reasons for people\u2019s not doing physical activities. There are several reasons for them not doing physical activities. There are several reasons for their not doing physical activities. There are several reasons why people are not doing physical activities. There are several reasons why they are not doing physical activities. The last pair is the best of the rewrites listed, in my estimation, but certainly others are possible. The possessive choices are highly stylized and seldom encountered in normal conversation."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI heard it from a radio station and just don't know how to spell it out. It sounds something like \"malfolk\" and means words that don't know how to pronounce, szmczyk, for example. Does anyone know the word?","question":"I heard it from a radio station and just don't know how to spell it out. It sounds something like \"malfolk\" and means words that don't know how to pronounce, szmczyk, for example. Does anyone know the word?","answer":"I believe the word you are looking for is mouthful. Dictionary.com defines mouthful as (amongst other meanings) : A long word or group of words, especially one that is hard to pronounce. It is commonly used in English - e.g., \"that was a real mouthful.\"","output":"I believe the word you are looking for is mouthful. Dictionary.com defines mouthful as (amongst other meanings) : A long word or group of words, especially one that is hard to pronounce. It is commonly used in English - e.g., \"that was a real mouthful.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm used to \"pseudo\" in academic contexts, where the word\/prefix has no connotation at all. It essentially means \"not genuine\": Pseudorandom Pseudoprime Pseudoephedrine Pseudo-atoll I was about to use the word in normal conversation, but I wondered about its connotation outside of academia. I'm glad I withheld, because it seems to be quite negative upon first glance! A quick google for \"pseudo\" gives plenty of synonyms: bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, affected, insincere; Those vary from neutral to negative in connotation. Oxford's definition and examples are neutral to negative as well: pseu\u00b7do adjective 1. Not genuine; sham 2. informal Pretentious or insincere But that \"definition\" is one of many I found that is little more than a list of synonyms, and synonyms don't necessary imply connotation. Does colloquial use of \"pseudo\" inherently carry negative connotation? Or is it context-dependent like in academia? Colloquially, when used with certain nouns, a negative connotation is obvious. For instance, calling someone \"pseudo intellectual,\" accuses them of only pretending to be intelligent, which implies that they are not actually intelligent. A positive connotation seems possible, but if the answer to my question is affirmative, then I'm just misusing the word. Say I have a friend who's claiming laziness despite actual hard work and success. I could say to him, \"you're only being pseudo incompetent, quit downplaying your achievements!\" That sounds strictly positive, but I might just be misusing the word.","question":"I'm used to \"pseudo\" in academic contexts, where the word\/prefix has no connotation at all. It essentially means \"not genuine\": Pseudorandom Pseudoprime Pseudoephedrine Pseudo-atoll I was about to use the word in normal conversation, but I wondered about its connotation outside of academia. I'm glad I withheld, because it seems to be quite negative upon first glance! A quick google for \"pseudo\" gives plenty of synonyms: bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, affected, insincere; Those vary from neutral to negative in connotation. Oxford's definition and examples are neutral to negative as well: pseu\u00b7do adjective 1. Not genuine; sham 2. informal Pretentious or insincere But that \"definition\" is one of many I found that is little more than a list of synonyms, and synonyms don't necessary imply connotation. Does colloquial use of \"pseudo\" inherently carry negative connotation? Or is it context-dependent like in academia? Colloquially, when used with certain nouns, a negative connotation is obvious. For instance, calling someone \"pseudo intellectual,\" accuses them of only pretending to be intelligent, which implies that they are not actually intelligent. A positive connotation seems possible, but if the answer to my question is affirmative, then I'm just misusing the word. Say I have a friend who's claiming laziness despite actual hard work and success. I could say to him, \"you're only being pseudo incompetent, quit downplaying your achievements!\" That sounds strictly positive, but I might just be misusing the word.","answer":"Not always, although it often carries a negative connotation. For example when giving programming advice (eg on Stack Overflow), I'll often provide \"pseudo-code\". This is code that isn't necessarily written in a particular language, and instead shows the basical structures\/logic in a simplified manner. It looks pretty much the same as code, it uses the same words, but it's not actually code. In this case \"pseudo\" is \"not genuine\" in that the code is not written in a particular language, the person I'm talking to couldn't just take what I write verbatim and use it directly. It's much less common than the \"pseudo-science\" type of negative connotation, but is still used as you note for pseudo-atoll, pseudo-random etc and is, as you say, context dependent. Typically the context is \"It's close enough not to matter for the way I'm using it, but we still need to differentiate it from the 'true' version\". It's kind of a \"just be aware that this may not be quite what you were expecting, even though it's close\" warning. In general, however, you're right that it usually carries a negative connotation, where it is used to deride something as not being genuine. \"Pseudo-science\" is the most common I hear, regarding an article which is pretending to be scientific but is really opinion with some statistics tagged on. One thing to note is that even these neutral variants usually are technically negative in some way: my code still isn't code (so is worse than true code), pseudo-random could technically be potentially predicted.... it's just that in the way they're being used, the fact they aren't genuine isn't significant to the discussion at hand. The real question, I guess, comes down to \"is a lack of authenticity\/being genuine always a bad thing\" - to which the answer is \"no, but it's usually a bad thing\"","output":"Not always, although it often carries a negative connotation. For example when giving programming advice (eg on Stack Overflow), I'll often provide \"pseudo-code\". This is code that isn't necessarily written in a particular language, and instead shows the basical structures\/logic in a simplified manner. It looks pretty much the same as code, it uses the same words, but it's not actually code. In this case \"pseudo\" is \"not genuine\" in that the code is not written in a particular language, the person I'm talking to couldn't just take what I write verbatim and use it directly. It's much less common than the \"pseudo-science\" type of negative connotation, but is still used as you note for pseudo-atoll, pseudo-random etc and is, as you say, context dependent. Typically the context is \"It's close enough not to matter for the way I'm using it, but we still need to differentiate it from the 'true' version\". It's kind of a \"just be aware that this may not be quite what you were expecting, even though it's close\" warning. In general, however, you're right that it usually carries a negative connotation, where it is used to deride something as not being genuine. \"Pseudo-science\" is the most common I hear, regarding an article which is pretending to be scientific but is really opinion with some statistics tagged on. One thing to note is that even these neutral variants usually are technically negative in some way: my code still isn't code (so is worse than true code), pseudo-random could technically be potentially predicted.... it's just that in the way they're being used, the fact they aren't genuine isn't significant to the discussion at hand. The real question, I guess, comes down to \"is a lack of authenticity\/being genuine always a bad thing\" - to which the answer is \"no, but it's usually a bad thing\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nLet's say someone said \"You are funny\" to me, and I want to report it. Can these two sentences be used interchangeably? He said (that) I was funny to me. He said to me (that) I was funny. Also, are these two sentences interchangeable? He said, \"You are funny\" to me. He said to me, \"You are funny\". (I am not sure if I should use the commas.)","question":"Let's say someone said \"You are funny\" to me, and I want to report it. Can these two sentences be used interchangeably? He said (that) I was funny to me. He said to me (that) I was funny. Also, are these two sentences interchangeable? He said, \"You are funny\" to me. He said to me, \"You are funny\". (I am not sure if I should use the commas.)","answer":"In all of your examples the sentence is better expressed with told. It's important to understand the difference between told and said. When one says something they merely say it out loud, to the world or no one. In order to direct to an individual they must say something to someone. Tell, on the other hand, implies that what was said was said to someone. The prepositional phrase is not required with tell. As a result, tell is almost always the most concise and prefered usage when you are describing your saying something to someone. This usage is clumsy -- I said to Bob to go to the store. This usage is preferred (note that to is not needed) -- I told Bob to go to the store.","output":"In all of your examples the sentence is better expressed with told. It's important to understand the difference between told and said. When one says something they merely say it out loud, to the world or no one. In order to direct to an individual they must say something to someone. Tell, on the other hand, implies that what was said was said to someone. The prepositional phrase is not required with tell. As a result, tell is almost always the most concise and prefered usage when you are describing your saying something to someone. This usage is clumsy -- I said to Bob to go to the store. This usage is preferred (note that to is not needed) -- I told Bob to go to the store."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen she heard farmers talking of thousands of cattle dying of thirts or reservoirs drying up, anonymous doctors giving tips on how to avoid sun-stroke, and of beauty consultants advising a tan without withering away, Mother naturally concluded that we were in for a heat-wave that would make the West Indies seem like an extension of Alaska. I have a question regarding the bold part of the above sentence. The part should mean that Mother expected the hot weather to the extent that Alaska would be like the West Indies. But I would express it quite contrarily: \u2026make Alaska seem like an extension of the West Indies. The original version suggests in my opinion that in the West Indies will be the cold weather and the West Indies will seem like Alaska which does not fit in the context. Where does my logic fail in understanding this passage?","question":"When she heard farmers talking of thousands of cattle dying of thirts or reservoirs drying up, anonymous doctors giving tips on how to avoid sun-stroke, and of beauty consultants advising a tan without withering away, Mother naturally concluded that we were in for a heat-wave that would make the West Indies seem like an extension of Alaska. I have a question regarding the bold part of the above sentence. The part should mean that Mother expected the hot weather to the extent that Alaska would be like the West Indies. But I would express it quite contrarily: \u2026make Alaska seem like an extension of the West Indies. The original version suggests in my opinion that in the West Indies will be the cold weather and the West Indies will seem like Alaska which does not fit in the context. Where does my logic fail in understanding this passage?","answer":"Mother concluded: Our weather will be so hot that the (hot) temperatures we normally associate with the West Indies will seem cold (as cold as Alaska) by comparison. P.S. This trope is known as \"outdoing\". The explosion was so loud it made a jet's sonic boom sound like the popping of a champagne cork.","output":"Mother concluded: Our weather will be so hot that the (hot) temperatures we normally associate with the West Indies will seem cold (as cold as Alaska) by comparison. P.S. This trope is known as \"outdoing\". The explosion was so loud it made a jet's sonic boom sound like the popping of a champagne cork."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"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\nA teacher sent home a list of assignments with a cover letter explaining, \"These are not homework.\" \"This is not homework,\" or \"These pages are not homework,\" sound equally normal to me, but \"These are not homework,\" just sounds weird. Is it correct grammar? ... I don't agree that the question: 'Agreement in \u201c[Singular Noun] Is\/Are [Plural Noun]\u201d?' describes this specific usage. In \"These are not homework,\" the word \"These\" is not a singular noun. It's a plural pronoun. I suspect that some of the problem is that the missing noun is implied to the reader only by the physical presence of other documents, and not contextually from the surrounding content of the cover letter itself.","question":"A teacher sent home a list of assignments with a cover letter explaining, \"These are not homework.\" \"This is not homework,\" or \"These pages are not homework,\" sound equally normal to me, but \"These are not homework,\" just sounds weird. Is it correct grammar? ... I don't agree that the question: 'Agreement in \u201c[Singular Noun] Is\/Are [Plural Noun]\u201d?' describes this specific usage. In \"These are not homework,\" the word \"These\" is not a singular noun. It's a plural pronoun. I suspect that some of the problem is that the missing noun is implied to the reader only by the physical presence of other documents, and not contextually from the surrounding content of the cover letter itself.","answer":"If \"these\" in the teacher's letter refers back to \"assignments\", the statement \"These are not homework\" is short for \"These assignments are not homework,\" which is grammatical--the subject and the verb agree in number.","output":"If \"these\" in the teacher's letter refers back to \"assignments\", the statement \"These are not homework\" is short for \"These assignments are not homework,\" which is grammatical--the subject and the verb agree in number."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am looking for a word that can be used to describe an effort or endeavour that is idealistic to the point of being dangerous and which is unwise to pursue. Perhaps, an example could be when people try to abstain from food for weeks and months in order to obtain a deeper spiritual consciousness but this act rather leads to near-death or emaciation. The word would be different from quixotic as I believe quixotic represents a level of foolishness. And I want the word to convey danger or immoderation - something which is likely to lead to a collapse. If this question has been asked before, I apologize! Thank you! EDIT: the word that I was thinking of might be used in a situation regardless of the possibility of self-denial. Another example: the word could represent the type of society which emphasizes maximal profits from work or optimal physical health but the pursuit of which would lead to eventual breakdown because people would lose time for other important things in life or become too narrowly focused on being fit. *EDIT: thank you to all who contributed @davidblomstrom (special mention), @ermanen (great answer), @dcshannon (helpful research), @danbron (great follow-up), @edwin (the first to respond), @wayfaringstranger, @mystisinha, @ws2, @zibbobz, @nicole, @abathur, @peter, @bohica \/ @doorknob, @armen, @eatoin, @tessellatingheckler, @dafdarf and @eric! Hugs and Peace","question":"I am looking for a word that can be used to describe an effort or endeavour that is idealistic to the point of being dangerous and which is unwise to pursue. Perhaps, an example could be when people try to abstain from food for weeks and months in order to obtain a deeper spiritual consciousness but this act rather leads to near-death or emaciation. The word would be different from quixotic as I believe quixotic represents a level of foolishness. And I want the word to convey danger or immoderation - something which is likely to lead to a collapse. If this question has been asked before, I apologize! Thank you! EDIT: the word that I was thinking of might be used in a situation regardless of the possibility of self-denial. Another example: the word could represent the type of society which emphasizes maximal profits from work or optimal physical health but the pursuit of which would lead to eventual breakdown because people would lose time for other important things in life or become too narrowly focused on being fit. *EDIT: thank you to all who contributed @davidblomstrom (special mention), @ermanen (great answer), @dcshannon (helpful research), @danbron (great follow-up), @edwin (the first to respond), @wayfaringstranger, @mystisinha, @ws2, @zibbobz, @nicole, @abathur, @peter, @bohica \/ @doorknob, @armen, @eatoin, @tessellatingheckler, @dafdarf and @eric! Hugs and Peace","answer":"You can consider brinkmanship but it is usually used in political contexts. the practice of causing or allowing a situation to become extremely dangerous in order to get the results that you want [MW] However, this word can be used in other contexts as well and the below excerpt is about spiritual healing, similar to the first example you gave. (from the book Spiritual Development the Hard Way By Michael Maher): Healing the deeper regions means submerging yourself into the psyche of another - seeing and feeling the world, and oneself, as they do. This is an art of brinkmanship, a spiritual adventure from which you will not emerge unchanged. At times the process of identification with the one you are helping becomes so strong that there is a real danger of losing yourself. Additionally, idealism itself can become dangerous because it puts ideas over the material world and the fixed ideas of an idealist might bring harm to himself or others. Also, you can consider extreme idealism for a stronger term.","output":"You can consider brinkmanship but it is usually used in political contexts. the practice of causing or allowing a situation to become extremely dangerous in order to get the results that you want [MW] However, this word can be used in other contexts as well and the below excerpt is about spiritual healing, similar to the first example you gave. (from the book Spiritual Development the Hard Way By Michael Maher): Healing the deeper regions means submerging yourself into the psyche of another - seeing and feeling the world, and oneself, as they do. This is an art of brinkmanship, a spiritual adventure from which you will not emerge unchanged. At times the process of identification with the one you are helping becomes so strong that there is a real danger of losing yourself. Additionally, idealism itself can become dangerous because it puts ideas over the material world and the fixed ideas of an idealist might bring harm to himself or others. Also, you can consider extreme idealism for a stronger term."}
{"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\nThis morning I heard the word \"constitutionality\" being used by a journalist with regard to the debate over the legality of health care reforms here in the US. This grates on my British ears as I would simply use 'constitutional' in this context. Does 'constitutionality' have a different meaning? Is this a recent Americanism?","question":"This morning I heard the word \"constitutionality\" being used by a journalist with regard to the debate over the legality of health care reforms here in the US. This grates on my British ears as I would simply use 'constitutional' in this context. Does 'constitutionality' have a different meaning? Is this a recent Americanism?","answer":"In my experience, constitutionality is a noun, while constitutional is an adjective. In other words, The law was not constitutional, and, The constitutionality of the law was questioned. EDIT: As @FumbleFingers points out, constitutional can be a noun; the New Oxford American Dictionary lists it as a (dated) noun meaning \"a walk, typically one taken regularly to maintain or restore good health.\"","output":"In my experience, constitutionality is a noun, while constitutional is an adjective. In other words, The law was not constitutional, and, The constitutionality of the law was questioned. EDIT: As @FumbleFingers points out, constitutional can be a noun; the New Oxford American Dictionary lists it as a (dated) noun meaning \"a walk, typically one taken regularly to maintain or restore good health.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\u201cjust so you know\u201d (Urban Dictionary) What does this mean? And what grammatical role does \u201cso\u201d have?","question":"\u201cjust so you know\u201d (Urban Dictionary) What does this mean? And what grammatical role does \u201cso\u201d have?","answer":"Just so you know is a pretty ordinary construction, as such things go in English. Just = \"only\" So is the ordinary adverb, employed in the sense \"in order that\" *You know\" = \"you know\", \"you are aware of\" So: I provide this information (without being asked) in order that you may be aware of it and thus be spared embarrassment or inadvertent error.","output":"Just so you know is a pretty ordinary construction, as such things go in English. Just = \"only\" So is the ordinary adverb, employed in the sense \"in order that\" *You know\" = \"you know\", \"you are aware of\" So: I provide this information (without being asked) in order that you may be aware of it and thus be spared embarrassment or inadvertent error."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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 verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"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 writing a computer engineering paper and try to express that our system increased a certain value fairly much, emphasizing that the amount of increase is uncommon. Could anyone recommend a word to imply 'increased a value fairly much' in a scientific way? First of all, sorry for making you confused, but actually I was composing a presentation which is about my research project. I just mentioned it as 'writing a paper', which I thought uses similar terms to when composing a research presentation. Anyway.. Our project is making an custom chip accelerating deep-learning, and in this field, people commonly regards that the more the accelerator contains the neuron data, the better the system is. My original intention was making one short phrase which emphasizes the increased number of neuron data, such as 'Increased number of neuron data', but I thought this phrase is somewhat weak to emphasize the increase itself.","question":"I am writing a computer engineering paper and try to express that our system increased a certain value fairly much, emphasizing that the amount of increase is uncommon. Could anyone recommend a word to imply 'increased a value fairly much' in a scientific way? First of all, sorry for making you confused, but actually I was composing a presentation which is about my research project. I just mentioned it as 'writing a paper', which I thought uses similar terms to when composing a research presentation. Anyway.. Our project is making an custom chip accelerating deep-learning, and in this field, people commonly regards that the more the accelerator contains the neuron data, the better the system is. My original intention was making one short phrase which emphasizes the increased number of neuron data, such as 'Increased number of neuron data', but I thought this phrase is somewhat weak to emphasize the increase itself.","answer":"I'm not an expert in science, but for a huge growth in number, I am currently thinking of the word \"proliferated.\" Also, I think there might be more to what you want to express. For example, you are more leaning towards producing more data in a faster manner, how about the word \"expedited\"?","output":"I'm not an expert in science, but for a huge growth in number, I am currently thinking of the word \"proliferated.\" Also, I think there might be more to what you want to express. For example, you are more leaning towards producing more data in a faster manner, how about the word \"expedited\"?"}
{"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 would like to express the following idea in a more fashionable and eloquent manner: leave on a break of unknown duration \/ take a break... \/ leave on hiatus... Use of the highest linguistic register, highest level of formality and even archaic style are blissfully accepted. Please be at liberty to change any part of this sentence and note as well that the duration is unknown and may span great lengths. This is not a break from school, but a discontinuation of a certain activity for some time, a sign or a message, for example, to note one's leave.","question":"I would like to express the following idea in a more fashionable and eloquent manner: leave on a break of unknown duration \/ take a break... \/ leave on hiatus... Use of the highest linguistic register, highest level of formality and even archaic style are blissfully accepted. Please be at liberty to change any part of this sentence and note as well that the duration is unknown and may span great lengths. This is not a break from school, but a discontinuation of a certain activity for some time, a sign or a message, for example, to note one's leave.","answer":"You can \"take a sabbatical\". A \"sabbatical\" is a rest from work, or a break, often lasting from two months to a year. This term is derived from the biblical Sabbath which serves an ancient human need to build periods of rest and rejuvenation into a lifetime. Traditionally you\u2019ll find sabbaticals in academic careers, but they are not just for teachers anymore. Anyone can take a sabbatical and travel. A sabbatical is simply getting an extended leave from work to pursue a break.","output":"You can \"take a sabbatical\". A \"sabbatical\" is a rest from work, or a break, often lasting from two months to a year. This term is derived from the biblical Sabbath which serves an ancient human need to build periods of rest and rejuvenation into a lifetime. Traditionally you\u2019ll find sabbaticals in academic careers, but they are not just for teachers anymore. Anyone can take a sabbatical and travel. A sabbatical is simply getting an extended leave from work to pursue a break."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn my own opinion, knocked and waited are two different verbs. They share the same subject, which makes me confused about why two verbs can be joined by a comma. I think knocking is more appropriate or add \"and\" where comma has been used. This is a excerpt from A Rose for Emily by William Faulkner They called a special meeting of the Board of Aldermen. A deputation waited upon her\uff0cknocked at the door through which no visitor had passed since she ceased giving china-painting lessons eight or ten years earlier.","question":"In my own opinion, knocked and waited are two different verbs. They share the same subject, which makes me confused about why two verbs can be joined by a comma. I think knocking is more appropriate or add \"and\" where comma has been used. This is a excerpt from A Rose for Emily by William Faulkner They called a special meeting of the Board of Aldermen. A deputation waited upon her\uff0cknocked at the door through which no visitor had passed since she ceased giving china-painting lessons eight or ten years earlier.","answer":"This is what schoolteachers call a \"comma splice\": joining two independent clauses or predicates without a conjunction and with only a comma marking their separation. Schoolteachers are usually very strict about forbidding comma splices, because students tend to pile up comma-spliced clauses without stopping to use conjunctions and punctuation to make the structure of their discourses clearer to readers. But the \"rule\" against comma splices is only a baby rule, a pedagogical constraint intended to break bad habits. There is nothing in the actual syntax of English which prohibits this sort of joining: it's a perfectly \"grammatical\" practice which Real Writers are free to employ for rhythmic effect. And you don't get much Realer than William Faulkner.","output":"This is what schoolteachers call a \"comma splice\": joining two independent clauses or predicates without a conjunction and with only a comma marking their separation. Schoolteachers are usually very strict about forbidding comma splices, because students tend to pile up comma-spliced clauses without stopping to use conjunctions and punctuation to make the structure of their discourses clearer to readers. But the \"rule\" against comma splices is only a baby rule, a pedagogical constraint intended to break bad habits. There is nothing in the actual syntax of English which prohibits this sort of joining: it's a perfectly \"grammatical\" practice which Real Writers are free to employ for rhythmic effect. And you don't get much Realer than William Faulkner."}
{"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 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\nYou read an email and thought it meant B but later realizes it actually said A. In this scenario, can you say, \"I read that email\/sentence wrong\" or should I use \"wrongly\"? How would a native speaker describe this? I mistook that email?","question":"You read an email and thought it meant B but later realizes it actually said A. In this scenario, can you say, \"I read that email\/sentence wrong\" or should I use \"wrongly\"? How would a native speaker describe this? I mistook that email?","answer":"Both are acceptable. \"Wrong\" sounds more natural to me, but \"wrongly\" is the more formal. If you like you could split the difference and use \"incorrectly\". See more at Grammarist.","output":"Both are acceptable. \"Wrong\" sounds more natural to me, but \"wrongly\" is the more formal. If you like you could split the difference and use \"incorrectly\". See more at Grammarist."}
{"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":"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\nwhat is the difference between this two sentences \" would you like to be a farmer ?\" and \"Do you like to be a farmer?\" I know would is about specific time but there is no time in the sentence","question":"what is the difference between this two sentences \" would you like to be a farmer ?\" and \"Do you like to be a farmer?\" I know would is about specific time but there is no time in the sentence","answer":"\u2018Would you like to be a farmer?\u2019 asks a hypothetical question. The person being questioned is not a farmer, but the speaker wants to know if it is an occupation that appeals to the person addressed. 'Do you like to be a farmer?\u2019 is ungrammatical. In such a question what is required is not the infinitive \u2018to be\u2019, but the \u2018-ing\u2019 form: \u2018Do you like being a farmer?\u2019 In that situation, the person addressed is already a farmer, and the speaker wants to know if the occupation is to the addressee\u2019s liking.","output":"\u2018Would you like to be a farmer?\u2019 asks a hypothetical question. The person being questioned is not a farmer, but the speaker wants to know if it is an occupation that appeals to the person addressed. 'Do you like to be a farmer?\u2019 is ungrammatical. In such a question what is required is not the infinitive \u2018to be\u2019, but the \u2018-ing\u2019 form: \u2018Do you like being a farmer?\u2019 In that situation, the person addressed is already a farmer, and the speaker wants to know if the occupation is to the addressee\u2019s liking."}
{"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\nOnce, I have received feedback that using \"see you when I see you\" is not very polite. Do you have the same opinion? What other expression should I use in case I have no clue when I will see the other party?","question":"Once, I have received feedback that using \"see you when I see you\" is not very polite. Do you have the same opinion? What other expression should I use in case I have no clue when I will see the other party?","answer":"I wouldn't consider that to be impolite at all, however if you are dealing with one or more people who do think that, the phrase \"See you later,\" or \"Catch you later,\" or maybe \"I hope to see you soon\" may suffice.","output":"I wouldn't consider that to be impolite at all, however if you are dealing with one or more people who do think that, the phrase \"See you later,\" or \"Catch you later,\" or maybe \"I hope to see you soon\" may suffice."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat do words such as off, up, on used with phrasal verbs mean? What's the logic in that? Example: Take: such as bring, get Off: closed But if we use together, it mean is flying, or rise. Not need all phrasal verbs. This was enough. What is the logic in this or what is the point i don't understand? Need to memorize?","question":"What do words such as off, up, on used with phrasal verbs mean? What's the logic in that? Example: Take: such as bring, get Off: closed But if we use together, it mean is flying, or rise. Not need all phrasal verbs. This was enough. What is the logic in this or what is the point i don't understand? Need to memorize?","answer":"Many core English words words (the short ones derived from Norse or German) have multiple meanings... According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the word take has fifteen meanings as a verb, one of which is to move something or someone from one place to another Similarly, off has multiple meanings, one of which is away from So it's not unreasonable for take off to mean moving away from the ground. Note that take off does not mean \"flying, or rise\", According to the Cambridge Dctionary, it means If an aircraft, bird, or insect takes off, it leaves the ground and begins to fly So there is a little logic to phrasal verbs... but not much. Phrasal verbs are considered distinct because they have a specific meaning beyond the general meaning of their component parts. To quote the Cambridge Dictionary definition: a phrase that consists of a verb with a preposition or adverb or both, the meaning of which is different from the meaning of its separate parts So yes, you do need to memorize them as distinct items. Please refer to a good dictionary to get an accurate definition, and be aware that many phrasal verbs have multiple meanings.","output":"Many core English words words (the short ones derived from Norse or German) have multiple meanings... According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the word take has fifteen meanings as a verb, one of which is to move something or someone from one place to another Similarly, off has multiple meanings, one of which is away from So it's not unreasonable for take off to mean moving away from the ground. Note that take off does not mean \"flying, or rise\", According to the Cambridge Dctionary, it means If an aircraft, bird, or insect takes off, it leaves the ground and begins to fly So there is a little logic to phrasal verbs... but not much. Phrasal verbs are considered distinct because they have a specific meaning beyond the general meaning of their component parts. To quote the Cambridge Dictionary definition: a phrase that consists of a verb with a preposition or adverb or both, the meaning of which is different from the meaning of its separate parts So yes, you do need to memorize them as distinct items. Please refer to a good dictionary to get an accurate definition, and be aware that many phrasal verbs have multiple meanings."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"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\nAccording to dictionaries, they both mean \"to look steadily at somebody \/ something\".","question":"According to dictionaries, they both mean \"to look steadily at somebody \/ something\".","answer":"This has been asked before on ELU, where what I think is the best answer says... Stare - look for a long time with the eyes wide open, especially when surprised, frightened or thinking Gaze - look at something or someone for a long time, especially in surprise, admiration or because you are thinking about something else. I wouldn't make too much of that italicised distinction though. Note these usage figures... gazed absent-mindedly (2220 hits in Google Books) stared absent-mindedly (2480 hits) ...where I doubt it would make any real difference if every single usage were reversed. However, there's at least one context where idiomatically the two words are not at all interchangeable. That's when stare is used to mean gawp, rubberneck, goggle (stare openly in a stupid or rude manner). Suppose, for example, in the supermarket with your child, you're behind wheelchair-bound paraplegic Stephen Hawking in the checkout queue. Your child may well be fascinated, but what you say is... Don't stare! [at him] (in such contexts, no-one ever says Don't gaze!).","output":"This has been asked before on ELU, where what I think is the best answer says... Stare - look for a long time with the eyes wide open, especially when surprised, frightened or thinking Gaze - look at something or someone for a long time, especially in surprise, admiration or because you are thinking about something else. I wouldn't make too much of that italicised distinction though. Note these usage figures... gazed absent-mindedly (2220 hits in Google Books) stared absent-mindedly (2480 hits) ...where I doubt it would make any real difference if every single usage were reversed. However, there's at least one context where idiomatically the two words are not at all interchangeable. That's when stare is used to mean gawp, rubberneck, goggle (stare openly in a stupid or rude manner). Suppose, for example, in the supermarket with your child, you're behind wheelchair-bound paraplegic Stephen Hawking in the checkout queue. Your child may well be fascinated, but what you say is... Don't stare! [at him] (in such contexts, no-one ever says Don't gaze!)."}
{"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 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 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\nOne of my favorite songs on my school years was Drop Dead Legs from the album \"1984\" of Van Halen. (It was one of the first cassette I bought). My language is Spanish. I've always imagined that the song is about a woman who has fat legs, in the shape of a drop of liquid. This idea was confirmed after the TV series Drop Dead Diva, in which the protagonist is a large woman. Currently I am learning English and I noticed that the word \"drop\" refers not only to the object (tear drop, rain drop), but also a verb related to falling, release, lower (the type of moves that would make a water drop). And when I look for the translation of \"drop dead legs\" I find results that are more associated to the verb, and in Spanish are incomprehensible (ex. soltar piernas muertas). I guess then that drop dead is an idiom, but I could not find its true meaning. And what interests me most is knowing that relates to death.","question":"One of my favorite songs on my school years was Drop Dead Legs from the album \"1984\" of Van Halen. (It was one of the first cassette I bought). My language is Spanish. I've always imagined that the song is about a woman who has fat legs, in the shape of a drop of liquid. This idea was confirmed after the TV series Drop Dead Diva, in which the protagonist is a large woman. Currently I am learning English and I noticed that the word \"drop\" refers not only to the object (tear drop, rain drop), but also a verb related to falling, release, lower (the type of moves that would make a water drop). And when I look for the translation of \"drop dead legs\" I find results that are more associated to the verb, and in Spanish are incomprehensible (ex. soltar piernas muertas). I guess then that drop dead is an idiom, but I could not find its true meaning. And what interests me most is knowing that relates to death.","answer":"I've always imagined that the song is about a woman who has fat legs, in the shape of a drop of liquid... No. Compare \"Drop dead gorgeous\". The legs are shapely. So shapely, a (male) person looking at them might keel over, presumably from too rapid a heart beat, or possibly a sudden loss of blood to the brain :) See also: she's a real knockout; she's stunning. P.S. In the interest of gender equality, I should point out that there's a similar phrase which is used of men, mainly by female speakers: He's to die for. I have also heard it used of rich chocolate desserts...which brings us to He's a dish!","output":"I've always imagined that the song is about a woman who has fat legs, in the shape of a drop of liquid... No. Compare \"Drop dead gorgeous\". The legs are shapely. So shapely, a (male) person looking at them might keel over, presumably from too rapid a heart beat, or possibly a sudden loss of blood to the brain :) See also: she's a real knockout; she's stunning. P.S. In the interest of gender equality, I should point out that there's a similar phrase which is used of men, mainly by female speakers: He's to die for. I have also heard it used of rich chocolate desserts...which brings us to He's a dish!"}
{"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\nExample: The digital camcorder is not your father's 8mm movie camera. Fifty years ago, family events and vacations were recorded on narrow silent film that faded with the years and grew jerkier each time it was fed through the home projector. Today, the family video camera comes within a hairbreadth of producing movies-videos that are technically as good as you see in the theaters or on a TV set. For all the similarities between digital video and still cameras, they are, for the time being, different animals. Because the subjects in videos are constantly moving, the eye doesn't notice if the image is not as sharp as a good photo. But the two animals are evolving into a new creature-one joins the different circuitry and mechanisms needed to shoot both stills and motion. I don't know how I should understand that.","question":"Example: The digital camcorder is not your father's 8mm movie camera. Fifty years ago, family events and vacations were recorded on narrow silent film that faded with the years and grew jerkier each time it was fed through the home projector. Today, the family video camera comes within a hairbreadth of producing movies-videos that are technically as good as you see in the theaters or on a TV set. For all the similarities between digital video and still cameras, they are, for the time being, different animals. Because the subjects in videos are constantly moving, the eye doesn't notice if the image is not as sharp as a good photo. But the two animals are evolving into a new creature-one joins the different circuitry and mechanisms needed to shoot both stills and motion. I don't know how I should understand that.","answer":"The term you are looking for is within a hairbreadth of , a figurative way of saying very close. A hair is very thin, it's width is very, very narrow. So if something comes within a hairbreadth it comes very close. In this example, it is claimed that there is very little difference between the video quality achieved by home video cameras and professional cameras for cinema or TV productions.","output":"The term you are looking for is within a hairbreadth of , a figurative way of saying very close. A hair is very thin, it's width is very, very narrow. So if something comes within a hairbreadth it comes very close. In this example, it is claimed that there is very little difference between the video quality achieved by home video cameras and professional cameras for cinema or TV productions."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIf you (or other people) are searching an area for something (in my case I'm searching for a number in a wide grid), and you get the searching area smaller. What is the expression for that? I'm not sure if I'm clear enough. I googled and I got, \"closing a search\" : to stop looking \"tightening a search\" : I got nothing So what should I use? I'm going to use it like, ___ the search over a smaller area.","question":"If you (or other people) are searching an area for something (in my case I'm searching for a number in a wide grid), and you get the searching area smaller. What is the expression for that? I'm not sure if I'm clear enough. I googled and I got, \"closing a search\" : to stop looking \"tightening a search\" : I got nothing So what should I use? I'm going to use it like, ___ the search over a smaller area.","answer":"You can say you are narrowing your search. http:\/\/dictionary.reference.com\/browse\/narrow to limit or restrict (often followed by down): to narrow an area of search; to narrow down a contest to three competitors.","output":"You can say you are narrowing your search. http:\/\/dictionary.reference.com\/browse\/narrow to limit or restrict (often followed by down): to narrow an area of search; to narrow down a contest to three competitors."}
{"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\nHe will come back in two hours. vs. He will come back after two hours. What's the subtle diff?","question":"He will come back in two hours. vs. He will come back after two hours. What's the subtle diff?","answer":"He will come back in two hours This strongly implies that his return will be in two hours from now (the point in time at which this statement is made). He will come back after two hours This implies he will return two hours after some instance which has previously been discussed or indicated. For example: He will leave when he has finished fixing his bicycle. He will come back after two hours In which case, the time of his return is undefined because the time required to fix his bicycle is uncertain. Contrast this with He left as soon as he fixed his bicycle. He will come back in two hours. Doesn't matter how long ago he left; he will return two hours from now.","output":"He will come back in two hours This strongly implies that his return will be in two hours from now (the point in time at which this statement is made). He will come back after two hours This implies he will return two hours after some instance which has previously been discussed or indicated. For example: He will leave when he has finished fixing his bicycle. He will come back after two hours In which case, the time of his return is undefined because the time required to fix his bicycle is uncertain. Contrast this with He left as soon as he fixed his bicycle. He will come back in two hours. Doesn't matter how long ago he left; he will return two hours from now."}
{"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 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\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhich tense has been used in below sentences? Is it Present Perfect (Passive) Tense? If so, then why is there no agent? Below activities are not done by someone. Activities have happened in the past and have present impact. At least two hydropower stations have been flooded at the site, forcing them to shut down. The water level in my city has increased up to 10 feet, due to heavy rain. My father has been injured in a car accident. Villages around the area have been cut off from the outside world, because there is no electricity.","question":"Which tense has been used in below sentences? Is it Present Perfect (Passive) Tense? If so, then why is there no agent? Below activities are not done by someone. Activities have happened in the past and have present impact. At least two hydropower stations have been flooded at the site, forcing them to shut down. The water level in my city has increased up to 10 feet, due to heavy rain. My father has been injured in a car accident. Villages around the area have been cut off from the outside world, because there is no electricity.","answer":"These sentences are indeed cast in the present perfect passive. In a passive sentence, the Agent may be expressed with a preposition phrase headed by by, but that expression is syntactically optional: the sentence is formally complete without it. The primary function of the passive is to ignore the Agent, or to push the Agent to the margin of the utterance. There may be any number of reasons for this: the speaker may not know who the Agent is, or may not be interested in who the Agent is, or the Agent may be inferrable by hearers from the knowledge which the speaker and hearers share. For instance, your first sentence is probably embedded in a larger discourse or a world-situation in which heavy rains or some sort of outflow blockage has led to the flooding. What is of interest to the speaker of these sentences is the fact of flooding or rise in water levels or accident or power failure, not who or what caused these events.","output":"These sentences are indeed cast in the present perfect passive. In a passive sentence, the Agent may be expressed with a preposition phrase headed by by, but that expression is syntactically optional: the sentence is formally complete without it. The primary function of the passive is to ignore the Agent, or to push the Agent to the margin of the utterance. There may be any number of reasons for this: the speaker may not know who the Agent is, or may not be interested in who the Agent is, or the Agent may be inferrable by hearers from the knowledge which the speaker and hearers share. For instance, your first sentence is probably embedded in a larger discourse or a world-situation in which heavy rains or some sort of outflow blockage has led to the flooding. What is of interest to the speaker of these sentences is the fact of flooding or rise in water levels or accident or power failure, not who or what caused these events."}
{"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\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nOn the news this morning, the following was said: \"Eye-witnesses say they heard two explosions\" Somehow this seems wrong, because the witnesses did not use their eyes, but their ears. Yet the phrase \"ear-witness\" sounds wrong.","question":"On the news this morning, the following was said: \"Eye-witnesses say they heard two explosions\" Somehow this seems wrong, because the witnesses did not use their eyes, but their ears. Yet the phrase \"ear-witness\" sounds wrong.","answer":"I would say there is no equivalent since the word eyewitness (\"a person present at an event who can describe what happened\") covers the concept already. Otherwise you might also need a word for a touch witness, or a smell witness. Divorced of its literal meaning, that is. Not every gentleman is gentle, after all.","output":"I would say there is no equivalent since the word eyewitness (\"a person present at an event who can describe what happened\") covers the concept already. Otherwise you might also need a word for a touch witness, or a smell witness. Divorced of its literal meaning, that is. Not every gentleman is gentle, after all."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have asked one grammarian about this and she ended up being unsure of her answer. Question: is there a possibility that a noun clause is used in a plural manner? For instance: - Her eyes and nose are WHAT SCARE ME. - WHAT SCARE ME are her eyes and nose. Should the word \"scare\" be \"scares\" in the examples? Should \"are\" be \"is\" then?","question":"I have asked one grammarian about this and she ended up being unsure of her answer. Question: is there a possibility that a noun clause is used in a plural manner? For instance: - Her eyes and nose are WHAT SCARE ME. - WHAT SCARE ME are her eyes and nose. Should the word \"scare\" be \"scares\" in the examples? Should \"are\" be \"is\" then?","answer":"Interesting question :) I'd say this is an example of a fused relative (see e.g. CaGEL* p 1073); that is, what scares me is not a clause at all, but a noun phrase, where what is a fusion between the head function and the relativised element of a postmodifying relative clause. In this case it could be paraphrased either as that which scares me where that is the head, and which is the relativised subject of the postmodifying relative clause which scares me, or as the things which scare me, where the determiner the, the head things and the relativised subject of the postmodifying relative clause which scare me have fused. In answer to your question, then, it could be what scare me are her eyes and nose as well as what scares me is her eyes and nose.","output":"Interesting question :) I'd say this is an example of a fused relative (see e.g. CaGEL* p 1073); that is, what scares me is not a clause at all, but a noun phrase, where what is a fusion between the head function and the relativised element of a postmodifying relative clause. In this case it could be paraphrased either as that which scares me where that is the head, and which is the relativised subject of the postmodifying relative clause which scares me, or as the things which scare me, where the determiner the, the head things and the relativised subject of the postmodifying relative clause which scare me have fused. In answer to your question, then, it could be what scare me are her eyes and nose as well as what scares me is her eyes and nose."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've seen a few folks in various situations complain about the phrase \"vast majority\". The only online reference I can find for such dissent is (unfortunately?) the urban dictionary. I grant that the phrase is not particularly eloquent. But it is idiomatic and I use it myself quite frequently in technical documents to represent a figure over 90% but where I don't want to break the flow of text to present the actual value. So my question(s): Is the idiom \"vast majority\" something to avoid? Does it leave a bad impression? What are (better) alternatives?","question":"I've seen a few folks in various situations complain about the phrase \"vast majority\". The only online reference I can find for such dissent is (unfortunately?) the urban dictionary. I grant that the phrase is not particularly eloquent. But it is idiomatic and I use it myself quite frequently in technical documents to represent a figure over 90% but where I don't want to break the flow of text to present the actual value. So my question(s): Is the idiom \"vast majority\" something to avoid? Does it leave a bad impression? What are (better) alternatives?","answer":"I think \"vast majority\" is perfectly acceptable. Go for it. I suppose I am being quite idiosyncratic, but when I use an adjective in front of \"majority\", I use these rankings, especially when thinking about elections: Vast majority - means almost all or something like 90% or more, but less than unanimous. Overwhelming majority - means well beyond any hope of finding enough who are swayable to take the opposite case or something like 75% or more Large majority - means an unquestionable number such that there's no point in demanding a recount or something like 60% Small majority - means a comfortable margin, but not enough to take for granted or something like 53% Bare majority - means you just barely cracked 50.1% and if this were an election and your opponent demanded a recount, you are probably toast, or 50.1% or more","output":"I think \"vast majority\" is perfectly acceptable. Go for it. I suppose I am being quite idiosyncratic, but when I use an adjective in front of \"majority\", I use these rankings, especially when thinking about elections: Vast majority - means almost all or something like 90% or more, but less than unanimous. Overwhelming majority - means well beyond any hope of finding enough who are swayable to take the opposite case or something like 75% or more Large majority - means an unquestionable number such that there's no point in demanding a recount or something like 60% Small majority - means a comfortable margin, but not enough to take for granted or something like 53% Bare majority - means you just barely cracked 50.1% and if this were an election and your opponent demanded a recount, you are probably toast, or 50.1% or more"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the meaning, if any, of the expression \"taking gongs\"? I know what a gong is (a large Oriental cymbal). But I don't understand the expression in the context of the following article: http:\/\/www.vanguardngr.com\/2011\/09\/mad-men-modern-family-win-emmys-glory\/ LOS ANGELES (AFP) \u2013 Cult ad agency drama \u201cMad Men\u201d won the best drama Emmy for the fourth year late Sunday, while \u201cModern Family\u201d again took the comedy glory at US television\u2019s awards show. British shows also triumphed at the annual Hollywood show, the Oscars of the small screen, with Kate Winslet leading a string of Brits taking gongs, notably for \u201cDownton Abbey.\u201d \u201cMad Men,\u201d which has spawned a host of lookalike shows, fought off the strongly-tipped \u201cBoardwalk Empire\u201d to take the best drama Emmy at the climax of the show. The expression only appears in the said article: http:\/\/www.google.co.uk\/search?hl=en&q=%22taking+gongs%22&oq=%22taking+gongs%22 so I am guessing is a typo of some sort... or does it refer to another show?","question":"What is the meaning, if any, of the expression \"taking gongs\"? I know what a gong is (a large Oriental cymbal). But I don't understand the expression in the context of the following article: http:\/\/www.vanguardngr.com\/2011\/09\/mad-men-modern-family-win-emmys-glory\/ LOS ANGELES (AFP) \u2013 Cult ad agency drama \u201cMad Men\u201d won the best drama Emmy for the fourth year late Sunday, while \u201cModern Family\u201d again took the comedy glory at US television\u2019s awards show. British shows also triumphed at the annual Hollywood show, the Oscars of the small screen, with Kate Winslet leading a string of Brits taking gongs, notably for \u201cDownton Abbey.\u201d \u201cMad Men,\u201d which has spawned a host of lookalike shows, fought off the strongly-tipped \u201cBoardwalk Empire\u201d to take the best drama Emmy at the climax of the show. The expression only appears in the said article: http:\/\/www.google.co.uk\/search?hl=en&q=%22taking+gongs%22&oq=%22taking+gongs%22 so I am guessing is a typo of some sort... or does it refer to another show?","answer":"Gongs is a slang term for military medals, dating from the 1940s if not earlier; both are suspended discs of metal. And it's not far from that to 'prizes in general'.","output":"Gongs is a slang term for military medals, dating from the 1940s if not earlier; both are suspended discs of metal. And it's not far from that to 'prizes in general'."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI usually put a space before and after a slash, when indicating alternatives. We review a module \/ theme per user. Is it correct, or should I rewrite the sentence to remove those spaces? We review a module\/theme per user.","question":"I usually put a space before and after a slash, when indicating alternatives. We review a module \/ theme per user. Is it correct, or should I rewrite the sentence to remove those spaces? We review a module\/theme per user.","answer":"You should remove the spaces. Unless, of course, you are quoting a poem, in which case the slash indicates a line break: We review a module theme per user. Wikipedia has more info: There are usually no spaces either before or after a slash. Exceptions are in representing the start of a new line when quoting verse, or a new paragraph when quoting prose. The Chicago Manual of Style (at 6.112) also allows spaces when either of the separated items is a compound that itself includes a space: Our New Zealand \/ Western Australia trip. (Compare use of an en dash used to separate such compounds.) The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing prescribes \"No space before or after an oblique when used between individual words, letters or symbols; one space before and after the oblique when used between longer groups which contain internal spacing\", giving the examples \"n\/a\" and \"Language and Society \/ Langue et soci\u00e9t\u00e9\".","output":"You should remove the spaces. Unless, of course, you are quoting a poem, in which case the slash indicates a line break: We review a module theme per user. Wikipedia has more info: There are usually no spaces either before or after a slash. Exceptions are in representing the start of a new line when quoting verse, or a new paragraph when quoting prose. The Chicago Manual of Style (at 6.112) also allows spaces when either of the separated items is a compound that itself includes a space: Our New Zealand \/ Western Australia trip. (Compare use of an en dash used to separate such compounds.) The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing prescribes \"No space before or after an oblique when used between individual words, letters or symbols; one space before and after the oblique when used between longer groups which contain internal spacing\", giving the examples \"n\/a\" and \"Language and Society \/ Langue et soci\u00e9t\u00e9\"."}
{"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\nWhat are the differences between work and working when used as nouns? For example: Advocates claim that work\/working brings a lot of benefits for young people. Which one is correct? I have searched in a dictionary but they are defined with nearly the same meaning.","question":"What are the differences between work and working when used as nouns? For example: Advocates claim that work\/working brings a lot of benefits for young people. Which one is correct? I have searched in a dictionary but they are defined with nearly the same meaning.","answer":"It's the difference between saying: Having something to do has a lot of benefits for young people. and The act of doing something has a lot of benefits for young people. The first corresponds to work, the second to working.","output":"It's the difference between saying: Having something to do has a lot of benefits for young people. and The act of doing something has a lot of benefits for young people. The first corresponds to work, the second to working."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn Finnish we say r\u00e4metty\u00e4, where r\u00e4me is a kind of swamp or marsh, so it literally means become a swamp. I guess that is understandable English, but it sounds quite informal. Especially, I am looking for a term for technical system.","question":"In Finnish we say r\u00e4metty\u00e4, where r\u00e4me is a kind of swamp or marsh, so it literally means become a swamp. I guess that is understandable English, but it sounds quite informal. Especially, I am looking for a term for technical system.","answer":"There are many adjectives which mean \"deteriorated due to disuse\". Probably the closest English equivalent to your \"swamp\" is gone to seed\u00b9, but as you say that's not very formal. More formal, or high-register, words include: derelict dilapidated ramshackle neglected However, these are generic descriptors and not specific to any technical field (excepting derelict, which has a specific technical meaning in nautical jargon). \u00b9 A more colorful idiom is gone to rack and ruin.","output":"There are many adjectives which mean \"deteriorated due to disuse\". Probably the closest English equivalent to your \"swamp\" is gone to seed\u00b9, but as you say that's not very formal. More formal, or high-register, words include: derelict dilapidated ramshackle neglected However, these are generic descriptors and not specific to any technical field (excepting derelict, which has a specific technical meaning in nautical jargon). \u00b9 A more colorful idiom is gone to rack and ruin."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn nautical (and aeronautical) contexts, a vessel may declare a number of \"souls onboard\". I've googled around for origin of that phrase, but haven't found a definitive explanation. Most discussions of the phrase I've seen on aeronautical forums and obviously concern the usage in aviation, with the discussion often revolving around on rescuers tallying the dead after an accident. But the phrase is obviously older than that and used in situations besides emergencies. Of the explanations I've read, many claim that \"souls\" is used as it includes passengers and crew, whereas a number on a passenger manifest would only include the former. But even so \"people\", \"humans\", or simply \"there are 150 onboard\" would seem as effective. While the inclusion of passengers and crew makes sense, I can't help but wonder what the requirements are for being counted as a \"soul\" and whether they've changed. Whether it's always meant \"living human being\" or if it was used to expressly exclude certain individuals rather than include them. For instance, would it include the (presumably non-babtized) \"cargo\" in the days of slave trade? A morbid thought, I admit. It may just be tradition based in \"souls\" sounding more dignified than \"humans\", and the religion-laden language of its day. Yet I can't help but wonder. Clarification: The answers here so far concern aviation usage, yet I simply mentioned aviation because that's the context in which I've seen the phrase discussed. But my question is about its original etymology; not its current usage. The phrase comes from a nautical context, but why did sailors use the word \"souls\"? I understand the meaning of the phrase, and I understand that it makes sense as an inclusive term to mean \"everyone onboard\". I also understand that by now it's become traditional. But again the question is about its origin. Since a word like \"persons\" would be equally unambiguous (and as David Schwartz points out below, \"persons\" is indeed a valid alternative in modern aviation), why use \"souls\" instead? Was it for instance originally meant as an exclusive term? Some of the explanations I've seen elsewhere: \"Souls\" excludes human remains being transported (in an aviation context this would help crash responders sort out crash victims from those already dead, but again the phrase predates aircraft and aircraft crashes) It refers back to \"S.O.S\" for \"save our souls\" (which must be wrong since that's not what S.O.S means. The code was chosen for its morse pattern and not as an acronym, and anyway the phrase is older than morse code too) \"Souls\" excludes lawyers and managers\u2026 (no comment) By the way, in aviation it seems the phrase is sometimes abbreviated as \"S.O.B\", much to the delight of some pilots, especially when pluralized: \"We've got 40 SOBs here. And two pilots.\"","question":"In nautical (and aeronautical) contexts, a vessel may declare a number of \"souls onboard\". I've googled around for origin of that phrase, but haven't found a definitive explanation. Most discussions of the phrase I've seen on aeronautical forums and obviously concern the usage in aviation, with the discussion often revolving around on rescuers tallying the dead after an accident. But the phrase is obviously older than that and used in situations besides emergencies. Of the explanations I've read, many claim that \"souls\" is used as it includes passengers and crew, whereas a number on a passenger manifest would only include the former. But even so \"people\", \"humans\", or simply \"there are 150 onboard\" would seem as effective. While the inclusion of passengers and crew makes sense, I can't help but wonder what the requirements are for being counted as a \"soul\" and whether they've changed. Whether it's always meant \"living human being\" or if it was used to expressly exclude certain individuals rather than include them. For instance, would it include the (presumably non-babtized) \"cargo\" in the days of slave trade? A morbid thought, I admit. It may just be tradition based in \"souls\" sounding more dignified than \"humans\", and the religion-laden language of its day. Yet I can't help but wonder. Clarification: The answers here so far concern aviation usage, yet I simply mentioned aviation because that's the context in which I've seen the phrase discussed. But my question is about its original etymology; not its current usage. The phrase comes from a nautical context, but why did sailors use the word \"souls\"? I understand the meaning of the phrase, and I understand that it makes sense as an inclusive term to mean \"everyone onboard\". I also understand that by now it's become traditional. But again the question is about its origin. Since a word like \"persons\" would be equally unambiguous (and as David Schwartz points out below, \"persons\" is indeed a valid alternative in modern aviation), why use \"souls\" instead? Was it for instance originally meant as an exclusive term? Some of the explanations I've seen elsewhere: \"Souls\" excludes human remains being transported (in an aviation context this would help crash responders sort out crash victims from those already dead, but again the phrase predates aircraft and aircraft crashes) It refers back to \"S.O.S\" for \"save our souls\" (which must be wrong since that's not what S.O.S means. The code was chosen for its morse pattern and not as an acronym, and anyway the phrase is older than morse code too) \"Souls\" excludes lawyers and managers\u2026 (no comment) By the way, in aviation it seems the phrase is sometimes abbreviated as \"S.O.B\", much to the delight of some pilots, especially when pluralized: \"We've got 40 SOBs here. And two pilots.\"","answer":"Strictly speaking \"souls on board\" has a different meaning from all of your other constructions. \"There are 150 on board\" can't be turned into a question. The official phraseology is \"say souls on board [and fuel remaining]\" -- there are no questions in ATC official phraseology. \"Say number onboard\" really is ambiguous and could be understood to mean only passengers. Strictly speaking, \"people\" or \"humans\" is ambiguous too. For example is a dead person still a person? This is a rational concern with \"say passengers onboard\" (which might not include crew) and \"say number onboard\" (which is ambiguous). But nobody with any functioning brain cells could possibly misunderstand \"say persons onboard\". This is an officially-acceptable civil aviation alternative to \"souls onboard\", as are the written abbreviations SOB and POB. There is actually a dispute over whether \"souls on board\" should count entire human remains. The civil aviation standard is that a dead body is cargo and not counted. The RAF standard, and that of many other military organizations, is that dead bodies are \"souls\" being returned and they count them. Whether that makes sense depends on exactly what the figure is for. Is it to know how many bodies to look for? Is it to know how many people perished? (Perhaps it does not matter so long as both sides know what they're doing, and they make this a point of respect.) In any event, no more detailed origin is known, as far as I've been able to tell. There's just lots of speculation. It was definitely originally a nautical term.","output":"Strictly speaking \"souls on board\" has a different meaning from all of your other constructions. \"There are 150 on board\" can't be turned into a question. The official phraseology is \"say souls on board [and fuel remaining]\" -- there are no questions in ATC official phraseology. \"Say number onboard\" really is ambiguous and could be understood to mean only passengers. Strictly speaking, \"people\" or \"humans\" is ambiguous too. For example is a dead person still a person? This is a rational concern with \"say passengers onboard\" (which might not include crew) and \"say number onboard\" (which is ambiguous). But nobody with any functioning brain cells could possibly misunderstand \"say persons onboard\". This is an officially-acceptable civil aviation alternative to \"souls onboard\", as are the written abbreviations SOB and POB. There is actually a dispute over whether \"souls on board\" should count entire human remains. The civil aviation standard is that a dead body is cargo and not counted. The RAF standard, and that of many other military organizations, is that dead bodies are \"souls\" being returned and they count them. Whether that makes sense depends on exactly what the figure is for. Is it to know how many bodies to look for? Is it to know how many people perished? (Perhaps it does not matter so long as both sides know what they're doing, and they make this a point of respect.) In any event, no more detailed origin is known, as far as I've been able to tell. There's just lots of speculation. It was definitely originally a nautical term."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nTwo lines from Byron's Don Juan: 'T is said that Donna Julia's grandmamma Produced her Don more heirs at love than law. This is the coda to an octave, the finalizing couplet, and it's supposed to rhyme. All of Byron's \"Don Juan\" is supposed to rhyme. So let's agree on one thing: this is a rhyme, or was in Byron's time, anyway. It's definitely not a \"sight rhyme\" (obviously). ust a rhyme. Probably a perfect rhyme, too (back in Byron's day poets strove to find perfect rhymes and mocked those who failed in that noble quest). The question is: how did Byron pronounce them? Was it grandmamaw-law, or grandmamuh-luh, or grandmaMAR-LAR? Or what?","question":"Two lines from Byron's Don Juan: 'T is said that Donna Julia's grandmamma Produced her Don more heirs at love than law. This is the coda to an octave, the finalizing couplet, and it's supposed to rhyme. All of Byron's \"Don Juan\" is supposed to rhyme. So let's agree on one thing: this is a rhyme, or was in Byron's time, anyway. It's definitely not a \"sight rhyme\" (obviously). ust a rhyme. Probably a perfect rhyme, too (back in Byron's day poets strove to find perfect rhymes and mocked those who failed in that noble quest). The question is: how did Byron pronounce them? Was it grandmamaw-law, or grandmamuh-luh, or grandmaMAR-LAR? Or what?","answer":"I'm puzzled at your assumption that Byron would have considered imperfect rhymes in some way beneath him\u2014from what I can see, they're ubiquitous in this poem. Other apparent imperfect rhymes in just the first canto I'll transcribe things according to modern standard British pronunciation. I don't know this was how Byron pronounced things; this is just to give a point of reference. I actually tried to look up info about Byron's pronunciation, but I didn't manage to find any previous description of it. First canto: He starts out right away rhyming \"want\" \/w\u0252nt\/ with \"cant\" \/k\u00e6nt\/. Either this is not a perfect rhyme, or his low vowels were distributed differently from modern speakers. Stanza I.V.: he rhymes \"War\" \/w\u0254\u02d0(r)\/ with \"Trafalgar\" (\/tr\u0259\u02c8f\u00e6l.\u0261\u0259(r)\/ in common speech, but apparently it has been \/tr\u00e6f\u0259l\u02c8\u0261\u0251\u02d0(r)\/ or something similar in other poets' work). The options I see here: this is an imperfect rhyme, or the rounding of \"a\" to \/\u0254\u02d0\/ after \/w\/ was not present in Byron's speech (for this word). He does rhyme \"waters\" with \"daughters\" in another poem, though (\"There Be None of Beauty\u2019s Daughters\") so the second option seems somewhat unlikely to me. Furthermore, these two words seems to form a rhyming triple with \"popular,\" which I quite doubt had the primary stress on the last syllable even at this time in normal speech. So there's some evidence that Byron took some liberties with the pronunciation of words to make his rhymes. Stanza V: rhyming triplet \"Agamemnon,\" \"same none,\" \"condemn none.\" It's doubtful that he normally pronounced \"same\" as \/s\u025bm\/. Seems like another imperfect rhyme. Stanza XIV: rhyming triplet \"tongue,\" \"song,\" \"wrong.\" Stanza XXV: rhyming triplet \"good-for-nothing,\" \"doting,\" \"both in.\" Stanza XXX: rhyming triplet \"damning us,\" \"magnanimous,\" \"malus animus.\" It seems quite unlikely for me that these constituted a perfect rhyme in his speech; the transposition of the \"m\" and \"n\" in any of these three words (without being marked in the spelling!) is not a likely development, or an attested one as far as I know (outside of one-off slips of the tongue). It's probably a near rhyme of \/gr\u00e6ndm\u0251\u02d0m\u0251\u02d0\/ and \/l\u0254\u02d0\/ Like Peter Shor says (and as we verified above), it wouldn't be the only near rhyme in the poem. The spelling suggests that the vowels are different; the current pronunciation suggests that the vowels are different. This is where the evidence points overall. But if it is a perfect rhyme, it might be \"grandmammaw\" But, let's assume it was a perfect rhyme for Byron for the sake of argument. I'm almost certain that Byron did not pronounce \"law\" with the \/\u0251\u02d0\/ sound found in words like star. By the process of elimination, I would conclude that grandmamma was meant to be pronounced with a stressed final syllable with the vowel quality \/\u0254\u02d0\/. The spelling doesn't suggest that, but there are recorded cases of \"maw\" \/m\u0254\u02d0\/ being used as a term for mothers. The OED's online edition has the following to say about \"maw\": Chiefly U.S. regional (see discussion s.v. ma n.3), also Canadian, and 20th-cent. Scottish. According to Wikipedia, Byron wrote the poem around 1820. So this is a bit of a long shot, actually.","output":"I'm puzzled at your assumption that Byron would have considered imperfect rhymes in some way beneath him\u2014from what I can see, they're ubiquitous in this poem. Other apparent imperfect rhymes in just the first canto I'll transcribe things according to modern standard British pronunciation. I don't know this was how Byron pronounced things; this is just to give a point of reference. I actually tried to look up info about Byron's pronunciation, but I didn't manage to find any previous description of it. First canto: He starts out right away rhyming \"want\" \/w\u0252nt\/ with \"cant\" \/k\u00e6nt\/. Either this is not a perfect rhyme, or his low vowels were distributed differently from modern speakers. Stanza I.V.: he rhymes \"War\" \/w\u0254\u02d0(r)\/ with \"Trafalgar\" (\/tr\u0259\u02c8f\u00e6l.\u0261\u0259(r)\/ in common speech, but apparently it has been \/tr\u00e6f\u0259l\u02c8\u0261\u0251\u02d0(r)\/ or something similar in other poets' work). The options I see here: this is an imperfect rhyme, or the rounding of \"a\" to \/\u0254\u02d0\/ after \/w\/ was not present in Byron's speech (for this word). He does rhyme \"waters\" with \"daughters\" in another poem, though (\"There Be None of Beauty\u2019s Daughters\") so the second option seems somewhat unlikely to me. Furthermore, these two words seems to form a rhyming triple with \"popular,\" which I quite doubt had the primary stress on the last syllable even at this time in normal speech. So there's some evidence that Byron took some liberties with the pronunciation of words to make his rhymes. Stanza V: rhyming triplet \"Agamemnon,\" \"same none,\" \"condemn none.\" It's doubtful that he normally pronounced \"same\" as \/s\u025bm\/. Seems like another imperfect rhyme. Stanza XIV: rhyming triplet \"tongue,\" \"song,\" \"wrong.\" Stanza XXV: rhyming triplet \"good-for-nothing,\" \"doting,\" \"both in.\" Stanza XXX: rhyming triplet \"damning us,\" \"magnanimous,\" \"malus animus.\" It seems quite unlikely for me that these constituted a perfect rhyme in his speech; the transposition of the \"m\" and \"n\" in any of these three words (without being marked in the spelling!) is not a likely development, or an attested one as far as I know (outside of one-off slips of the tongue). It's probably a near rhyme of \/gr\u00e6ndm\u0251\u02d0m\u0251\u02d0\/ and \/l\u0254\u02d0\/ Like Peter Shor says (and as we verified above), it wouldn't be the only near rhyme in the poem. The spelling suggests that the vowels are different; the current pronunciation suggests that the vowels are different. This is where the evidence points overall. But if it is a perfect rhyme, it might be \"grandmammaw\" But, let's assume it was a perfect rhyme for Byron for the sake of argument. I'm almost certain that Byron did not pronounce \"law\" with the \/\u0251\u02d0\/ sound found in words like star. By the process of elimination, I would conclude that grandmamma was meant to be pronounced with a stressed final syllable with the vowel quality \/\u0254\u02d0\/. The spelling doesn't suggest that, but there are recorded cases of \"maw\" \/m\u0254\u02d0\/ being used as a term for mothers. The OED's online edition has the following to say about \"maw\": Chiefly U.S. regional (see discussion s.v. ma n.3), also Canadian, and 20th-cent. Scottish. According to Wikipedia, Byron wrote the poem around 1820. So this is a bit of a long shot, actually."}
{"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\nWhat is the appropriate term to describe the 6-month period between equinoxes, when the Earth's northern axis is tilted towards the sun? Most dictionaries define summer as only the warmest months, June to August (in the Northern hemisphere).","question":"What is the appropriate term to describe the 6-month period between equinoxes, when the Earth's northern axis is tilted towards the sun? Most dictionaries define summer as only the warmest months, June to August (in the Northern hemisphere).","answer":"Not that I am whole-heartedly suggesting this as a viable modern sense, but during elder days in the Northwest of our world, the word for the period extending from the vernal equinox to the autumnal one was quite simply Summer \u2014 nothing more, and nothing else. There were only two seasons not four in this system, and we preserve this even today in our own Midsummer and Midwinter. That is why its midpoint at the solstice is called Midsummer\u2019s Day. That is also why the midpoint of Winter is on Midwinter\u2019s Day, which is the opposite solstice. Alfta Lothurrsdottir discusses this in her Religious Practices of the Pre-Christian & Viking Age North under time-keeping: The Two Great Seasons The major unit of time keeping for Heathens was the two great seasons. Unlike our four seasons, they had two which consisted of Winter and Summer. Sometimes they were called Spring and Autumn but it was still only two seasons that were meant. Each one was 26 weeks long. This practice turned into four seasons the farther South one went but for the most part, the Northern Europeans seemed to have kept a two season calendar. [...] Both the Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse have terms that support this two-fold division of the year. Iceland, Greenland, and indeed also England reckoned the year into having two seasonal halves. That means that old records that measured things in seasons were actually twice as long than many casual readers would reckon things: eight seasons ago is four years, not two. It is not hard to see why they did this. In Reykjav\u00edk during midsummer, the sun never completely deserts them, and during midwinter, it is hardly to be seen. We can see this in our earliest records of the words in English, where winter and summer \u2014 or equally, summer and winter \u2014 was how one specified a full year. Citations from the OED: A. 1000 Ph\u0153nix 37 (Gr.) \u2015 Wintres & sumeres wudu bi\u00f0 \u0292elice bledum \u0292ehongen. C. 1205 Lay. 2861 \u2015 Enne blase of fure, \u00fee neuer ne a\u00feeostrede wintres ne sumeres. Time was reckoned differently then. They would often count years by counting winters, and so a man of twenty winters was a twenty-year-old, just as a two- or three-year-old was a twinter and a thrinter respectively. However, even their ideas of summer and winter were not quite ours. For them, the summery half the year began during mid-to-late April, and the wintry half during mid-to-late October. Samhain marked the end of the harvest and the beginning of winter, and Beltain, close to our own May Day, the beginning of summer. The cross-quarter days were useful in the common mindset, because of the thermal inertia that causes the apparent season to lag behind the actual solstices and equinoxes. It wasn\u2019t too long after the invasion of the southern occupiers from Normandy that the sense of a four-season year began to evolve: C. 1200 Ormin 11254 \u2015 O sumerr, & onn herrfessttid, O winnterr, & o lenntenn. That is, not just summer and winter, but also a lenten season and a harvesttide.","output":"Not that I am whole-heartedly suggesting this as a viable modern sense, but during elder days in the Northwest of our world, the word for the period extending from the vernal equinox to the autumnal one was quite simply Summer \u2014 nothing more, and nothing else. There were only two seasons not four in this system, and we preserve this even today in our own Midsummer and Midwinter. That is why its midpoint at the solstice is called Midsummer\u2019s Day. That is also why the midpoint of Winter is on Midwinter\u2019s Day, which is the opposite solstice. Alfta Lothurrsdottir discusses this in her Religious Practices of the Pre-Christian & Viking Age North under time-keeping: The Two Great Seasons The major unit of time keeping for Heathens was the two great seasons. Unlike our four seasons, they had two which consisted of Winter and Summer. Sometimes they were called Spring and Autumn but it was still only two seasons that were meant. Each one was 26 weeks long. This practice turned into four seasons the farther South one went but for the most part, the Northern Europeans seemed to have kept a two season calendar. [...] Both the Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse have terms that support this two-fold division of the year. Iceland, Greenland, and indeed also England reckoned the year into having two seasonal halves. That means that old records that measured things in seasons were actually twice as long than many casual readers would reckon things: eight seasons ago is four years, not two. It is not hard to see why they did this. In Reykjav\u00edk during midsummer, the sun never completely deserts them, and during midwinter, it is hardly to be seen. We can see this in our earliest records of the words in English, where winter and summer \u2014 or equally, summer and winter \u2014 was how one specified a full year. Citations from the OED: A. 1000 Ph\u0153nix 37 (Gr.) \u2015 Wintres & sumeres wudu bi\u00f0 \u0292elice bledum \u0292ehongen. C. 1205 Lay. 2861 \u2015 Enne blase of fure, \u00fee neuer ne a\u00feeostrede wintres ne sumeres. Time was reckoned differently then. They would often count years by counting winters, and so a man of twenty winters was a twenty-year-old, just as a two- or three-year-old was a twinter and a thrinter respectively. However, even their ideas of summer and winter were not quite ours. For them, the summery half the year began during mid-to-late April, and the wintry half during mid-to-late October. Samhain marked the end of the harvest and the beginning of winter, and Beltain, close to our own May Day, the beginning of summer. The cross-quarter days were useful in the common mindset, because of the thermal inertia that causes the apparent season to lag behind the actual solstices and equinoxes. It wasn\u2019t too long after the invasion of the southern occupiers from Normandy that the sense of a four-season year began to evolve: C. 1200 Ormin 11254 \u2015 O sumerr, & onn herrfessttid, O winnterr, & o lenntenn. That is, not just summer and winter, but also a lenten season and a harvesttide."}
{"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\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI\u2019m currently writing my first English scientific paper and am repeatedly using as depicted in when referring to a figure or table in the text. Can you tell me some alternatives to that phrase?","question":"I\u2019m currently writing my first English scientific paper and am repeatedly using as depicted in when referring to a figure or table in the text. Can you tell me some alternatives to that phrase?","answer":"Some examples: ...as shown in Fig. X ...as seen in Fig. X (or ...as can be seen in Fig. X) ...which is evident in Fig. X Fig. X shows... The data in Table X indicates that ... If you have some certainty where the figure or table will be relative to the text, you can use phrases such as: ...as seen in the figure to the left... (to the right, on the previous page, etc.) The next table shows blah blah ... Hope that helps.","output":"Some examples: ...as shown in Fig. X ...as seen in Fig. X (or ...as can be seen in Fig. X) ...which is evident in Fig. X Fig. X shows... The data in Table X indicates that ... If you have some certainty where the figure or table will be relative to the text, you can use phrases such as: ...as seen in the figure to the left... (to the right, on the previous page, etc.) The next table shows blah blah ... Hope that helps."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAt first sight I would say it is a metaphor, but after some thought I'm not sure anymore. The parallel is not so exact between the two objects, since the speed of a computer usually refers to the response speed(or more technically, measured in terms of frequency), while the speed of a rocket usually refers to the traveling speed. A more conventional metaphor is like \"The boy runs as fast as a rocket.\", so what is \"The computer runs as fast as a rocket.\"?","question":"At first sight I would say it is a metaphor, but after some thought I'm not sure anymore. The parallel is not so exact between the two objects, since the speed of a computer usually refers to the response speed(or more technically, measured in terms of frequency), while the speed of a rocket usually refers to the traveling speed. A more conventional metaphor is like \"The boy runs as fast as a rocket.\", so what is \"The computer runs as fast as a rocket.\"?","answer":"I don't think the fact that you're not talking about literal speed matters. In fact, you could say that the use of the term speed in the context of computers is a metaphor itself - but this dooes not affect the comparison with the rocket. Regarding the comparison with the rocket: both your examples - the computer runs as fast as a rocket and the boy runs as fast as a rocket are the same, but they are not metaphors. They are in fact similes, due to the use of the comparative phrase as fast as. Had you said the computer is a rocket, that would have been a metaphor, though arguably not a very good one!","output":"I don't think the fact that you're not talking about literal speed matters. In fact, you could say that the use of the term speed in the context of computers is a metaphor itself - but this dooes not affect the comparison with the rocket. Regarding the comparison with the rocket: both your examples - the computer runs as fast as a rocket and the boy runs as fast as a rocket are the same, but they are not metaphors. They are in fact similes, due to the use of the comparative phrase as fast as. Had you said the computer is a rocket, that would have been a metaphor, though arguably not a very good one!"}
{"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":"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\nThere are two sentences below I have played soccer for a long time. I have played soccer in a long time. What is the difference between the two sentences above in meaning? Please, tell me.","question":"There are two sentences below I have played soccer for a long time. I have played soccer in a long time. What is the difference between the two sentences above in meaning? Please, tell me.","answer":"I was about to upvote Tromano's answer when I noticed that the OP's examples are both in the positive form. If they had been in the negative: I haven't played soccer for a long time. I haven't played soccer in a long time. There would be no difference in meaning. If both sentences had been in the Past Simple, there would be no difference in meaning That was the best restaurant I've been to for\/in a long time (= a long period has gone past since I went to such a good restaurant). But the OP's sentences are in the Present Perfect tense, and only the first one is idiomatic. The second is not. I have played soccer for a long time. (RIGHT) I have played soccer in a long time. (WRONG) The Present Perfect is often used to express a duration of time, an action that began in the past and continues to the present time. To say how long something has continued we use for, to say when the action began we use since. I have played soccer for twenty years (=I have played this sport for a total of 20 years) I have played soccer since 1998 (=I started playing the sport in 1998 and I have not stopped playing) Cambridge dictionaries defines this meaning of time as time noun (PERIOD) a particular period of time for which something has been happening, or that is needed for something After a time, it became clear that nobody was interested in coming to the meetings. They stayed with us for a short time. That was the best restaurant I've been to for\/in a long time (= a long period has gone past since I went to such a good restaurant). It was some time ago that I last heard from her. We're going on holiday in two weeks' time","output":"I was about to upvote Tromano's answer when I noticed that the OP's examples are both in the positive form. If they had been in the negative: I haven't played soccer for a long time. I haven't played soccer in a long time. There would be no difference in meaning. If both sentences had been in the Past Simple, there would be no difference in meaning That was the best restaurant I've been to for\/in a long time (= a long period has gone past since I went to such a good restaurant). But the OP's sentences are in the Present Perfect tense, and only the first one is idiomatic. The second is not. I have played soccer for a long time. (RIGHT) I have played soccer in a long time. (WRONG) The Present Perfect is often used to express a duration of time, an action that began in the past and continues to the present time. To say how long something has continued we use for, to say when the action began we use since. I have played soccer for twenty years (=I have played this sport for a total of 20 years) I have played soccer since 1998 (=I started playing the sport in 1998 and I have not stopped playing) Cambridge dictionaries defines this meaning of time as time noun (PERIOD) a particular period of time for which something has been happening, or that is needed for something After a time, it became clear that nobody was interested in coming to the meetings. They stayed with us for a short time. That was the best restaurant I've been to for\/in a long time (= a long period has gone past since I went to such a good restaurant). It was some time ago that I last heard from her. We're going on holiday in two weeks' time"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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 lampau:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"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\nWhat is the meaning of ' games' in this sentence? \"There are shelves at the top of my closet. I keep games up there\". The topic of the conversation is a description of somebody's bedroom and I struggle to explain what \"games\" is present for.","question":"What is the meaning of ' games' in this sentence? \"There are shelves at the top of my closet. I keep games up there\". The topic of the conversation is a description of somebody's bedroom and I struggle to explain what \"games\" is present for.","answer":"Most likely board games, Risk, Monopoly, Catan.","output":"Most likely board games, Risk, Monopoly, Catan."}
{"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\u2019s email dating 101: there\u2019s nothing worse than waking up, checking your email, and find that annoying email from last night \u2013 trying to get back into your inbox for a second round.","question":"It\u2019s email dating 101: there\u2019s nothing worse than waking up, checking your email, and find that annoying email from last night \u2013 trying to get back into your inbox for a second round.","answer":"In universities, courses in a subject are generally labeled with numerical codes to quickly distinguish between them without needing to use the full course name and to indicate the order in which courses should be taken. In American universities (maybe elsewhere too, I can only speak for America), the first course you take in a subject will often be given the code 101 (for example, English 101, Literature 101, Mathematics 101). This has developed into an idiom, \"{topic} 101\", that simply means \"the basics of {topic}\". So in your example, \"It's email dating 101\" roughly translates to \"It's the basics of email dating\". Put another way, you might translate it as \"This is one of the first things you need to learn about email dating\".","output":"In universities, courses in a subject are generally labeled with numerical codes to quickly distinguish between them without needing to use the full course name and to indicate the order in which courses should be taken. In American universities (maybe elsewhere too, I can only speak for America), the first course you take in a subject will often be given the code 101 (for example, English 101, Literature 101, Mathematics 101). This has developed into an idiom, \"{topic} 101\", that simply means \"the basics of {topic}\". So in your example, \"It's email dating 101\" roughly translates to \"It's the basics of email dating\". Put another way, you might translate it as \"This is one of the first things you need to learn about email dating\"."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it more natural to speak in simple past or past perfect when explaining past events to a friend? It seems like Americans use more simple past in everyday life than past perfect. I found this example online: I had almost completed my essay when my computer suddenly crashed and I noticed that I had forgotten to save the document. Is it wrong to say the following instead? I was almost done with my essay when my computer suddenly crashed and I noticed that I forgot to save the document. Maybe it's just my friends, but I rarely hear them speak in past perfect, so I'm really torn about using past perfect when it isn't necessary.","question":"Is it more natural to speak in simple past or past perfect when explaining past events to a friend? It seems like Americans use more simple past in everyday life than past perfect. I found this example online: I had almost completed my essay when my computer suddenly crashed and I noticed that I had forgotten to save the document. Is it wrong to say the following instead? I was almost done with my essay when my computer suddenly crashed and I noticed that I forgot to save the document. Maybe it's just my friends, but I rarely hear them speak in past perfect, so I'm really torn about using past perfect when it isn't necessary.","answer":"In an answer to a related question, I said The guiding principle should be don't use Past Perfect unless you really have to. But OP's example here is one of those cases where you should use it. NGrams charting Past Perfect had forgotten against Simple Past forgot tell us nothing except that the latter is more common overall, which is no more relevant than noting that Simple Present forget is more common than Simple Past forgot. Unsurprisingly, since most of us live in the present, not the past. But note these counts from Google Books for something a bit closer to OP's specific case... realised I had forgotten (2640) realised I forgot (184) (figures for noticed are similarly skewed, but with lower values) This overwhelming preference is because realised implies an action\/mental state that occurred at some specific point in time [in the past]. And since \"the thing realised\" was an act of forgetting, clearly that must refer to an even earlier time (as soon as you realise it, you're no longer forgetting it). Consider these two constructions... 1: When they told him he had incurable cancer, John realised he had smoked too many cigarettes. 2: When they told him he had incurable cancer, John realised he smoked too many cigarettes. ...where Past Perfect #1 places the excessive smoking before the realisation. Perhaps John gave up some time before the fateful diagnosis, or perhaps he still smokes and will continue to do so for the limited time he now has left. The choice of tense doesn't really imply anything about that. But with Simple Past #2, the excessive smoking was still going on when he realised this. Grammatically, there's a strong implication that he will quit the habit, even though semantically we might think that's a bit pointless since it won't cure his cancer. As pointed out, in OP's exact construction, it's logically impossible for the \"forgetting\" to continue into the time-frame governed by the \"noticing\". But as my second pair of examples show, grammatically, that's the implication of using Simple Past. To avoid this \"temporal disjunction\", OP needs to use Past Perfect here.","output":"In an answer to a related question, I said The guiding principle should be don't use Past Perfect unless you really have to. But OP's example here is one of those cases where you should use it. NGrams charting Past Perfect had forgotten against Simple Past forgot tell us nothing except that the latter is more common overall, which is no more relevant than noting that Simple Present forget is more common than Simple Past forgot. Unsurprisingly, since most of us live in the present, not the past. But note these counts from Google Books for something a bit closer to OP's specific case... realised I had forgotten (2640) realised I forgot (184) (figures for noticed are similarly skewed, but with lower values) This overwhelming preference is because realised implies an action\/mental state that occurred at some specific point in time [in the past]. And since \"the thing realised\" was an act of forgetting, clearly that must refer to an even earlier time (as soon as you realise it, you're no longer forgetting it). Consider these two constructions... 1: When they told him he had incurable cancer, John realised he had smoked too many cigarettes. 2: When they told him he had incurable cancer, John realised he smoked too many cigarettes. ...where Past Perfect #1 places the excessive smoking before the realisation. Perhaps John gave up some time before the fateful diagnosis, or perhaps he still smokes and will continue to do so for the limited time he now has left. The choice of tense doesn't really imply anything about that. But with Simple Past #2, the excessive smoking was still going on when he realised this. Grammatically, there's a strong implication that he will quit the habit, even though semantically we might think that's a bit pointless since it won't cure his cancer. As pointed out, in OP's exact construction, it's logically impossible for the \"forgetting\" to continue into the time-frame governed by the \"noticing\". But as my second pair of examples show, grammatically, that's the implication of using Simple Past. To avoid this \"temporal disjunction\", OP needs to use Past Perfect here."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nOn his way home, he found in front of him a big pile of hay. In this sentence , On his way home = adjectival phrase modifying the whole sentence he = complete subject found = the verb a big pile of hay = noun phrase ,the object in front of him = prepositional phrase, the objective complement. Is this sentence correct? Is it ok to put the objective complement before the object?","question":"On his way home, he found in front of him a big pile of hay. In this sentence , On his way home = adjectival phrase modifying the whole sentence he = complete subject found = the verb a big pile of hay = noun phrase ,the object in front of him = prepositional phrase, the objective complement. Is this sentence correct? Is it ok to put the objective complement before the object?","answer":"On his way home, he found in front of him a big pile of hay. In typical conversational (AmE) speech, that sentence could easily have been: He found a big pile of hay in front of him on his way home. Putting \"on his way home\" at the head of the sentence puts the rest of the sentence in the context of that trip. That's a rhetorical strategy. There are also situations, especially in writing, when we would want to move a phrase like \"in front of him\" so that it's adjacent to the verb, either to keep the verb phrase together, or the object phrase together, or to delay the object phrase for rhetorical effect: Delay for effect: On his way home, he found in front of him, just sitting there in the middle of the road, steam still rising from it, a big pile of hay mixed with elephant dung. A circus had been to town.. \"To find in front of {oneself, himself, etc}\" is more or less a collocation that means \"to encounter an obstacle\", and so that is another reason to keep the phrase together. But let's say we wanted to modify the object phrase: Misplaced modifier: On his way home, he found a large pile of hay in front of him with a hay fork sticking in it. On his way home, he found a large pile of hay with a hay fork sticking in it in front of him. It would be better in that case to relocate \"in front of him\" so that the verb phrase and the object phrase each remain together: On his way home, {he found in front of him} {a large pile of hay with a hay fork sticking in it}. Even though in speech one encounters, fairly frequently, the sorts of interruptions shown above in the hay fork examples of misplacement, the grammar allows the phrases to be moved around. The examples of misplacement are not grammatical errors (native speakers do talk this way and the grammatical rules allow it). But keeping the verb-phrase and the object phrase together can result in greater clarity and felicity.","output":"On his way home, he found in front of him a big pile of hay. In typical conversational (AmE) speech, that sentence could easily have been: He found a big pile of hay in front of him on his way home. Putting \"on his way home\" at the head of the sentence puts the rest of the sentence in the context of that trip. That's a rhetorical strategy. There are also situations, especially in writing, when we would want to move a phrase like \"in front of him\" so that it's adjacent to the verb, either to keep the verb phrase together, or the object phrase together, or to delay the object phrase for rhetorical effect: Delay for effect: On his way home, he found in front of him, just sitting there in the middle of the road, steam still rising from it, a big pile of hay mixed with elephant dung. A circus had been to town.. \"To find in front of {oneself, himself, etc}\" is more or less a collocation that means \"to encounter an obstacle\", and so that is another reason to keep the phrase together. But let's say we wanted to modify the object phrase: Misplaced modifier: On his way home, he found a large pile of hay in front of him with a hay fork sticking in it. On his way home, he found a large pile of hay with a hay fork sticking in it in front of him. It would be better in that case to relocate \"in front of him\" so that the verb phrase and the object phrase each remain together: On his way home, {he found in front of him} {a large pile of hay with a hay fork sticking in it}. Even though in speech one encounters, fairly frequently, the sorts of interruptions shown above in the hay fork examples of misplacement, the grammar allows the phrases to be moved around. The examples of misplacement are not grammatical errors (native speakers do talk this way and the grammatical rules allow it). But keeping the verb-phrase and the object phrase together can result in greater clarity and felicity."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"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 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\nI'm writing rules for a board game. It's similar to dots and boxes, and I would like to have a nice general word or phrase to refer to what the players use to mark their moves on the board or paper, since one could conceivably use anything to do it, like a pen, pencil, crayon or even a paint brush if they wanted to use one. The best I could think of was drawing implement, but that sounds too technical, and I'm trying to shoot for the lowest reading level I can. I also thought about drawing tool, marking tool or maybe even just marker? What do you think?","question":"I'm writing rules for a board game. It's similar to dots and boxes, and I would like to have a nice general word or phrase to refer to what the players use to mark their moves on the board or paper, since one could conceivably use anything to do it, like a pen, pencil, crayon or even a paint brush if they wanted to use one. The best I could think of was drawing implement, but that sounds too technical, and I'm trying to shoot for the lowest reading level I can. I also thought about drawing tool, marking tool or maybe even just marker? What do you think?","answer":"Writing instrument, writing utensil, and writing implement are all rather common. They are not old-fashioned. I think all of these are better than marker, which is standardly used only in the restricted sense referring to sharpies, felt pens, etc.","output":"Writing instrument, writing utensil, and writing implement are all rather common. They are not old-fashioned. I think all of these are better than marker, which is standardly used only in the restricted sense referring to sharpies, felt pens, etc."}
{"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\nJeffery Archer\u2019s new mystery, \u201cFalse Impression\u201d ends up with the following sentence in the very last scene where a shrewd FBI agent, Jack Delaney, invites his girlfriend, Anna Petrescu, whom he saved from a ferocious assassin by the skin of her teeth, to Irish stew dinner at his mother\u2019s house to introduce her as his Miss Right. \u201cBut before you agree, there\u2019s something I have to tell you,\u201d said Jack. \u201cAnd what\u2019s that?\u201d asked Anna. \u201cMy mother is under the illusion that you\u2019ve already been married three times, you have five children, not necessarily by three husbands, four of them are on hard drugs. Other one is in jail. She also thinks that you work in a far older profession than art consultancy.\u201d (Jack actually made the same joke to his mother before). Anna burst out laughing. \u201cBut what will you tell her when she discovers that none of it\u2019s true.\u201d \u201cYou\u2019re not Irish,\u201d said Jack. I don\u2019t understand what this very last line, \u201cYou are not Irish\u201d means. Does it mean you aren't innocent like my mom (or dumb like me), who is Irish? But readers already know his mother is Irish and Anna isn't. There must be a definite reason why Arther Jeffery took bother to emphasize this great mystery with the specific phrase \"You're not Irish.\" He shouldn't have inserted this phrase just for naught. Does it still make sense if I replace Irish with other nations, say British, Scottish, American, French, Italian, or even Japanese, provided Jack\u2019s family is as such?","question":"Jeffery Archer\u2019s new mystery, \u201cFalse Impression\u201d ends up with the following sentence in the very last scene where a shrewd FBI agent, Jack Delaney, invites his girlfriend, Anna Petrescu, whom he saved from a ferocious assassin by the skin of her teeth, to Irish stew dinner at his mother\u2019s house to introduce her as his Miss Right. \u201cBut before you agree, there\u2019s something I have to tell you,\u201d said Jack. \u201cAnd what\u2019s that?\u201d asked Anna. \u201cMy mother is under the illusion that you\u2019ve already been married three times, you have five children, not necessarily by three husbands, four of them are on hard drugs. Other one is in jail. She also thinks that you work in a far older profession than art consultancy.\u201d (Jack actually made the same joke to his mother before). Anna burst out laughing. \u201cBut what will you tell her when she discovers that none of it\u2019s true.\u201d \u201cYou\u2019re not Irish,\u201d said Jack. I don\u2019t understand what this very last line, \u201cYou are not Irish\u201d means. Does it mean you aren't innocent like my mom (or dumb like me), who is Irish? But readers already know his mother is Irish and Anna isn't. There must be a definite reason why Arther Jeffery took bother to emphasize this great mystery with the specific phrase \"You're not Irish.\" He shouldn't have inserted this phrase just for naught. Does it still make sense if I replace Irish with other nations, say British, Scottish, American, French, Italian, or even Japanese, provided Jack\u2019s family is as such?","answer":"Jack's mother will be so relieved that none of the other stories about Anna are true that she will be less upset when she finds out Anna is not Irish. The context allows one to assume that Jack's mother has her heart set upon any woman Jack ends up with being Irish. Since Anna presumably isn't, Jack has told her all sorts of horrible untruths about Anna, painting her as the worst sort of person imaginable. The supposed result of her finding out that Anna is nowhere near as bad as she had been described is that she will be so relieved, she will overlook her non-Irishness. The joke could be told of any nationality or religion; the Irishness is incidental","output":"Jack's mother will be so relieved that none of the other stories about Anna are true that she will be less upset when she finds out Anna is not Irish. The context allows one to assume that Jack's mother has her heart set upon any woman Jack ends up with being Irish. Since Anna presumably isn't, Jack has told her all sorts of horrible untruths about Anna, painting her as the worst sort of person imaginable. The supposed result of her finding out that Anna is nowhere near as bad as she had been described is that she will be so relieved, she will overlook her non-Irishness. The joke could be told of any nationality or religion; the Irishness is incidental"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've seen \"yet\" used in place of \"but\" like: He was bulky, yet devilishly quick. You buy yourself golden earrings, yet you cannot afford medicine for your mother! I'm fairly sure this usage is somewhat archaic, but I never got any hunch just how archaic it is. Would you find it in modern formal speech? Would it sound awkward in common conversation? Does it bear any special connotations different than \"but\"?","question":"I've seen \"yet\" used in place of \"but\" like: He was bulky, yet devilishly quick. You buy yourself golden earrings, yet you cannot afford medicine for your mother! I'm fairly sure this usage is somewhat archaic, but I never got any hunch just how archaic it is. Would you find it in modern formal speech? Would it sound awkward in common conversation? Does it bear any special connotations different than \"but\"?","answer":"In the sentence you used as an example, yet means \"but at the same time\" or \"nevertheless.\" Using yet as conjunction is not archaic; it is still used nowadays. The path was dark, yet I slowly found my way.","output":"In the sentence you used as an example, yet means \"but at the same time\" or \"nevertheless.\" Using yet as conjunction is not archaic; it is still used nowadays. The path was dark, yet I slowly found my way."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nthe meaning to be conveyed is the quality of being able to explore a situation with multiple viewpoints instead of just stuck with one way of exploring the problem What word (or a few words) will convey this idea?","question":"the meaning to be conveyed is the quality of being able to explore a situation with multiple viewpoints instead of just stuck with one way of exploring the problem What word (or a few words) will convey this idea?","answer":"Just as a quick answer 'open minded' comes to mind.","output":"Just as a quick answer 'open minded' comes to mind."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn this headline: New Orleans built a power plant for storms. It sat dark for 2 days. what does 'sat' means? I lack the knowledge to interpret this without the help of a preposition, had it been written: \"sat in the dark\" I would have understood but I'm not secure that it means the same thing","question":"In this headline: New Orleans built a power plant for storms. It sat dark for 2 days. what does 'sat' means? I lack the knowledge to interpret this without the help of a preposition, had it been written: \"sat in the dark\" I would have understood but I'm not secure that it means the same thing","answer":"\"Sat dark\" is a way of saying it went unused for that time period. \"Sat\" is using the past tense of \"sit,\" using the meaning of placing something in a spot, for example sitting a drinking glass on a shelf since you don't intend to use it right now. \"Dark\" is implying the facility is turned off and not operational. So more literally it is like saying \"it was left in place turned off for 2 days\" To add, \"sat in the dark\" is a different meaning which more closely resembles \"in the dark\" which is a saying used when an individual was not told of some information that they would have liked to know about.","output":"\"Sat dark\" is a way of saying it went unused for that time period. \"Sat\" is using the past tense of \"sit,\" using the meaning of placing something in a spot, for example sitting a drinking glass on a shelf since you don't intend to use it right now. \"Dark\" is implying the facility is turned off and not operational. So more literally it is like saying \"it was left in place turned off for 2 days\" To add, \"sat in the dark\" is a different meaning which more closely resembles \"in the dark\" which is a saying used when an individual was not told of some information that they would have liked to know about."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is a word to describe the situation in which there is no alternative or something cannot be helped? I am looking for a neutral word, similar to impotent, instead of the slightly negative helpless, grudgingly, willy-nilly or nolens volens. For example, how do we describe this situation? The teacher's lecture is dull, but I have to sit there and listen. I have no choice. In Japan the (-.-) icon is used in text messaging and in Chinese \u7121\u5948 is used to describe this.","question":"What is a word to describe the situation in which there is no alternative or something cannot be helped? I am looking for a neutral word, similar to impotent, instead of the slightly negative helpless, grudgingly, willy-nilly or nolens volens. For example, how do we describe this situation? The teacher's lecture is dull, but I have to sit there and listen. I have no choice. In Japan the (-.-) icon is used in text messaging and in Chinese \u7121\u5948 is used to describe this.","answer":"Hummm...you might be looking for inevitable: Adjective: Certain to happen; unavoidable: war was inevitable. Noun: A situation that is unavoidable. Synonyms: unavoidable - inescapable - ineluctable - necessary","output":"Hummm...you might be looking for inevitable: Adjective: Certain to happen; unavoidable: war was inevitable. Noun: A situation that is unavoidable. Synonyms: unavoidable - inescapable - ineluctable - necessary"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\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":"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\nA recent question asks whether the modifier \"clearly\" changes the meaning of \"evident\". I would have said, prior to examining a few dictionaries, that evident did not necessarily mean readily apparent, but to my surprise it does. This brings me to ask what word or expression would mean something can be taken as a true fact, but not through an easily constructed (not obvious or readily apparent) rationale? For example, if Sherlock Holmes says something is true while everyone else is still sitting on their hands, then it is evident to Holmes, but not to the rest of the world. So, from everyone else's point of view, it is not readily apparent, and (by definition) apparently it is not evident, clear, or clearly evident at all, based on the dictionary definitions. But (let's stipulate) it is true and deducible from the observable evidence. What would we call this? Update An update is highlighted above. I can see from some of the answers and comments that I may have gone off my mark with the phrase \"not through an easy-to-follow rationale\u201d, and I have modified the question to correct this. I understand that there can be rationales, arguments, or proofs that, once explained, may or may not be easy to follow. What I intend is that the rationale to support the indisputable conclusion is not (initially) easy to recognize or construct (not readily apparent) in the first place. I apologize for the confusion. (The original can be seen in the change history.) Update 2 Shortly after offering a bounty to this request, I recalled a single word that I now believe is a very good match to the parameters specified in this inquiry as it is stated above. That word has not yet been suggested (or approached) by any answer or comment (active or deleted) at the time of this edit. This request is changed to a single word request. (However, if you feel a single word fits well but not without some additional supporting words, please offer your thoughts in an answer.) While my curiosity for the term has already been met, the request and bounty remain as an open challenge. I will post my own answer once the bounty has expired and been awarded.","question":"A recent question asks whether the modifier \"clearly\" changes the meaning of \"evident\". I would have said, prior to examining a few dictionaries, that evident did not necessarily mean readily apparent, but to my surprise it does. This brings me to ask what word or expression would mean something can be taken as a true fact, but not through an easily constructed (not obvious or readily apparent) rationale? For example, if Sherlock Holmes says something is true while everyone else is still sitting on their hands, then it is evident to Holmes, but not to the rest of the world. So, from everyone else's point of view, it is not readily apparent, and (by definition) apparently it is not evident, clear, or clearly evident at all, based on the dictionary definitions. But (let's stipulate) it is true and deducible from the observable evidence. What would we call this? Update An update is highlighted above. I can see from some of the answers and comments that I may have gone off my mark with the phrase \"not through an easy-to-follow rationale\u201d, and I have modified the question to correct this. I understand that there can be rationales, arguments, or proofs that, once explained, may or may not be easy to follow. What I intend is that the rationale to support the indisputable conclusion is not (initially) easy to recognize or construct (not readily apparent) in the first place. I apologize for the confusion. (The original can be seen in the change history.) Update 2 Shortly after offering a bounty to this request, I recalled a single word that I now believe is a very good match to the parameters specified in this inquiry as it is stated above. That word has not yet been suggested (or approached) by any answer or comment (active or deleted) at the time of this edit. This request is changed to a single word request. (However, if you feel a single word fits well but not without some additional supporting words, please offer your thoughts in an answer.) While my curiosity for the term has already been met, the request and bounty remain as an open challenge. I will post my own answer once the bounty has expired and been awarded.","answer":"One word that comes to mind is \"provable\" or \"scientifically provable\" with the connotation of proof such as used in sciences like geometry or philosophy. The method that Sherlock Holmes used was based on how scientific proofs are built. There are many things which science has proven which, at least at one point of time, were not evident to many people. Even today, I'm sure a vast number of people do not find the principals of calculus evident, although they are certainly provable. In philosophical terms you can prove something using a posteri knowledge or a priori knowledge. A posteri knowledge relies on empirical evidence, though it may be subject to false results especially with limited observations (if you flip a coin 3 times and the coin turns up heads all 3 times that doesn't mean it will always be heads, for instance). However, given enough observations, something proven a posteri can be quite evident to anyone aware of the many observations. On the other hand, something proven a priori may not be evident to many people even when they are fully aware of the logic of the a priori finding. For instance, when the concept that \"all men are created equal\" was put forth as an a priori finding, despite the detail of the support, it remained non-evident to many people, so I'll also submit (complex) \"a priori knowledge\" as something that includes many things that are not necessary evident but are considered true. To be more specific, I mean non-definitional a priori knowledge since most definitions are considered a priori knowledge and are usually generally accepted as evident to all. \"Red is a color\" is a priori but also, in my opinion, evident based on the accepted definition of \"color\". So I don't mean simple definitional a priori knowledge. I'm referring more to more complex a priori knowledge such as \"everyone has a right to freedom.\" I think it's important to mention both \"provable\" and \"complex, non-definitional a priori knowledge\" because together these cover, I believe, the whole range of what could be considered, at least by some people, true but not evident to many other people. The Sherlock Holmes method using scientific proofs would not capture the whole range of a priori knowledge because this knowlege is generally not of the type that can be known to a scientific certainty, and Holmes builds on things that are more provable using a posteri knowledge. On the other hand, I couldn't only mention a priori knowledge because there are many things which are scientifically provable but of a very complex nature so these remain non-evident to many people simply because of their complexity. So many provable things which are a posteri are also part of this answer. EDIT: After seeing the answer that received the bounty and some of the comments from the questioner, I am disappointed, to say the least. The ultimate bounty was awarded to cryptic. However, the question required that the non-apparent thing also be a true fact and words like cryptic do not take any position on whether something is true or not. Something can be cryptic and true just as likely as it can be cryptic and not true. So to use cryptic would not convey that something is a true fact. I offer the following: Even in the answer provided for cryptic which included the definition, no part of that definition or answer claimed that cryptic means something true or a fact. Cryptic is often a word associated with the occult which I think most people believe has connotation which is the opposite of truth: the primary definition from dictionary.com is \"hidden; secret; occult\". Cryptic is also a word associated with Masonic organizations. This website published by the Grand Council of Cryptic Masons talks about the Cryptic Rite which it says is part of \"a Masonic allegory. Freemasonry is very philosophical and teaches its ideals by allegory or story.\" Obviously an allegory is not a true fact, but it can be cryptic. http:\/\/www.yorkriteofcalifornia.org\/council\/whatis.html Cryptic is often applied to emotions and behavior and lots of other things which are not true facts. Poet Edward Arlington Robinson once wrote, \"With a cryptic idiotic melancholy\" to describe the observed emotions of some birds. One rarely uses idiotic to describe something one believes to be a true fact. Similarly Victor Marie Hugo in \"Notre Dame de Paris\" wrote \"This is the second transformation of architecture\u2014no longer cryptic, sacerdotal, inevitable, but artistic, progressive, popular\u2014beginning with the return from the Crusades and ending with Louis XI.\" Here cryptic is simply implying that the older style was less accessible, not that it was more true than the later style. Cryptic is often used when the truth of something is unknown. For instance the Voynich Manuscript is often described as cryptic but people have no idea if it's authentic or a hoax, though most seem to lean towards it likely being a cryptic hoax. Similes for cryptic which the questioner also liked, such as obscure (his second choice per his comment), suffer from the same problems in that they give not indication that something is a true fact. Their definitions do not state that they mean something true or something which is a fact. They are often applied to emotions and behavior and many other things which are not true facts. They can be, and often are, applied to things where the trueness of the thing is currently unknown. One recent tripadvisor comment warned of \"false advertising and obscure location\" which has the connotation of a location which is deceptively difficult to reach for the unwary traveler. If I refer to an \"obscure religion\" I don't mean I believe it is the one, true religion. So summing up a long rant, I'm hugely disappointed because the questioner asked for a word or phrase that also meant a true fact and then ignored that extremely difficult and challenging requirement in selecting the bounty winner.","output":"One word that comes to mind is \"provable\" or \"scientifically provable\" with the connotation of proof such as used in sciences like geometry or philosophy. The method that Sherlock Holmes used was based on how scientific proofs are built. There are many things which science has proven which, at least at one point of time, were not evident to many people. Even today, I'm sure a vast number of people do not find the principals of calculus evident, although they are certainly provable. In philosophical terms you can prove something using a posteri knowledge or a priori knowledge. A posteri knowledge relies on empirical evidence, though it may be subject to false results especially with limited observations (if you flip a coin 3 times and the coin turns up heads all 3 times that doesn't mean it will always be heads, for instance). However, given enough observations, something proven a posteri can be quite evident to anyone aware of the many observations. On the other hand, something proven a priori may not be evident to many people even when they are fully aware of the logic of the a priori finding. For instance, when the concept that \"all men are created equal\" was put forth as an a priori finding, despite the detail of the support, it remained non-evident to many people, so I'll also submit (complex) \"a priori knowledge\" as something that includes many things that are not necessary evident but are considered true. To be more specific, I mean non-definitional a priori knowledge since most definitions are considered a priori knowledge and are usually generally accepted as evident to all. \"Red is a color\" is a priori but also, in my opinion, evident based on the accepted definition of \"color\". So I don't mean simple definitional a priori knowledge. I'm referring more to more complex a priori knowledge such as \"everyone has a right to freedom.\" I think it's important to mention both \"provable\" and \"complex, non-definitional a priori knowledge\" because together these cover, I believe, the whole range of what could be considered, at least by some people, true but not evident to many other people. The Sherlock Holmes method using scientific proofs would not capture the whole range of a priori knowledge because this knowlege is generally not of the type that can be known to a scientific certainty, and Holmes builds on things that are more provable using a posteri knowledge. On the other hand, I couldn't only mention a priori knowledge because there are many things which are scientifically provable but of a very complex nature so these remain non-evident to many people simply because of their complexity. So many provable things which are a posteri are also part of this answer. EDIT: After seeing the answer that received the bounty and some of the comments from the questioner, I am disappointed, to say the least. The ultimate bounty was awarded to cryptic. However, the question required that the non-apparent thing also be a true fact and words like cryptic do not take any position on whether something is true or not. Something can be cryptic and true just as likely as it can be cryptic and not true. So to use cryptic would not convey that something is a true fact. I offer the following: Even in the answer provided for cryptic which included the definition, no part of that definition or answer claimed that cryptic means something true or a fact. Cryptic is often a word associated with the occult which I think most people believe has connotation which is the opposite of truth: the primary definition from dictionary.com is \"hidden; secret; occult\". Cryptic is also a word associated with Masonic organizations. This website published by the Grand Council of Cryptic Masons talks about the Cryptic Rite which it says is part of \"a Masonic allegory. Freemasonry is very philosophical and teaches its ideals by allegory or story.\" Obviously an allegory is not a true fact, but it can be cryptic. http:\/\/www.yorkriteofcalifornia.org\/council\/whatis.html Cryptic is often applied to emotions and behavior and lots of other things which are not true facts. Poet Edward Arlington Robinson once wrote, \"With a cryptic idiotic melancholy\" to describe the observed emotions of some birds. One rarely uses idiotic to describe something one believes to be a true fact. Similarly Victor Marie Hugo in \"Notre Dame de Paris\" wrote \"This is the second transformation of architecture\u2014no longer cryptic, sacerdotal, inevitable, but artistic, progressive, popular\u2014beginning with the return from the Crusades and ending with Louis XI.\" Here cryptic is simply implying that the older style was less accessible, not that it was more true than the later style. Cryptic is often used when the truth of something is unknown. For instance the Voynich Manuscript is often described as cryptic but people have no idea if it's authentic or a hoax, though most seem to lean towards it likely being a cryptic hoax. Similes for cryptic which the questioner also liked, such as obscure (his second choice per his comment), suffer from the same problems in that they give not indication that something is a true fact. Their definitions do not state that they mean something true or something which is a fact. They are often applied to emotions and behavior and many other things which are not true facts. They can be, and often are, applied to things where the trueness of the thing is currently unknown. One recent tripadvisor comment warned of \"false advertising and obscure location\" which has the connotation of a location which is deceptively difficult to reach for the unwary traveler. If I refer to an \"obscure religion\" I don't mean I believe it is the one, true religion. So summing up a long rant, I'm hugely disappointed because the questioner asked for a word or phrase that also meant a true fact and then ignored that extremely difficult and challenging requirement in selecting the bounty winner."}
{"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\nSource: short audio clip Transcript: So, what is a yuppie? Well, actually before we get to yuppie, we need to go back in time. Let's go back all the way to the 1940s. Now, a couple months ago, in DDM we studied a man called Jack Kerouac. And he was a famous author. And he was basically the man who started a generation of people called beatniks. Although I sort of might have a very basic idea as to why there is no article, whether definite or indefinite, in front of the second yuppie, I just don't know how to put that in rigorous grammatical terms. Nevertheless, I would very much like to hear your ideas on what you think makes him completely leave it out in this case. My gut feeling is that we can't use neither one due to the fact that it would make it very much unclear what exactly we are talking about here. For example, a yuppie is way too broad. That obviously wouldn't work. the yuppie is too specific. It almost sounds as though we are talking about a particular individual who we're all very well familiar with, not a group of people who choose to live a lifestyle different from the norm, so to speak. So, that's not going to cut it here either. He could just as easily have said yuppies though. And I guess that would be an absolutely fine, if not perfect, choice of grammar, but he didn't, as you can see for yourselves. And I believe it may be because he wants to focus primarily on the concept of yuppie rather than the actual followers of this subculture. And that's by no means a conscious choice. He does that naturally without thinking. Something makes him do that. Maybe the word should even be capitalized when written because it is used in a nominal kind of fashion. I don't know. You tell me. If you can think of other similar examples, feel free to share them. Tell me what you what think. PS: I guess you could boldly say this is an example of a zero article, but I'm not going to count that as an answer. Well, first of all, duh! It is a zero article because there is literally zero of it. That's a no-brainier. Secondly, here, I'm first and foremost interested in the mechanics of the reasoning that goes behind when a native speaker decides to use a zero article.","question":"Source: short audio clip Transcript: So, what is a yuppie? Well, actually before we get to yuppie, we need to go back in time. Let's go back all the way to the 1940s. Now, a couple months ago, in DDM we studied a man called Jack Kerouac. And he was a famous author. And he was basically the man who started a generation of people called beatniks. Although I sort of might have a very basic idea as to why there is no article, whether definite or indefinite, in front of the second yuppie, I just don't know how to put that in rigorous grammatical terms. Nevertheless, I would very much like to hear your ideas on what you think makes him completely leave it out in this case. My gut feeling is that we can't use neither one due to the fact that it would make it very much unclear what exactly we are talking about here. For example, a yuppie is way too broad. That obviously wouldn't work. the yuppie is too specific. It almost sounds as though we are talking about a particular individual who we're all very well familiar with, not a group of people who choose to live a lifestyle different from the norm, so to speak. So, that's not going to cut it here either. He could just as easily have said yuppies though. And I guess that would be an absolutely fine, if not perfect, choice of grammar, but he didn't, as you can see for yourselves. And I believe it may be because he wants to focus primarily on the concept of yuppie rather than the actual followers of this subculture. And that's by no means a conscious choice. He does that naturally without thinking. Something makes him do that. Maybe the word should even be capitalized when written because it is used in a nominal kind of fashion. I don't know. You tell me. If you can think of other similar examples, feel free to share them. Tell me what you what think. PS: I guess you could boldly say this is an example of a zero article, but I'm not going to count that as an answer. Well, first of all, duh! It is a zero article because there is literally zero of it. That's a no-brainier. Secondly, here, I'm first and foremost interested in the mechanics of the reasoning that goes behind when a native speaker decides to use a zero article.","answer":"Martian: Why was that goal disallowed? Cookie Monster: The striker was offsides when the ball was kicked to him. Martian: What is \"offsides\"? [or What does \"offsides\" mean?] Cookie Monster: I will tell you, but before we get to \"offsides\" I want to tell you a little about the history of the game ... Martian: And why do they call that player a striker? Cookie Monster: OK OK. Let me give you a brief history, and then we will get to \"striker\" too. Get to = address a topic A name or word, without an article, can be cited in a sentence as a shorthand way of saying \"the subject of {name}\" or \"the meaning of {word}\". You might call this Zero-Apposition. I just made that up, however. A name when being cited as a name, and a word being cited as a word, do not take an article: What is the origin of the name \"Sawyer\"? What is the origin of \"Sawyer\"? not OKWhat is the origin of the \"Sawyer\"? What is the etymology of the word \"orc\"? What is the etymology of \"orc\"? not OKWhat is the etymology of the \"orc\"? When speaking, the intonation we give to a name or word being cited is different from the intonation we give to it when it is actually being employed, not simply being referred to. The typographic conventions we use to reflect such citation are typically quotation marks or italics. We can understand that such a citation is being made from \"get to\", which means (in the context of an answer or explanation) to address a topic or subject.","output":"Martian: Why was that goal disallowed? Cookie Monster: The striker was offsides when the ball was kicked to him. Martian: What is \"offsides\"? [or What does \"offsides\" mean?] Cookie Monster: I will tell you, but before we get to \"offsides\" I want to tell you a little about the history of the game ... Martian: And why do they call that player a striker? Cookie Monster: OK OK. Let me give you a brief history, and then we will get to \"striker\" too. Get to = address a topic A name or word, without an article, can be cited in a sentence as a shorthand way of saying \"the subject of {name}\" or \"the meaning of {word}\". You might call this Zero-Apposition. I just made that up, however. A name when being cited as a name, and a word being cited as a word, do not take an article: What is the origin of the name \"Sawyer\"? What is the origin of \"Sawyer\"? not OKWhat is the origin of the \"Sawyer\"? What is the etymology of the word \"orc\"? What is the etymology of \"orc\"? not OKWhat is the etymology of the \"orc\"? When speaking, the intonation we give to a name or word being cited is different from the intonation we give to it when it is actually being employed, not simply being referred to. The typographic conventions we use to reflect such citation are typically quotation marks or italics. We can understand that such a citation is being made from \"get to\", which means (in the context of an answer or explanation) to address a topic or subject."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nTo day, I read on News by Vietnamese. I known that Paris Saint-Germain's vs Istanbul Basaksehir Game suspended after alleged racist abuse by official. So, he just Said: \"this black guy\"? In Asia football, I see, a lot of people can said it. For example in V-League, the is a lot of player from Africa but we can say: \"Anh da \u0111en \u0111\u00f3 \u0111\u00e1 hay qu\u00e1.\" It same \"This black guy play very well\". But any one happy, no problem. But I don't know why we can't said this in Europe? Hope any one can explain for me, and the best way we can say in this situation? Sorry that my English writing is not good. Hope some one help edit.","question":"To day, I read on News by Vietnamese. I known that Paris Saint-Germain's vs Istanbul Basaksehir Game suspended after alleged racist abuse by official. So, he just Said: \"this black guy\"? In Asia football, I see, a lot of people can said it. For example in V-League, the is a lot of player from Africa but we can say: \"Anh da \u0111en \u0111\u00f3 \u0111\u00e1 hay qu\u00e1.\" It same \"This black guy play very well\". But any one happy, no problem. But I don't know why we can't said this in Europe? Hope any one can explain for me, and the best way we can say in this situation? Sorry that my English writing is not good. Hope some one help edit.","answer":"First of all, the referee was speaking Romanian, so it's not really a question about English. But the issue certainly applies to English as spoken in Western Europe (not only by native speakers). It's a political question to an extent, and to that extent it will generate heated politicial discussion, inappropriate here. But to give you a purely linguistic and hopefully ideologically neutral answer, the term 'black guy' used in English, in a Western European context, in public life, is no longer felt to be appropriate. The Romanian term used was 'negru' (which just means 'black', as seen in the delicious wines of Moldova like Negru de Purcari), and in Eastern Europe the equivalent terms are more used in everyday life and not felt to be offensive by the majority of the population. In Western Europe, terms that overtly refer to skin colour are now seen as offensive by many. Note that with the Vietnamese you are saying 'anh da \u0111en', and the use of the word 'anh' automatically confers a level of respect (not a high level, but some level nonetheless) which 'guy' does not in English. If you said 'th\u1eb1ng da \u0111en' instead, this might be a bit closer to the effect of what was said on the pitch.","output":"First of all, the referee was speaking Romanian, so it's not really a question about English. But the issue certainly applies to English as spoken in Western Europe (not only by native speakers). It's a political question to an extent, and to that extent it will generate heated politicial discussion, inappropriate here. But to give you a purely linguistic and hopefully ideologically neutral answer, the term 'black guy' used in English, in a Western European context, in public life, is no longer felt to be appropriate. The Romanian term used was 'negru' (which just means 'black', as seen in the delicious wines of Moldova like Negru de Purcari), and in Eastern Europe the equivalent terms are more used in everyday life and not felt to be offensive by the majority of the population. In Western Europe, terms that overtly refer to skin colour are now seen as offensive by many. Note that with the Vietnamese you are saying 'anh da \u0111en', and the use of the word 'anh' automatically confers a level of respect (not a high level, but some level nonetheless) which 'guy' does not in English. If you said 'th\u1eb1ng da \u0111en' instead, this might be a bit closer to the effect of what was said on the pitch."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nA person from the legal department replaced \"major force\" with \"majour fource\" in a document. I wanna know if this spelling has any background in the English language or is a typo.","question":"A person from the legal department replaced \"major force\" with \"majour fource\" in a document. I wanna know if this spelling has any background in the English language or is a typo.","answer":"Force majeure \u2014 meaning \"superior force\", is also known as cas fortuit (French) or casus fortuitus (Latin) \"chance occurrence, unavoidable accident\". It is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, or an event described by the legal term act of God (such as hurricane, flooding, earthquake, volcanic eruption, etc.), prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract. In practice, most force majeure clauses do not excuse a party's non-performance entirely, but only suspends it for the duration of the force majeure (source: Wikipedia)","output":"Force majeure \u2014 meaning \"superior force\", is also known as cas fortuit (French) or casus fortuitus (Latin) \"chance occurrence, unavoidable accident\". It is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, or an event described by the legal term act of God (such as hurricane, flooding, earthquake, volcanic eruption, etc.), prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract. In practice, most force majeure clauses do not excuse a party's non-performance entirely, but only suspends it for the duration of the force majeure (source: Wikipedia)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow to say in English that something like a movie is showing on TV? Can I say: It is being published on TV It is being broadcasting on TV It's being shown on TV","question":"How to say in English that something like a movie is showing on TV? Can I say: It is being published on TV It is being broadcasting on TV It's being shown on TV","answer":"Yes, you can certainly say 'being broadcasted', 'shown' etc. You may find many results for that use. However, in the context of a movie on some channel, you can simply say - 'on TV' and the message is conveyed clearly. Gravity is (coming -InE) on TV In any case, there would be some channel broadcasting\/showing a movie. You can omit 'is' as well. That's how even the announcements on TV channels happen. So, the commonest would be ... Gravity on HBO at 8 pm on Sunday Don't use 'publish' in this context. IMO, it's used for 'static' things.","output":"Yes, you can certainly say 'being broadcasted', 'shown' etc. You may find many results for that use. However, in the context of a movie on some channel, you can simply say - 'on TV' and the message is conveyed clearly. Gravity is (coming -InE) on TV In any case, there would be some channel broadcasting\/showing a movie. You can omit 'is' as well. That's how even the announcements on TV channels happen. So, the commonest would be ... Gravity on HBO at 8 pm on Sunday Don't use 'publish' in this context. IMO, it's used for 'static' things."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWithout noticing myself, I've mixed the use of \"ascendants\" and \"ancestors\" in some documentation I've written. In an arbitrary hierarchy (of either people or things), what would be the most correct term to use, to describe my parent(s) parent(s) parent(s), etc.? That is, descendants would be my children, their children, and so forth. In the exact reverse order, would ascendants and ancestors be interchangeable, or would one be preferred over the other? Both TheFreeDictionary.com and Dictionary.com lists ancestor as a synonym of ascendants, though neither precisely defines it in the context of a hierarchy per se.","question":"Without noticing myself, I've mixed the use of \"ascendants\" and \"ancestors\" in some documentation I've written. In an arbitrary hierarchy (of either people or things), what would be the most correct term to use, to describe my parent(s) parent(s) parent(s), etc.? That is, descendants would be my children, their children, and so forth. In the exact reverse order, would ascendants and ancestors be interchangeable, or would one be preferred over the other? Both TheFreeDictionary.com and Dictionary.com lists ancestor as a synonym of ascendants, though neither precisely defines it in the context of a hierarchy per se.","answer":"Ascendant does have the meaning you use here, but it is rare, and many may not know that sense of the word, so you should favour ancestor. (The other senses of ascendant do also have descendant as an antonym too, so if you look up the antonym of descendant you may find ascendant cited for that reason more than for this rare sense).","output":"Ascendant does have the meaning you use here, but it is rare, and many may not know that sense of the word, so you should favour ancestor. (The other senses of ascendant do also have descendant as an antonym too, so if you look up the antonym of descendant you may find ascendant cited for that reason more than for this rare sense)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI must clarify, when I say 'crush', I mean the subject of an unrealistic, one-sided infatuation. For example, it can be used in this sentence: 'My celebrity crush is David Beckham.' Could that word be interchanged for another? Preferably, can it be a word which is not necessarily too formal\/complex? I've searched online for a while but can't find any synonyms for this form of 'crush.' I want the word for a novel which is set in an old-ish fantasy period so I don't think 'crush' would feel in-place. The main character is a lower-class worker.","question":"I must clarify, when I say 'crush', I mean the subject of an unrealistic, one-sided infatuation. For example, it can be used in this sentence: 'My celebrity crush is David Beckham.' Could that word be interchanged for another? Preferably, can it be a word which is not necessarily too formal\/complex? I've searched online for a while but can't find any synonyms for this form of 'crush.' I want the word for a novel which is set in an old-ish fantasy period so I don't think 'crush' would feel in-place. The main character is a lower-class worker.","answer":"Try yearning It would fit in a fantasy story in a long-ago setting. Gwyneth had a powerful yearning for Sir Mortimer, a yearning she knew she must keep to herself. (made up) Yearning, from The Free Dictionary A persistent, often melancholy desire; a longing Example, from Henry David Thoreau. I do not know of any poetry to quote which adequately expresses this yearning for the Wild To substantiate that it is an old word with an old flavor, see Etomonline yearning.yearning (n.) Old English gierning, verbal noun from yearn (v.). yearn (v.) English giernan (West Saxon), geornan (Mercian), giorna (Northumbrian) \"to strive, be eager, desire, seek for, beg, demand,\" from Proto-Germanic *gernjan (source also of Gothic gairnjan \"to desire,\" German begehren \"to desire;\" Old High German gern, Old Norse gjarn \"desirous,\" Old English georn \"eager, desirous,\" German gern \"gladly, willingly\"), from PIE root *gher- \"to like, want\"","output":"Try yearning It would fit in a fantasy story in a long-ago setting. Gwyneth had a powerful yearning for Sir Mortimer, a yearning she knew she must keep to herself. (made up) Yearning, from The Free Dictionary A persistent, often melancholy desire; a longing Example, from Henry David Thoreau. I do not know of any poetry to quote which adequately expresses this yearning for the Wild To substantiate that it is an old word with an old flavor, see Etomonline yearning.yearning (n.) Old English gierning, verbal noun from yearn (v.). yearn (v.) English giernan (West Saxon), geornan (Mercian), giorna (Northumbrian) \"to strive, be eager, desire, seek for, beg, demand,\" from Proto-Germanic *gernjan (source also of Gothic gairnjan \"to desire,\" German begehren \"to desire;\" Old High German gern, Old Norse gjarn \"desirous,\" Old English georn \"eager, desirous,\" German gern \"gladly, willingly\"), from PIE root *gher- \"to like, want\""}
{"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 wondered which is correct one- Not look dangerously Not look dangerous As look is verb, so adverb dangerously should be used But somewhere I saw Not look dangerous is correct","question":"I wondered which is correct one- Not look dangerously Not look dangerous As look is verb, so adverb dangerously should be used But somewhere I saw Not look dangerous is correct","answer":"If \"look\" is used as a linking verb, we need to use adjectives after it, not adverbs (other examples of linking verbs are to be (it is interesting), to sound (it sounds good), to feel (the chair feels soft), to taste (it tastes awful)): The road looks dangerous. But it is correct to say, for example: The road looks dangerously slippery. That's because \"dangerously\" modifies \"slippery.\" We still use the adjective after \"looks\" (it looks slippery), but now there is an extra word before \"slippery,\" making it clear what you think or how you feel about the fact. Actually, an adverb (e.g \"dangerously\") can modify \"look,\" so \"look\" is not always a linking verb: She is looking at him dangerously (or, for example, closely\/carefully\/anxiously, etc.) So, both \"(not) look dangerous\" and \"(not) look dangerously\" may be correct. The correctness depends on the structure of your sentence.","output":"If \"look\" is used as a linking verb, we need to use adjectives after it, not adverbs (other examples of linking verbs are to be (it is interesting), to sound (it sounds good), to feel (the chair feels soft), to taste (it tastes awful)): The road looks dangerous. But it is correct to say, for example: The road looks dangerously slippery. That's because \"dangerously\" modifies \"slippery.\" We still use the adjective after \"looks\" (it looks slippery), but now there is an extra word before \"slippery,\" making it clear what you think or how you feel about the fact. Actually, an adverb (e.g \"dangerously\") can modify \"look,\" so \"look\" is not always a linking verb: She is looking at him dangerously (or, for example, closely\/carefully\/anxiously, etc.) So, both \"(not) look dangerous\" and \"(not) look dangerously\" may be correct. The correctness depends on the structure of your sentence."}
{"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe question says it all. I see a lot of examples on this site of a word that is accepted for a question, but I would never hear that word in my life. I may see it if I read something, but my friends, coworkers, and family would never use it. Note: Bonus if the word would not describe itself!","question":"The question says it all. I see a lot of examples on this site of a word that is accepted for a question, but I would never hear that word in my life. I may see it if I read something, but my friends, coworkers, and family would never use it. Note: Bonus if the word would not describe itself!","answer":"You are probably thinking of literary: 4. a. Appropriate to literature rather than everyday speech or writing. b. Bookish; pedantic. It is often used in dictionaries to denote that a word is used more in writing than in normal speech. See, for example, this definition of tartuffe: noun literary or humorous a religious hypocrite, or a hypocritical pretender to excellence of any kind. [from the name of the principal character (a religious hypocrite) in Moli\u00e8re's Tartuffe (1664)] If you want to be more caustic, you could say that people on this site deliberately use obfuscating language.","output":"You are probably thinking of literary: 4. a. Appropriate to literature rather than everyday speech or writing. b. Bookish; pedantic. It is often used in dictionaries to denote that a word is used more in writing than in normal speech. See, for example, this definition of tartuffe: noun literary or humorous a religious hypocrite, or a hypocritical pretender to excellence of any kind. [from the name of the principal character (a religious hypocrite) in Moli\u00e8re's Tartuffe (1664)] If you want to be more caustic, you could say that people on this site deliberately use obfuscating language."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\ncan anyone please explain what this phrase \"tell dick from\" mean? Is it the same as \"tell from\"?","question":"can anyone please explain what this phrase \"tell dick from\" mean? Is it the same as \"tell from\"?","answer":"One meaning of dick (a colloquial and somewhat vulgar use) is to mean nothing. \"That plaque is worth dick!\" means that it the plaque is worthless. Thus, when someone says, \"They can't tell dick from your blood\", they mean, \"They can't tell anything from your blood.\" (The double negative here is another colloquial use -- \"They can tell dick from looking at your blood\" would mean the same basic thing.)","output":"One meaning of dick (a colloquial and somewhat vulgar use) is to mean nothing. \"That plaque is worth dick!\" means that it the plaque is worthless. Thus, when someone says, \"They can't tell dick from your blood\", they mean, \"They can't tell anything from your blood.\" (The double negative here is another colloquial use -- \"They can tell dick from looking at your blood\" would mean the same basic thing.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCalf's liver as an item on a restaurant menu is certainly correct, but one also sees calves liver written down. What certainly is wrong is calves' liver, except if one assumes that many calves were part of the contribution to what is being cooked and served (hardly the case, and even if correct, not worth mentioning). What is the correct way of writing this?","question":"Calf's liver as an item on a restaurant menu is certainly correct, but one also sees calves liver written down. What certainly is wrong is calves' liver, except if one assumes that many calves were part of the contribution to what is being cooked and served (hardly the case, and even if correct, not worth mentioning). What is the correct way of writing this?","answer":"The pattern seems to be [animal] + apostrophe + organ, as in, for example, \u2018pig\u2019s trotters\u2019, so \u2018calf\u2019s liver\u2019 would be consistent with that. There are, however, other possibilities: \u2018chicken liver\u2019.","output":"The pattern seems to be [animal] + apostrophe + organ, as in, for example, \u2018pig\u2019s trotters\u2019, so \u2018calf\u2019s liver\u2019 would be consistent with that. There are, however, other possibilities: \u2018chicken liver\u2019."}
{"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\nThursday\u2019s verdict will be a reminder of the scale of the killings \u2013 some 100,000 people died in Bosnia alone, with other victims in Croatia and Kosovo \u2013 and of the glacial pace at which justice has arrived. Source: http:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2016\/mar\/22\/the-hunt-for-radovan-karadzic-ruthless-warlord-turned-spiritual-healer I have a question regarding the usage of the preposition \"at\" before \"which justice\". I pressume that the author wants to say it lasted very long time before justice has realized. But I do not understand why \"glacial pace at which\" is used. Glacial pace is something like extremely slow speed so I would use \"glacial pace by which justice has arrived\". In the original sentence it is suggested that glacial pace is some kind of a place. Can you explain to me what's wrong with my consideration?","question":"Thursday\u2019s verdict will be a reminder of the scale of the killings \u2013 some 100,000 people died in Bosnia alone, with other victims in Croatia and Kosovo \u2013 and of the glacial pace at which justice has arrived. Source: http:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2016\/mar\/22\/the-hunt-for-radovan-karadzic-ruthless-warlord-turned-spiritual-healer I have a question regarding the usage of the preposition \"at\" before \"which justice\". I pressume that the author wants to say it lasted very long time before justice has realized. But I do not understand why \"glacial pace at which\" is used. Glacial pace is something like extremely slow speed so I would use \"glacial pace by which justice has arrived\". In the original sentence it is suggested that glacial pace is some kind of a place. Can you explain to me what's wrong with my consideration?","answer":"At first I was struggling with \"arrive by\" versus \"arrive at\" too. Then I realised \"at\" is not actually attached to \"arrive\" but rather to \"pace\". English uses \"at x pace\" (like speed). At snail's pace At a rapid pace So if we re-order the difficult part of the sentence we get: Justice has arrived at [a] glacial pace. So, \"at a glacial pace\" works as an adverbial describing how justice arrived. To reaffirm your understanding of \"arrive by\" and \"arrive at\", I think you have it quite nicely. Arrive by (normally the means of arriving). Arrive by car Arrive by train Arrive at (a place) He arrived at his home","output":"At first I was struggling with \"arrive by\" versus \"arrive at\" too. Then I realised \"at\" is not actually attached to \"arrive\" but rather to \"pace\". English uses \"at x pace\" (like speed). At snail's pace At a rapid pace So if we re-order the difficult part of the sentence we get: Justice has arrived at [a] glacial pace. So, \"at a glacial pace\" works as an adverbial describing how justice arrived. To reaffirm your understanding of \"arrive by\" and \"arrive at\", I think you have it quite nicely. Arrive by (normally the means of arriving). Arrive by car Arrive by train Arrive at (a place) He arrived at his home"}
{"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":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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'm facing a question in a legal document that asks Do you currently have a valid visa or leave to remain as a dependant of a migrant? To which of the parts should I associate \"as a dependant of a migrant\"? I mean, does this mean: Do you currently have a valid \"visa\" or \"leave to remain as a dependant of a migrant\"? or Do you currently have a valid \"visa [as a dependant of a migrant]\" or \"leave to remain as a dependant of a migrant\"? This is confusing me, and indeed the answer is very important as they are only Yes or No. Thanks for your help.","question":"I'm facing a question in a legal document that asks Do you currently have a valid visa or leave to remain as a dependant of a migrant? To which of the parts should I associate \"as a dependant of a migrant\"? I mean, does this mean: Do you currently have a valid \"visa\" or \"leave to remain as a dependant of a migrant\"? or Do you currently have a valid \"visa [as a dependant of a migrant]\" or \"leave to remain as a dependant of a migrant\"? This is confusing me, and indeed the answer is very important as they are only Yes or No. Thanks for your help.","answer":"I'm afraid that there is absolutely no way in the English language to decide between those interpretations. It is possible that in legal usage (or past judgments) there is a ruling which will tell you which meaning is intended, but you will need to ask a lawyer about that. It is also possible that knowledge of such documents will resolve the ambiguity (eg if there is no kind of visa that has reference to being a dependent) but again, you will need to consult knowledgeable sources on that question. But purely linguistically, the sentence is fundamentally ambiguous.","output":"I'm afraid that there is absolutely no way in the English language to decide between those interpretations. It is possible that in legal usage (or past judgments) there is a ruling which will tell you which meaning is intended, but you will need to ask a lawyer about that. It is also possible that knowledge of such documents will resolve the ambiguity (eg if there is no kind of visa that has reference to being a dependent) but again, you will need to consult knowledgeable sources on that question. But purely linguistically, the sentence is fundamentally ambiguous."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"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\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nin the following sentence: ..such poor educational system produces scientifically sterile generations able just to regurgitate what i ment be \"scientifically sterile generations\" is, a generation which has nothing to contribute to the science. is the sentence correct? if no, please let me know how to rephrase it right with maintaing the same meaning","question":"in the following sentence: ..such poor educational system produces scientifically sterile generations able just to regurgitate what i ment be \"scientifically sterile generations\" is, a generation which has nothing to contribute to the science. is the sentence correct? if no, please let me know how to rephrase it right with maintaing the same meaning","answer":"Sterile (adj.) not able to produce children or young I believe \"scientifically sterile generations\" means that those generations are not able to produce science. That is not exactly the same as those generations having nothing to contribute to science. You can contribute to science, without producing science. Older generations can produce science, and the younger can contribute. With that in mind, I would go with: Unfit (adj.) not of the necessary quality or standard to meet a particular purpose. Which is implemented like this: ..such poor educational system produces scientifically sterileunfit generations, able just to regurgitate Alternatively, you can look for a metaphor that relates to what you want to mean. Example: a car with an empty tank (i.e. not able to produce) can still be refilled and get back to running (i.e. might have something to contribute). However, a broken car cannot run anyway. So these generations in your case, are like the broken car or a car without an engine. ..such poor educational system produces scientifically sterile generationscars without engines, able just to regurgitate Example: Cristiano Ronaldo in the final match in Euro 2016 got injured (i.e. not able to produce) but he still was able to support the team. However, if CR7 had irreparably injured his feet (knock on wood 3x) he would not play football again (i.e. neither contribute nor produce). So, these generations in your case, are like a football athelete without feet, scientifically speaking. ..such poor educational system produces scientifically sterile generationsfootball atheletes without feet, able just to regurgitate","output":"Sterile (adj.) not able to produce children or young I believe \"scientifically sterile generations\" means that those generations are not able to produce science. That is not exactly the same as those generations having nothing to contribute to science. You can contribute to science, without producing science. Older generations can produce science, and the younger can contribute. With that in mind, I would go with: Unfit (adj.) not of the necessary quality or standard to meet a particular purpose. Which is implemented like this: ..such poor educational system produces scientifically sterileunfit generations, able just to regurgitate Alternatively, you can look for a metaphor that relates to what you want to mean. Example: a car with an empty tank (i.e. not able to produce) can still be refilled and get back to running (i.e. might have something to contribute). However, a broken car cannot run anyway. So these generations in your case, are like the broken car or a car without an engine. ..such poor educational system produces scientifically sterile generationscars without engines, able just to regurgitate Example: Cristiano Ronaldo in the final match in Euro 2016 got injured (i.e. not able to produce) but he still was able to support the team. However, if CR7 had irreparably injured his feet (knock on wood 3x) he would not play football again (i.e. neither contribute nor produce). So, these generations in your case, are like a football athelete without feet, scientifically speaking. ..such poor educational system produces scientifically sterile generationsfootball atheletes without feet, able just to regurgitate"}
{"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\nQuestion: I read this post: http:\/\/answers.onstartups.com\/questions\/40480\/how-much-traffic-is-necessary-to-generate-1000-per-month-in-advertising-revenue Quote I previously had a real estate listings site and was generating around $1500 mth with about 3000 unique users per day. Content was essentially syndicated but as Google changed algorithm the traffic went through the floor. Now my question: The expression \"went through the floor\", in this context, what does it mean, collapse or explode ? I suppose collapse, since the floor is at the bottom, but with expressions, one never knows for certain...","question":"Question: I read this post: http:\/\/answers.onstartups.com\/questions\/40480\/how-much-traffic-is-necessary-to-generate-1000-per-month-in-advertising-revenue Quote I previously had a real estate listings site and was generating around $1500 mth with about 3000 unique users per day. Content was essentially syndicated but as Google changed algorithm the traffic went through the floor. Now my question: The expression \"went through the floor\", in this context, what does it mean, collapse or explode ? I suppose collapse, since the floor is at the bottom, but with expressions, one never knows for certain...","answer":"Yes, it means to collapse, or go way down, or whatever. Contrast with \"through the roof\". I can't find a reference but I'm pretty sure the expression originated in the financial markets, wherein a seller or regulator would set a price floor on a commodity or security, and if the value of said commodity fell below the floor, it was very undervalued and no one would buy it.","output":"Yes, it means to collapse, or go way down, or whatever. Contrast with \"through the roof\". I can't find a reference but I'm pretty sure the expression originated in the financial markets, wherein a seller or regulator would set a price floor on a commodity or security, and if the value of said commodity fell below the floor, it was very undervalued and no one would buy it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs this sentence weird? Many of the reviews of manuscript for publication I wrote during the PhD program have been highly evaluated by senior lab members and my advisor. Couple of things underlying the sentence: 1. I wrote those reviews during my PhD program They were reviews of manuscripts submitted for publication Other senior lab members and my advisor (from the lab where I followed the PhD program) liked some of the reviews I wrote It is for a formal email. Should I use laboratory instead? But I feel that will make the sentence even longer...","question":"Is this sentence weird? Many of the reviews of manuscript for publication I wrote during the PhD program have been highly evaluated by senior lab members and my advisor. Couple of things underlying the sentence: 1. I wrote those reviews during my PhD program They were reviews of manuscripts submitted for publication Other senior lab members and my advisor (from the lab where I followed the PhD program) liked some of the reviews I wrote It is for a formal email. Should I use laboratory instead? But I feel that will make the sentence even longer...","answer":"There are some minor errors of diction and idiom: Reviews is ambiguous, because at first encounter it may suggest published reviews; you might better say assessments or something similar. Manuscripts for publication go to the printer; what you probably mean is manuscripts submitted for publication. The PhD program is the program offered by your department or laboratory; what you probably mean is during my PhD studies. Have been highly evaluated by would be better expressed as received high evaluations from, if in fact they were formally evaluated; if what you mean is merely that they were praised by senior lab members and your advisor, FumbleFingers' were highly regarded by is more appropriate. But there are more important problems. First, your placement of modifying phrases and clauses is confusing. When I first read this I took it to mean that: During your PhD studies you wrote manuscript(s) for publication, and The reviews of these by senior lab members and your advisor gave your manuscripts high evaluations. You have to be very careful when you pile up phrases this way. Moreover, it is not at all clear what manuscripts you were reviewing, or for whom. Did your advisor and colleagues solicit your opinion of manuscripts they were planning to submit for publication? That itself is very strong evidence of how highly they valued your opinion. Or were you acting as reader for a journal? If the latter, for what journal?\u2014that is, to my mind, more important (and impressive) than your colleagues\u2019 opinions, unless they also constituted the journal\u2019s editorial staff.","output":"There are some minor errors of diction and idiom: Reviews is ambiguous, because at first encounter it may suggest published reviews; you might better say assessments or something similar. Manuscripts for publication go to the printer; what you probably mean is manuscripts submitted for publication. The PhD program is the program offered by your department or laboratory; what you probably mean is during my PhD studies. Have been highly evaluated by would be better expressed as received high evaluations from, if in fact they were formally evaluated; if what you mean is merely that they were praised by senior lab members and your advisor, FumbleFingers' were highly regarded by is more appropriate. But there are more important problems. First, your placement of modifying phrases and clauses is confusing. When I first read this I took it to mean that: During your PhD studies you wrote manuscript(s) for publication, and The reviews of these by senior lab members and your advisor gave your manuscripts high evaluations. You have to be very careful when you pile up phrases this way. Moreover, it is not at all clear what manuscripts you were reviewing, or for whom. Did your advisor and colleagues solicit your opinion of manuscripts they were planning to submit for publication? That itself is very strong evidence of how highly they valued your opinion. Or were you acting as reader for a journal? If the latter, for what journal?\u2014that is, to my mind, more important (and impressive) than your colleagues\u2019 opinions, unless they also constituted the journal\u2019s editorial staff."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe teacher's guide to the coursebook 'New Total English' pre-intermediate suggests using backache, earache, stomachache and toothache without the indefinite article since these are uncountable nouns. I am somehow certain that I have come across these words without any articles in other textbooks. My question is how stringent\/rigid the rule is?","question":"The teacher's guide to the coursebook 'New Total English' pre-intermediate suggests using backache, earache, stomachache and toothache without the indefinite article since these are uncountable nouns. I am somehow certain that I have come across these words without any articles in other textbooks. My question is how stringent\/rigid the rule is?","answer":"Right off the bat as a native English speaker, I'd say it's much more common for people to use the indefinite article with these terms. Yes, it's technically correct to use them without any article, but again, it depends on what you want to emphasise. Saying \"I have backache\" sounds a lot more like you've had it for a long time (a chronic problem). Saying \"I have a backache\" sounds like it's just started and that it will likely go away in a short amount of time. There's also the issue of whether to use these words with a space before \"ache\" and how that will change this rule. I would say if you do this, it would make it more correct to use the indefinite article. If you keep them as one word, it's technically more correct to not use it. However, in reality, these rules are not really followed from what I see, and people tend to use the article in all cases.","output":"Right off the bat as a native English speaker, I'd say it's much more common for people to use the indefinite article with these terms. Yes, it's technically correct to use them without any article, but again, it depends on what you want to emphasise. Saying \"I have backache\" sounds a lot more like you've had it for a long time (a chronic problem). Saying \"I have a backache\" sounds like it's just started and that it will likely go away in a short amount of time. There's also the issue of whether to use these words with a space before \"ache\" and how that will change this rule. I would say if you do this, it would make it more correct to use the indefinite article. If you keep them as one word, it's technically more correct to not use it. However, in reality, these rules are not really followed from what I see, and people tend to use the article in all cases."}
{"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nA very popular phrase it is Bend it like Beckham. I searched it on the Internet but found no satisfactory answers.They say that it's about bending a pathway of the ball like Beckham and also the rules in the life! But do you bend a pathway of a ball? Or you spin it as in cricket? Am I missing something?","question":"A very popular phrase it is Bend it like Beckham. I searched it on the Internet but found no satisfactory answers.They say that it's about bending a pathway of the ball like Beckham and also the rules in the life! But do you bend a pathway of a ball? Or you spin it as in cricket? Am I missing something?","answer":"In football (soccer), you bend or curl the ball if you give it a spin to ensure that it doesn\u2019t fly straight but curves during flight. The movie Bend It Like Beckham1 picks up the term, based to the famous player\u2019s ability to score with this technique. As it has become somewhat famous, the term is sometimes used as metaphor for bending the rules and expectations of society, referring to the protagonists\u2019 determination to reach their dreams of playing professional football (soccer) as females. 1 And in the movie title, bend gives a nice alliteration, which curl wouldn\u2019t.","output":"In football (soccer), you bend or curl the ball if you give it a spin to ensure that it doesn\u2019t fly straight but curves during flight. The movie Bend It Like Beckham1 picks up the term, based to the famous player\u2019s ability to score with this technique. As it has become somewhat famous, the term is sometimes used as metaphor for bending the rules and expectations of society, referring to the protagonists\u2019 determination to reach their dreams of playing professional football (soccer) as females. 1 And in the movie title, bend gives a nice alliteration, which curl wouldn\u2019t."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm looking for a word or phrase somewhere between telling and asking someone to do something. Example 1: xyz clean up your workspace when done Example 2: I needed to xyz the programmer to modify the program.","question":"I'm looking for a word or phrase somewhere between telling and asking someone to do something. Example 1: xyz clean up your workspace when done Example 2: I needed to xyz the programmer to modify the program.","answer":"English is absolutely full of alternatives for polite demands! English seems to be to be one of the most understated languages whereby a polite request is in fact a demand in disguise. Example 1 I would really appreciate your cleaning your workspace I would be grateful if you could clean your workspace when you are finished We should all clean our workspaces at the end of the day It is good practice to clean your workspace when complete It would please me greatly if you could clean your workspace when your task is complete Would you mind awfully, cleaning up your workspace? (and the meaning of \"awfully\" in this case is \"very\", as in would you mind a lot) Example 2 Do you think it would be a good idea to modify the program to do xyz? Could you please modify the program as per the jira task? I would be grateful if you could modify the program by end of day tomorrow Do you need any help in modifying the program per the user feedback? When do you think the xyz modification will be complete? Please could you raise the xyz modification to the top of your priority list The xyz change to the program is important, please you could you work on it as a priority?","output":"English is absolutely full of alternatives for polite demands! English seems to be to be one of the most understated languages whereby a polite request is in fact a demand in disguise. Example 1 I would really appreciate your cleaning your workspace I would be grateful if you could clean your workspace when you are finished We should all clean our workspaces at the end of the day It is good practice to clean your workspace when complete It would please me greatly if you could clean your workspace when your task is complete Would you mind awfully, cleaning up your workspace? (and the meaning of \"awfully\" in this case is \"very\", as in would you mind a lot) Example 2 Do you think it would be a good idea to modify the program to do xyz? Could you please modify the program as per the jira task? I would be grateful if you could modify the program by end of day tomorrow Do you need any help in modifying the program per the user feedback? When do you think the xyz modification will be complete? Please could you raise the xyz modification to the top of your priority list The xyz change to the program is important, please you could you work on it as a priority?"}
{"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":"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\nNot quite sure how to word this, but I'm looking for an idiom or phrase\/saying that describes when somebody who's done nothing to deserve it has hit a streak of bad luck. Wish I could be more descriptive, but that's about as well as I can elaborate on the idea.","question":"Not quite sure how to word this, but I'm looking for an idiom or phrase\/saying that describes when somebody who's done nothing to deserve it has hit a streak of bad luck. Wish I could be more descriptive, but that's about as well as I can elaborate on the idea.","answer":"Jinxed could refer to someone who is suffering a period of bad luck. jinxed jinx (j\u012dngks) n. 1. A person or thing that is believed to bring bad luck. 2. A condition or period of bad luck that appears to have been caused by a specific person or thing. However, this usage has connotations of being cursed, or having an extrinsic cause.","output":"Jinxed could refer to someone who is suffering a period of bad luck. jinxed jinx (j\u012dngks) n. 1. A person or thing that is believed to bring bad luck. 2. A condition or period of bad luck that appears to have been caused by a specific person or thing. However, this usage has connotations of being cursed, or having an extrinsic cause."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat do you call government inspectors who inspect food establishments (like cafes, food courts etc.) on whether they follow legally mandatory food safety guidelines (it's clean, chefs wear gloves, no insects, etc.)? Each country, I assume, has its own official name for such agencies, but what is the generic term, what do you call those food safety inspectors and these official bodies generally?","question":"What do you call government inspectors who inspect food establishments (like cafes, food courts etc.) on whether they follow legally mandatory food safety guidelines (it's clean, chefs wear gloves, no insects, etc.)? Each country, I assume, has its own official name for such agencies, but what is the generic term, what do you call those food safety inspectors and these official bodies generally?","answer":"A person who does that is called a health inspector. It's defined by Collins Dictionary as 'a public employee who inspects places such as restaurants, shops, factories etc to make sure they are hygienic and do not pose any dangers to health'.","output":"A person who does that is called a health inspector. It's defined by Collins Dictionary as 'a public employee who inspects places such as restaurants, shops, factories etc to make sure they are hygienic and do not pose any dangers to health'."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI\u2019m looking for something similar to the Danish word tovholder (literal translation: rope holder) which means something like a micro-manager for a single specific task but without the negative connotation that the term micro-manager carries with it. What I would like to express is who is responsible for task X gets done today. Martin is (replacement for tovholder) for making sure the latest version gets deployed today.","question":"I\u2019m looking for something similar to the Danish word tovholder (literal translation: rope holder) which means something like a micro-manager for a single specific task but without the negative connotation that the term micro-manager carries with it. What I would like to express is who is responsible for task X gets done today. Martin is (replacement for tovholder) for making sure the latest version gets deployed today.","answer":"You could say \"Martin is spearheading getting the latest version deployed today.\" 2.b. The driving force in a given action, endeavor, or movement. 3. any person or thing that leads or initiates an [...] campaign [...] 2. any person, contingent, or force that leads an [...] undertaking [...] (All three quotes from the linked site, which was citing various other dictionaries - thus the odd numbering.) A slightly less common phrase could be \"Martin is the point man for making sure the latest version gets deployed today.\" Originally a military term (a lead soldier for a patrol, acting as lookout) it has entered the more common vernacular as a generic term for someone at the forefront of an issue. A similar use would be \"Martin is on point...\"","output":"You could say \"Martin is spearheading getting the latest version deployed today.\" 2.b. The driving force in a given action, endeavor, or movement. 3. any person or thing that leads or initiates an [...] campaign [...] 2. any person, contingent, or force that leads an [...] undertaking [...] (All three quotes from the linked site, which was citing various other dictionaries - thus the odd numbering.) A slightly less common phrase could be \"Martin is the point man for making sure the latest version gets deployed today.\" Originally a military term (a lead soldier for a patrol, acting as lookout) it has entered the more common vernacular as a generic term for someone at the forefront of an issue. A similar use would be \"Martin is on point...\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs this correct? The more you will ask them, the harder it will be. Should I use The more you ask them, the harder it will be instead?","question":"Is this correct? The more you will ask them, the harder it will be. Should I use The more you ask them, the harder it will be instead?","answer":"Will in that context is definitely not idiomatic, to the extent that it is, in fact, incorrect. In that construction, the first clause is always in the present tense because it brings the action into the present and then examines the probable consequences. The more you ask them, the harder it will be. The more you ask them, the less likely they are to do it. The more you learn, the more there is to forget. Edit I suppose I should add for completeness that the first clause can be in the past tense if you are reporting what has already happened, and its consequences. Because the consequences became apparent at the time, the second clause is in the past tense too: The more we asked them, the harder it became. The more we asked them, the less likely they were to do it. The more we learned, the more there was to forget.","output":"Will in that context is definitely not idiomatic, to the extent that it is, in fact, incorrect. In that construction, the first clause is always in the present tense because it brings the action into the present and then examines the probable consequences. The more you ask them, the harder it will be. The more you ask them, the less likely they are to do it. The more you learn, the more there is to forget. Edit I suppose I should add for completeness that the first clause can be in the past tense if you are reporting what has already happened, and its consequences. Because the consequences became apparent at the time, the second clause is in the past tense too: The more we asked them, the harder it became. The more we asked them, the less likely they were to do it. The more we learned, the more there was to forget."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"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'm not sure which of the following sentences is correct. Is the comma mandatory, optional or unnecessary? I've googled a bit about this topic, but I got confused. Our mapping contains 2000 words, which map to more than one lemma. or Our mapping contains 2000 words which map to more than one lemma. Context: In total, there are more than 2000 words. I've read Is it appropriate to put a comma before \"which\"? . If I understand the answers correctly, my \"which map to more than one lemma\" is a defining clause and no comma is required. But is it wrong to add one?","question":"I'm not sure which of the following sentences is correct. Is the comma mandatory, optional or unnecessary? I've googled a bit about this topic, but I got confused. Our mapping contains 2000 words, which map to more than one lemma. or Our mapping contains 2000 words which map to more than one lemma. Context: In total, there are more than 2000 words. I've read Is it appropriate to put a comma before \"which\"? . If I understand the answers correctly, my \"which map to more than one lemma\" is a defining clause and no comma is required. But is it wrong to add one?","answer":"Non-restrictive (non-defining): Our mapping contains 2000 words, which map to more than one lemma. Our mapping contains exactly 2000 words, and those just happen to map to more than one lemma. Restrictive (defining): Our mapping contains 2000 words which map to more than one lemma. Our mapping contains at least 2000 words because there are 2000 words all of which map to more than one lemma. (In AmE, \"that\" is preferred to \"which.\") Our mapping might contain more than 2000 words and if so, none, some, or all of them might map to more than one lemma. Two choices of meaning, two choices of punctuation (comma and no comma).","output":"Non-restrictive (non-defining): Our mapping contains 2000 words, which map to more than one lemma. Our mapping contains exactly 2000 words, and those just happen to map to more than one lemma. Restrictive (defining): Our mapping contains 2000 words which map to more than one lemma. Our mapping contains at least 2000 words because there are 2000 words all of which map to more than one lemma. (In AmE, \"that\" is preferred to \"which.\") Our mapping might contain more than 2000 words and if so, none, some, or all of them might map to more than one lemma. Two choices of meaning, two choices of punctuation (comma and no comma)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe context is: Just so you know, I got a bee up my ass about you two.","question":"The context is: Just so you know, I got a bee up my ass about you two.","answer":"It's a quaint\/inventive conflation of... have a bug up one's ass be very irascible and touchy (Source: dictionary.reference.com) and have a bee in one's bonnet be preoccupied or obsessed with something (Source: oxforddictionaries.com)","output":"It's a quaint\/inventive conflation of... have a bug up one's ass be very irascible and touchy (Source: dictionary.reference.com) and have a bee in one's bonnet be preoccupied or obsessed with something (Source: oxforddictionaries.com)"}
{"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\nAt a cursory glance, these two terms appear to be synonyms. But that would strike me as unusual since one is a prefixed form of the other. (Prefixes are used to modify a word in a specific and consistent way. As a result, the prefixed form of a word has a different meaning than the word.) \"Per-\" confers a quality of thoroughness or fullness. But in the context of ambulation, this doesn't seem like a significant modifier (to me). Am I wrong, or are \"ambulate\" and \"perambulate\" synonyms?","question":"At a cursory glance, these two terms appear to be synonyms. But that would strike me as unusual since one is a prefixed form of the other. (Prefixes are used to modify a word in a specific and consistent way. As a result, the prefixed form of a word has a different meaning than the word.) \"Per-\" confers a quality of thoroughness or fullness. But in the context of ambulation, this doesn't seem like a significant modifier (to me). Am I wrong, or are \"ambulate\" and \"perambulate\" synonyms?","answer":"I'd say you are wrong. To ambulate is to move by means of walking, parallel to the way brachiate means to move by means of swinging with your arms from hold to hold. To perambulate is to walk through, or to traverse, something. Perambulate therefore can take an object to be traversed. You can \"ambulate idly all afternoon\", but rather than \"perambulating idly all afternoon\"; you should \"perambulate the yard idly\", or some such thing.","output":"I'd say you are wrong. To ambulate is to move by means of walking, parallel to the way brachiate means to move by means of swinging with your arms from hold to hold. To perambulate is to walk through, or to traverse, something. Perambulate therefore can take an object to be traversed. You can \"ambulate idly all afternoon\", but rather than \"perambulating idly all afternoon\"; you should \"perambulate the yard idly\", or some such thing."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI looked up relax in various English dictionaries and it is always listed as a verb only, the noun being relaxation. However in my mother tongue (Italian) relax is normally used as a noun. Is this just one more case of misusing a foreign term or are there situations where it is possible to use relax as a noun in English too?","question":"I looked up relax in various English dictionaries and it is always listed as a verb only, the noun being relaxation. However in my mother tongue (Italian) relax is normally used as a noun. Is this just one more case of misusing a foreign term or are there situations where it is possible to use relax as a noun in English too?","answer":"No, it's strictly a verb. \"I'm relaxing\", \"you should relax\", \"he relaxed\", whatever. Saying \"I'm having a relax\" would typically be regarded as an invalid nouning.","output":"No, it's strictly a verb. \"I'm relaxing\", \"you should relax\", \"he relaxed\", whatever. Saying \"I'm having a relax\" would typically be regarded as an invalid nouning."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was writing an essay about fairness or appropriateness of taking older family members to retirement homes. Throughout the essay I had to refer to \"taking family member to retirement homes\" as \"this practice\" several times. For example I would say: Many people find this practice cruel and unfair. There are many merits to this practice. This practice can make things easier for both the families and the elderly. A closer look reveals many advantages for this practice. I have already looked up synonyms for practice in a few dictionaries. Words like habit, tradition, method, ... do not really fit. Are there any other words that I can use in these sentences to avoid the repetition of the word \"practice\"?","question":"I was writing an essay about fairness or appropriateness of taking older family members to retirement homes. Throughout the essay I had to refer to \"taking family member to retirement homes\" as \"this practice\" several times. For example I would say: Many people find this practice cruel and unfair. There are many merits to this practice. This practice can make things easier for both the families and the elderly. A closer look reveals many advantages for this practice. I have already looked up synonyms for practice in a few dictionaries. Words like habit, tradition, method, ... do not really fit. Are there any other words that I can use in these sentences to avoid the repetition of the word \"practice\"?","answer":"This course of action, works. You could also say \"convention\" when referring to the societal trend of depositing the elderly in institutions.","output":"This course of action, works. You could also say \"convention\" when referring to the societal trend of depositing the elderly in institutions."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhy isn't ecliptic a proper noun? There is only one, and it has a name. Example (context): ... the true Sun is not always exactly on the ecliptic for a hypothetical observer at Earth's center, but may be some arcseconds north or south of it.","question":"Why isn't ecliptic a proper noun? There is only one, and it has a name. Example (context): ... the true Sun is not always exactly on the ecliptic for a hypothetical observer at Earth's center, but may be some arcseconds north or south of it.","answer":"For the same reason that equator isn't a proper noun. Names for abstract concepts are seldom capitalized (unless they involve a person's name), unlike names for planets, comets, stars, and the like.","output":"For the same reason that equator isn't a proper noun. Names for abstract concepts are seldom capitalized (unless they involve a person's name), unlike names for planets, comets, stars, and the like."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs there a word\/term\/phrase that specifically describes people who work in think tanks or policy institutes (doing socioeconomic research)? \"Researchers\" don't work for me since academics and government employees can also be researchers. I am trying to distinguish between the different groups of people who attended a specific conference (one that broadly applied to all groups). The attendees included academics (meaning profs, PhD candidates, etc.), students, public policy analysts (meaning government policy makers), and think tanks \/ policy institutes. The parts in italics are just for the purposes of this post. As you can see, the last element is an odd one - it is basically referring to policy researchers in the private sector. But it doesn't fit. The first three elements are people but the last one is a body\/organization?","question":"Is there a word\/term\/phrase that specifically describes people who work in think tanks or policy institutes (doing socioeconomic research)? \"Researchers\" don't work for me since academics and government employees can also be researchers. I am trying to distinguish between the different groups of people who attended a specific conference (one that broadly applied to all groups). The attendees included academics (meaning profs, PhD candidates, etc.), students, public policy analysts (meaning government policy makers), and think tanks \/ policy institutes. The parts in italics are just for the purposes of this post. As you can see, the last element is an odd one - it is basically referring to policy researchers in the private sector. But it doesn't fit. The first three elements are people but the last one is a body\/organization?","answer":"The phrase I'd use is \"Research fellows at think tanks and policy institutes\". The job title \"Research fellow\" is current, but ambiguous, since a research fellow could be working at a university. So I clarify it with \"at think tanks...\". As Michael suggests, that could be shortened to \"Think-tank researchers\". As an alternative, you could say \"... public and independent policy analysts\". Or \"... and policy analysts from the public and private sectors\".","output":"The phrase I'd use is \"Research fellows at think tanks and policy institutes\". The job title \"Research fellow\" is current, but ambiguous, since a research fellow could be working at a university. So I clarify it with \"at think tanks...\". As Michael suggests, that could be shortened to \"Think-tank researchers\". As an alternative, you could say \"... public and independent policy analysts\". Or \"... and policy analysts from the public and private sectors\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAccording to various dictionaries, \u201cquery\u201d is a synonym for \u201cquestion mark\u201d, and \u201cbang\u201d is a synonym for \u201cexclamation mark\u201d. I\u2019m wondering how common these shorter forms are. I\u2019m a French speaker, and in French, only publishing professionals know the short names for those punctuation marks (\u201crog\u201d and \u201cclam\u201d, short for \u201cpoint d\u2019interrogation\u201d and \u201cpoint d\u2019exclamation\u201d), and you won\u2019t find them in dictionaries.","question":"According to various dictionaries, \u201cquery\u201d is a synonym for \u201cquestion mark\u201d, and \u201cbang\u201d is a synonym for \u201cexclamation mark\u201d. I\u2019m wondering how common these shorter forms are. I\u2019m a French speaker, and in French, only publishing professionals know the short names for those punctuation marks (\u201crog\u201d and \u201cclam\u201d, short for \u201cpoint d\u2019interrogation\u201d and \u201cpoint d\u2019exclamation\u201d), and you won\u2019t find them in dictionaries.","answer":"I\u2019ve seen it in ancient documents relating to programming. So a 60 year old software developer might figure out what you are talking about. Anyone else, no.","output":"I\u2019ve seen it in ancient documents relating to programming. So a 60 year old software developer might figure out what you are talking about. Anyone else, no."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI met this sentence. \"I'm sick\". \"Well, if you will eat so much, I'm not surprised.\" What is the difference when 'will' is left out? As 'will' means about future or doing sth not yet done, I can hardly guess what the sentence is meaning though I am used to the sentence without 'will'.","question":"I met this sentence. \"I'm sick\". \"Well, if you will eat so much, I'm not surprised.\" What is the difference when 'will' is left out? As 'will' means about future or doing sth not yet done, I can hardly guess what the sentence is meaning though I am used to the sentence without 'will'.","answer":"I think will means \"insist on\" or \"continue to\". So Well, if you continue to eat so much, I'm not surprised [that you get sick].","output":"I think will means \"insist on\" or \"continue to\". So Well, if you continue to eat so much, I'm not surprised [that you get sick]."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"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 am not a native speaker. I hope I have a more or less accurate understanding of what the phrase \"count your blessings\" means (\"not everything is bad, you should not really complain\", is that so?), but I am struggling to understand the literal meaning. I only know bless from the context of \"God bless monarch\/country\" and when someone sneezes, but I can't really connect that verb to the countable noun. What is the origin of the phrase \"count your blessings\"? Is it known when and in what context it was first used?","question":"I am not a native speaker. I hope I have a more or less accurate understanding of what the phrase \"count your blessings\" means (\"not everything is bad, you should not really complain\", is that so?), but I am struggling to understand the literal meaning. I only know bless from the context of \"God bless monarch\/country\" and when someone sneezes, but I can't really connect that verb to the countable noun. What is the origin of the phrase \"count your blessings\"? Is it known when and in what context it was first used?","answer":"To bless properly means to bestow favor on something, with a strong implication of divine favor and luck. Blessing is a straightforward verbal noun derived from that, and it indicates those things which one has received from others without deserving it, and again has a strong connotation of those things acquired by good luck or providence. So the phrase count your blessings is an invitation to reconsider all of the things that you have which are going well, all of the ways in which you have been blessed, rather than focusing on the negative aspects of your life. (The phrase \"God bless you\" following a sneeze is literally an invocation for God to bless the person who has sneezed, i.e. to protect them from disease and demonic influence. However, the phrase has become completely conventionalized, so a person saying it does not necessarily believe in God or demons.)","output":"To bless properly means to bestow favor on something, with a strong implication of divine favor and luck. Blessing is a straightforward verbal noun derived from that, and it indicates those things which one has received from others without deserving it, and again has a strong connotation of those things acquired by good luck or providence. So the phrase count your blessings is an invitation to reconsider all of the things that you have which are going well, all of the ways in which you have been blessed, rather than focusing on the negative aspects of your life. (The phrase \"God bless you\" following a sneeze is literally an invocation for God to bless the person who has sneezed, i.e. to protect them from disease and demonic influence. However, the phrase has become completely conventionalized, so a person saying it does not necessarily believe in God or demons.)"}
{"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\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"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\nWhen a user finishes an order on my website, what's the correct way? Your order is now complete. Your order is now completed.","question":"When a user finishes an order on my website, what's the correct way? Your order is now complete. Your order is now completed.","answer":"I prefer \"Your order is complete\"; the \"now\" doesn't add anything. The second sentence uses a present-tense verb with a past-tense adjective.","output":"I prefer \"Your order is complete\"; the \"now\" doesn't add anything. The second sentence uses a present-tense verb with a past-tense adjective."}
{"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":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI saw that \"foo\" has been used to name a lot of computer-related things. I wonder if foo has some meaning itself beyond computer science? what it means in computer science? how it should be used?","question":"I saw that \"foo\" has been used to name a lot of computer-related things. I wonder if foo has some meaning itself beyond computer science? what it means in computer science? how it should be used?","answer":"The Wikipedia entry for Foobar covers this pretty thoroughly (emphasis mine): The terms foobar, foo, bar, baz and qux are sometimes used as placeholder names (also referred to as metasyntactic variables) in computer programming or computer-related documentation. They have been used to name entities such as variables, functions, and commands whose purpose is unimportant and serve only to demonstrate a concept. The words themselves have no meaning in this usage. Foobar is sometimes used alone; foo, bar, and baz are sometimes used in that order, when multiple entities are needed. [...] The origins of the terms are not known with certainty, and several anecdotal theories have been advanced to identify them. Foobar may have derived from the military acronym FUBAR and gained popularity because it is pronounced the same. In this meaning it also can derive from the German word furchtbar, which means awful and terrible and described the circumstances of the Second World War. FOO is an abbreviation of Forward Observation Officer, a British Army term in use as early as the First World War. The etymology of foo is explored in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments 3092, which notes usage of foo in 1930s cartoons including The Daffy Doc (with Daffy Duck) and comic strips, especially Smokey Stover and Pogo. From there the term migrated into military slang, where it merged with FUBAR. \"Bar\" as the second term in the series may have developed in electronics, where a digital signal which is considered \"on\" with a negative or zero-voltage condition is identified with a horizontal bar over the signal label; the notation for an inverted signal foo would then be pronounced \"foo bar\". Bar may also be read as beyond all repair, which is how it is used in the acronym FUBAR. The use of foo in hacker and eventually in programming context may have begun in MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club (TMRC). In the complex model system there were scram switches located at numerous places around the room that could be thrown if something undesirable was about to occur, such as a train going full-bore at an obstruction. Another feature of the system was a digital clock on the dispatch board. When someone hit a scram switch the clock stopped and the display was replaced with the word \"FOO\"; at TMRC the scram switches are therefore called \"Foo switches\". Because of this an entry in the 1959 Dictionary of the TMRC Language went something like this: \"FOO: The first syllable of the misquoted sacred chant phrase 'foo mane padme hum.' Our first obligation is to keep the foo counters turning.\" One book describing the MIT train room describes two buttons by the door: labelled foo and bar. These were general purpose buttons and were often re-purposed for whatever fun idea the MIT hackers had at the time. Hence the adoption of foo and bar as general purpose variable names.","output":"The Wikipedia entry for Foobar covers this pretty thoroughly (emphasis mine): The terms foobar, foo, bar, baz and qux are sometimes used as placeholder names (also referred to as metasyntactic variables) in computer programming or computer-related documentation. They have been used to name entities such as variables, functions, and commands whose purpose is unimportant and serve only to demonstrate a concept. The words themselves have no meaning in this usage. Foobar is sometimes used alone; foo, bar, and baz are sometimes used in that order, when multiple entities are needed. [...] The origins of the terms are not known with certainty, and several anecdotal theories have been advanced to identify them. Foobar may have derived from the military acronym FUBAR and gained popularity because it is pronounced the same. In this meaning it also can derive from the German word furchtbar, which means awful and terrible and described the circumstances of the Second World War. FOO is an abbreviation of Forward Observation Officer, a British Army term in use as early as the First World War. The etymology of foo is explored in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments 3092, which notes usage of foo in 1930s cartoons including The Daffy Doc (with Daffy Duck) and comic strips, especially Smokey Stover and Pogo. From there the term migrated into military slang, where it merged with FUBAR. \"Bar\" as the second term in the series may have developed in electronics, where a digital signal which is considered \"on\" with a negative or zero-voltage condition is identified with a horizontal bar over the signal label; the notation for an inverted signal foo would then be pronounced \"foo bar\". Bar may also be read as beyond all repair, which is how it is used in the acronym FUBAR. The use of foo in hacker and eventually in programming context may have begun in MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club (TMRC). In the complex model system there were scram switches located at numerous places around the room that could be thrown if something undesirable was about to occur, such as a train going full-bore at an obstruction. Another feature of the system was a digital clock on the dispatch board. When someone hit a scram switch the clock stopped and the display was replaced with the word \"FOO\"; at TMRC the scram switches are therefore called \"Foo switches\". Because of this an entry in the 1959 Dictionary of the TMRC Language went something like this: \"FOO: The first syllable of the misquoted sacred chant phrase 'foo mane padme hum.' Our first obligation is to keep the foo counters turning.\" One book describing the MIT train room describes two buttons by the door: labelled foo and bar. These were general purpose buttons and were often re-purposed for whatever fun idea the MIT hackers had at the time. Hence the adoption of foo and bar as general purpose variable names."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI just got an interview and the email said \"We will call you at [a phone number that doesn't belong to me]\". Does the phone number here refer to to their phone number, or they just got my phone number wrong?","question":"I just got an interview and the email said \"We will call you at [a phone number that doesn't belong to me]\". Does the phone number here refer to to their phone number, or they just got my phone number wrong?","answer":"Typically (AmE), we use at to indicate the number receiving the call, and we use from to indicate the number making the call: We will call you at [your number]. Have a comment? Please call us at [company number]. We will call you from [interviewer's number]. We need to talk. Please call us from [your number]. In your example, it sounds like the phone number should be your number. It seems like a mistake and you should contact them to correct it.","output":"Typically (AmE), we use at to indicate the number receiving the call, and we use from to indicate the number making the call: We will call you at [your number]. Have a comment? Please call us at [company number]. We will call you from [interviewer's number]. We need to talk. Please call us from [your number]. In your example, it sounds like the phone number should be your number. It seems like a mistake and you should contact them to correct it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nTo such a question like \"What's this?\", can I answer simply \"A red pen\" or should I always say \"It's a red pen\"?","question":"To such a question like \"What's this?\", can I answer simply \"A red pen\" or should I always say \"It's a red pen\"?","answer":"It is correct to use a noun phrase \"A red pen\" in answer to such questions, except when a teacher specifically tells you to answer in \"A full sentence\". All the following are correct short responses. Who is the British Prime Minister? Boris Johnson Which chocolate do you want? The red one. How do you play violin? By practising. Why do you play violin? For fun When does the train leave? At two sharp.","output":"It is correct to use a noun phrase \"A red pen\" in answer to such questions, except when a teacher specifically tells you to answer in \"A full sentence\". All the following are correct short responses. Who is the British Prime Minister? Boris Johnson Which chocolate do you want? The red one. How do you play violin? By practising. Why do you play violin? For fun When does the train leave? At two sharp."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs the following sentence grammatically correct? It is moved from location A to B. If yes, then which tense is being used here? I'm not sure if a past tense can be followed by is.","question":"Is the following sentence grammatically correct? It is moved from location A to B. If yes, then which tense is being used here? I'm not sure if a past tense can be followed by is.","answer":"The sentence is purely grammatical. It is in passive voice. The sentence is: It is moved from location A to B by somebody. By somebody is implicit in this sentence. So if I change it into active voice, it becomes: Somebody moves it from location A to B. According the rule of voice change, if the active voice is in simple present, the passive voice changes into the following construction: Active voice: John makes a cup of tea. --> Passive voice: A cup of tea is made by John. You can check out the voice conversion rules on STUDYANDEXAM.COM (Passive Voice for All Tenses Rules)","output":"The sentence is purely grammatical. It is in passive voice. The sentence is: It is moved from location A to B by somebody. By somebody is implicit in this sentence. So if I change it into active voice, it becomes: Somebody moves it from location A to B. According the rule of voice change, if the active voice is in simple present, the passive voice changes into the following construction: Active voice: John makes a cup of tea. --> Passive voice: A cup of tea is made by John. You can check out the voice conversion rules on STUDYANDEXAM.COM (Passive Voice for All Tenses Rules)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it grammatically okay to say I am [..] instead of I am [article] [...] Example I am software developer Programming tag since my question actually is can I say 'I am developer'? I would love to upvote all your answers and comments since you are very helpful + polite\u00b9. Unfortunately I can't since I dont have enough rep. \u00b9 very uncommon for the bigger stackenchinge networks - IMHO","question":"Is it grammatically okay to say I am [..] instead of I am [article] [...] Example I am software developer Programming tag since my question actually is can I say 'I am developer'? I would love to upvote all your answers and comments since you are very helpful + polite\u00b9. Unfortunately I can't since I dont have enough rep. \u00b9 very uncommon for the bigger stackenchinge networks - IMHO","answer":"You can say \"I am (adjective)\" with no article: I am hungry. I am late. I am tired. But if you are using a noun, then an article is required: I am a software developer. I am the boss. And the article is still required if you are using a noun phrase that includes adjectives modifying the noun: I am a hungry, tired boy.","output":"You can say \"I am (adjective)\" with no article: I am hungry. I am late. I am tired. But if you are using a noun, then an article is required: I am a software developer. I am the boss. And the article is still required if you are using a noun phrase that includes adjectives modifying the noun: I am a hungry, tired boy."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCan I say \"the task spans from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM\"? The dictionary says \"span\" also means \"a period of time\", so it should be OK, but I'd like a confirmation.","question":"Can I say \"the task spans from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM\"? The dictionary says \"span\" also means \"a period of time\", so it should be OK, but I'd like a confirmation.","answer":"Span is ok, but \"from\" is not. \"Span\" is not generally used with \"from\". \"The bridge spans the Columbia River\" or \"The assignment spans 2 months.\" So you could say \"the task spans one working day (8am to 5pm)\" or \"the task runs from ...\" or \"the task extends from ...\" Also, be aware that you are using span as a verb here, not a noun - see definition 13: to extend or reach over (space or time).","output":"Span is ok, but \"from\" is not. \"Span\" is not generally used with \"from\". \"The bridge spans the Columbia River\" or \"The assignment spans 2 months.\" So you could say \"the task spans one working day (8am to 5pm)\" or \"the task runs from ...\" or \"the task extends from ...\" Also, be aware that you are using span as a verb here, not a noun - see definition 13: to extend or reach over (space or time)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\"I think I've got a good idea of what's been going on,\" said Professor McGonagall. \"It doesn't take a genius to work it out. You fed Draco Malfoy some cock-and-bull story about a dragon, trying to get him out of bed and into trouble. I've already caught him. I suppose you think it's funny that Longbottom here heard the story and believed it, too?\" (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) The bold phrase seems to say about the intention of the action in main clause. Can a participial construction denote the meaning?","question":"\"I think I've got a good idea of what's been going on,\" said Professor McGonagall. \"It doesn't take a genius to work it out. You fed Draco Malfoy some cock-and-bull story about a dragon, trying to get him out of bed and into trouble. I've already caught him. I suppose you think it's funny that Longbottom here heard the story and believed it, too?\" (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) The bold phrase seems to say about the intention of the action in main clause. Can a participial construction denote the meaning?","answer":"Firstly, let's clarify what we mean by the term... a participial phrase is always used as an adjective phrase to modify a noun or pronoun. It includes the participle together with its modifiers, objects, or predicate words. And here are the first few few examples from that link... Having been on the road for four days, the Todds were exhausted. That hymn, sung by many generations of churchgoers, is my favorite. Climbing slowly, we approached the top of the hill. Surprised by my question, Mrs. Osmond blushed. Note that in all cases, the participial phrase provides additional information that could grammatically (and usually logically) be omitted. But other than that there's no particular restriction on the kind of information it provides, or how it relates to the noun it modifies (the Todds, that hymn, us, Mrs. Osmond). Although examples #1 and #4 don't actually embody \"intention\", they do explain why the main clause arises. And #3 could have been Hoping for a better view, we climbed to the top of the hill, in which case rather than saying how we climbed, the participial phrase would convey intention (i.e. - why we did it). OP's example explains why [the boys?] fed Draco Malfoy a cock-and-bull story. Perfectly ordinary.","output":"Firstly, let's clarify what we mean by the term... a participial phrase is always used as an adjective phrase to modify a noun or pronoun. It includes the participle together with its modifiers, objects, or predicate words. And here are the first few few examples from that link... Having been on the road for four days, the Todds were exhausted. That hymn, sung by many generations of churchgoers, is my favorite. Climbing slowly, we approached the top of the hill. Surprised by my question, Mrs. Osmond blushed. Note that in all cases, the participial phrase provides additional information that could grammatically (and usually logically) be omitted. But other than that there's no particular restriction on the kind of information it provides, or how it relates to the noun it modifies (the Todds, that hymn, us, Mrs. Osmond). Although examples #1 and #4 don't actually embody \"intention\", they do explain why the main clause arises. And #3 could have been Hoping for a better view, we climbed to the top of the hill, in which case rather than saying how we climbed, the participial phrase would convey intention (i.e. - why we did it). OP's example explains why [the boys?] fed Draco Malfoy a cock-and-bull story. Perfectly ordinary."}
{"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\nIs it possible to use the verb \"to do\" when you are referring to feelings that, at least hypothetically, you could control, like in the phrases below: I admit I have been a bit jealous, but you would do the same if you were married to a woman and everywhere you go, there are always a lot of men trying to get her attention. and I won't deny that I'm feeling a bit nostalgic lately, but you will probably do the same when you get to my age.","question":"Is it possible to use the verb \"to do\" when you are referring to feelings that, at least hypothetically, you could control, like in the phrases below: I admit I have been a bit jealous, but you would do the same if you were married to a woman and everywhere you go, there are always a lot of men trying to get her attention. and I won't deny that I'm feeling a bit nostalgic lately, but you will probably do the same when you get to my age.","answer":"In the way I see it, is not about feelings, is about conditional or hypothetical situations, comparing to someone else. \"If I were you, I would do the same for her\" \"If you win the lottery, I will do the same as you, buying it everyday\"","output":"In the way I see it, is not about feelings, is about conditional or hypothetical situations, comparing to someone else. \"If I were you, I would do the same for her\" \"If you win the lottery, I will do the same as you, buying it everyday\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhich of these sentences is the correct one? I still not speak Russian I still don't speak Russian? Even though normally I know that verbs that describe usual or routine things get the structure of present simple, in this case(?) I have doubt that when using \"still\" it is like a \"modal verb\", but I'm not sure.","question":"Which of these sentences is the correct one? I still not speak Russian I still don't speak Russian? Even though normally I know that verbs that describe usual or routine things get the structure of present simple, in this case(?) I have doubt that when using \"still\" it is like a \"modal verb\", but I'm not sure.","answer":"Negative phrases are most commonly formed with the auxiliary verb \"do\" in the negative: \"do not \". Since 'speak' is the verb that you want to use, it needs to be preceded by \"do not\" (or \"don't\"), regardless of the other qualifiers like \"still\". I still don't speak Russian. (BTW, while it likely means you are unable to speak Russian, it can also mean that you are unwilling to speak it) There are cases when a verb can be followed by \"not\" to make a negative, but those are few. For instance, \"know\" can be followed by \"not\": I know not what to do. but it's mostly artistic, bookish way of saying \"I don't know...\"","output":"Negative phrases are most commonly formed with the auxiliary verb \"do\" in the negative: \"do not \". Since 'speak' is the verb that you want to use, it needs to be preceded by \"do not\" (or \"don't\"), regardless of the other qualifiers like \"still\". I still don't speak Russian. (BTW, while it likely means you are unable to speak Russian, it can also mean that you are unwilling to speak it) There are cases when a verb can be followed by \"not\" to make a negative, but those are few. For instance, \"know\" can be followed by \"not\": I know not what to do. but it's mostly artistic, bookish way of saying \"I don't know...\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe word risk is used to describe a situation in which there are several possible outcomes each entailing a possible loss, and one is not certain as to which of the outcomes will happen. What I want is an opposite of the word risk, which still describes a situation in which there are several possible outcomes and one is uncertain as to which of the outcomes will happen, but this time, each outcomes entails a gain instead of a loss. If you look for the antonyms of risk, you get words like security, safety, which I don't think entail the uncertainty as to the outcome.","question":"The word risk is used to describe a situation in which there are several possible outcomes each entailing a possible loss, and one is not certain as to which of the outcomes will happen. What I want is an opposite of the word risk, which still describes a situation in which there are several possible outcomes and one is uncertain as to which of the outcomes will happen, but this time, each outcomes entails a gain instead of a loss. If you look for the antonyms of risk, you get words like security, safety, which I don't think entail the uncertainty as to the outcome.","answer":"Opportunity is another one. Antonymous meaning is evident in phrases like: \"risks and opportunities\". Yourdictionary lists these synonyms for opportunity: chance, occasion, suitable circumstance, juncture, opening, excuse, happening, contingency, event, befalling, probability, fitness, fortuity, good fortune, luck, hap, fair go, break, even break, shot; some of these have positive connotation and might also apply.","output":"Opportunity is another one. Antonymous meaning is evident in phrases like: \"risks and opportunities\". Yourdictionary lists these synonyms for opportunity: chance, occasion, suitable circumstance, juncture, opening, excuse, happening, contingency, event, befalling, probability, fitness, fortuity, good fortune, luck, hap, fair go, break, even break, shot; some of these have positive connotation and might also apply."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\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":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey walk every day","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They walked every day"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\u200b\u200bIs there any idiom or proverb for recommending someone to end their relationship\/ friendship\/ partnership with somebody whose behaviors or actions seem toxic, harmful, and thus really intolerable? Like a relationship in which: the wife is paranoid and controls her husband continuously and makes the life miserable for him. the man is jobless and a drug addict who beats his partner once in a while and asks her to give him money to buy the drugs. We Iranians use a (figurative) proverb that says: \"(Just) pull out the tooth that aches and throw it away\" It implies that there is no need to tolerate this pain, (if you have tried all the ways for reducing or removing that pain, but they haven't worked,) just get rid of it; even though that \"tooth\" is part of your body (so you like it and thus it is hard for you to lose it). We use this proverb when we want to recommend someone to end a painful, harmful, and useless relationship or friendship and not to tolerate it any more. Like : Why don't you break up with him? He is just a pain on your neck and sooner or later would ruin your life; as the proverb says you'd better just pull out the tooth that aches (= this painful relationship) and throw it away (=end it). There is no use in putting up with this relationship. I have found \"better cut the shoe than pinch the foot\" in some \"Persian to English\" books as the equivalent for this proverb; does it have the same connotation with that Persian proverb?","question":"\u200b\u200bIs there any idiom or proverb for recommending someone to end their relationship\/ friendship\/ partnership with somebody whose behaviors or actions seem toxic, harmful, and thus really intolerable? Like a relationship in which: the wife is paranoid and controls her husband continuously and makes the life miserable for him. the man is jobless and a drug addict who beats his partner once in a while and asks her to give him money to buy the drugs. We Iranians use a (figurative) proverb that says: \"(Just) pull out the tooth that aches and throw it away\" It implies that there is no need to tolerate this pain, (if you have tried all the ways for reducing or removing that pain, but they haven't worked,) just get rid of it; even though that \"tooth\" is part of your body (so you like it and thus it is hard for you to lose it). We use this proverb when we want to recommend someone to end a painful, harmful, and useless relationship or friendship and not to tolerate it any more. Like : Why don't you break up with him? He is just a pain on your neck and sooner or later would ruin your life; as the proverb says you'd better just pull out the tooth that aches (= this painful relationship) and throw it away (=end it). There is no use in putting up with this relationship. I have found \"better cut the shoe than pinch the foot\" in some \"Persian to English\" books as the equivalent for this proverb; does it have the same connotation with that Persian proverb?","answer":"Consider to cut somebody loose to get rid of or release someone or something [The Free Dictionary] USAGE The husband cut loose his nagging wife. Posting from Mobile web during travel. Excuse formating","output":"Consider to cut somebody loose to get rid of or release someone or something [The Free Dictionary] USAGE The husband cut loose his nagging wife. Posting from Mobile web during travel. Excuse formating"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the grammatically correct form for this sentence? I would try(again) if I think it works.","question":"What is the grammatically correct form for this sentence? I would try(again) if I think it works.","answer":"Depends on what idea you want to convey. Conditional: If I thought it worked, I would try again. Which, in a way, means that you won't try again because you don't think it works. For instance, in a discussion with a friend: Why are you not trying again dude ? Trust me, If I thought it worked, I would try again. (Note: in an oral discussion, you could even emphasize would in order to better convey the idea that \"in an hypothetical world where I thought it would be possible, I would indeed try again). Future: I will try again if I think it works. Takes place in the future. If you happen to think it could work in the near future, then you'll definitely try it again. For more read on the subject, see: Sequence of tenses","output":"Depends on what idea you want to convey. Conditional: If I thought it worked, I would try again. Which, in a way, means that you won't try again because you don't think it works. For instance, in a discussion with a friend: Why are you not trying again dude ? Trust me, If I thought it worked, I would try again. (Note: in an oral discussion, you could even emphasize would in order to better convey the idea that \"in an hypothetical world where I thought it would be possible, I would indeed try again). Future: I will try again if I think it works. Takes place in the future. If you happen to think it could work in the near future, then you'll definitely try it again. For more read on the subject, see: Sequence of tenses"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was in a chat conversation with a close friend and, in quickly swiping over my keyword, made a typo, which reads: I am off the opinion we should inform him. What I meant was: I am of the opinion we should inform him. but she interpreted the negative meaning out of it. Her interpretation was that: We shouldn't inform him. because there was 'off', which she believed would negate the whole sentence. So my questions are: Is she right in her interpretation? Can the 'off' in I am off the opinion. negate the whole sentence? If so, in oral communication, how do I make out if the speaker is referring to 'of' or 'off'? I tried to Google it without luck. I could not find anything that would support her argument, nor anything that would prove she was wrong. May be a native English speaker can help with this problem.","question":"I was in a chat conversation with a close friend and, in quickly swiping over my keyword, made a typo, which reads: I am off the opinion we should inform him. What I meant was: I am of the opinion we should inform him. but she interpreted the negative meaning out of it. Her interpretation was that: We shouldn't inform him. because there was 'off', which she believed would negate the whole sentence. So my questions are: Is she right in her interpretation? Can the 'off' in I am off the opinion. negate the whole sentence? If so, in oral communication, how do I make out if the speaker is referring to 'of' or 'off'? I tried to Google it without luck. I could not find anything that would support her argument, nor anything that would prove she was wrong. May be a native English speaker can help with this problem.","answer":"\"Off the opinion\" is not idiomatic. If someone wrote that they were off some opinion, many native speakers would be inclined to seek clarification unless the correspondent was prone to odd phrasings or had great facility with metalepsis. Nevertheless, we can read your question as asking what it would mean if the friend considered your use of \u201coff\u201d as intentional. The rest of this answer proceeds on that basis. Here's the natural sense of your use of \u201coff\u201d, albeit figuratively in your case: off preposition 3 So as to be removed or separated from. \u2018threatening to tear the door off its hinges\u2019 - ODO Your friend is correct that an intentional use of \u201coff the opinion\u201d would be understood as a contrast to \u201cof the opinion\u201d. The sense is that you were previously of a particular opinion, but you are now distancing yourself from that opinion. You also asked about how to distinguish between \"of the opinion\" and \"off the opinion\" in speech. The former is idiomatic and the latter is the marked form, so you can expect that if someone wanted to use \"off\" in that manner, they'd emphasise the word - perhaps saying \"off\" slightly louder than expected, holding the word a little longer than expected, leaving a slight pause after the word, or even spelling it out: \"I am off the opinion, oh-eff-eff, ...\". The enunciation might be nuanced but the human ear is remarkably capable of picking out such emphases, especially in a conversation between native speakers.","output":"\"Off the opinion\" is not idiomatic. If someone wrote that they were off some opinion, many native speakers would be inclined to seek clarification unless the correspondent was prone to odd phrasings or had great facility with metalepsis. Nevertheless, we can read your question as asking what it would mean if the friend considered your use of \u201coff\u201d as intentional. The rest of this answer proceeds on that basis. Here's the natural sense of your use of \u201coff\u201d, albeit figuratively in your case: off preposition 3 So as to be removed or separated from. \u2018threatening to tear the door off its hinges\u2019 - ODO Your friend is correct that an intentional use of \u201coff the opinion\u201d would be understood as a contrast to \u201cof the opinion\u201d. The sense is that you were previously of a particular opinion, but you are now distancing yourself from that opinion. You also asked about how to distinguish between \"of the opinion\" and \"off the opinion\" in speech. The former is idiomatic and the latter is the marked form, so you can expect that if someone wanted to use \"off\" in that manner, they'd emphasise the word - perhaps saying \"off\" slightly louder than expected, holding the word a little longer than expected, leaving a slight pause after the word, or even spelling it out: \"I am off the opinion, oh-eff-eff, ...\". The enunciation might be nuanced but the human ear is remarkably capable of picking out such emphases, especially in a conversation between native speakers."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am wondering should I always use a comma before using 'such that' or not? sentence 1 , such that sentence 2. More clearly, I just wrote the following sentences in order to lighten the point, whereas I normally want to know the general idea of it. Please leave the kitchen door open [,] such that they can come in from the garden. It certainly is possible to adapt these new concepts [,] such that they can also handle more complex tasks. Additionally, I leave out the comma in such sentences.","question":"I am wondering should I always use a comma before using 'such that' or not? sentence 1 , such that sentence 2. More clearly, I just wrote the following sentences in order to lighten the point, whereas I normally want to know the general idea of it. Please leave the kitchen door open [,] such that they can come in from the garden. It certainly is possible to adapt these new concepts [,] such that they can also handle more complex tasks. Additionally, I leave out the comma in such sentences.","answer":"This problem has to do with the use of commas, and not so much with the phrase \"such that\". \"Such that\" is considered equal to \"so that\" in meaning, but \"so that\" is more common and preferred. \"Such that\" is really formal. Commas are usually used to separate independent parts of a sentence. Because of the dependence that \"such that\" and \"so that\" have on the phrase before it, the comma is not used there. Now, some people like to put commas where they pause in speaking in order to separate ideas. And this is only correct if it is truly separating two ideas, and not just to add a pause. Adding a pause in speech to separate ideas would be the only correct reason to put a comma before \"such that\". Putting a comma before \"such that\" and \"so that\" isn't wrong, but it is unnecessary.","output":"This problem has to do with the use of commas, and not so much with the phrase \"such that\". \"Such that\" is considered equal to \"so that\" in meaning, but \"so that\" is more common and preferred. \"Such that\" is really formal. Commas are usually used to separate independent parts of a sentence. Because of the dependence that \"such that\" and \"so that\" have on the phrase before it, the comma is not used there. Now, some people like to put commas where they pause in speaking in order to separate ideas. And this is only correct if it is truly separating two ideas, and not just to add a pause. Adding a pause in speech to separate ideas would be the only correct reason to put a comma before \"such that\". Putting a comma before \"such that\" and \"so that\" isn't wrong, but it is unnecessary."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"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 wondering whether English has something beyond its superlative degree. In my language we call that \"t\u00falz\u00f3fok\", it literally translates to \"exaggerative degree.\" I'm wondering because I often hear and read phrases where the much more is used before the comparative, e.g. much more stronger but this is grammatically incorrect. Still, whenever I hear or read something like this, I can't help but think of our \"t\u00falz\u00f3f\u00f3k\" and how people who use a phrase like this may have a similar intention, they may want to exaggerate. I don't know however if that's the case or if it's just something some people do as a habit and without any particular reason. So, does English have an actual, non-arbitrary way of exaggerating adjectives in a way which is comparable to the superlative, or if it doesn't, has it ever had anything similar?","question":"I'm wondering whether English has something beyond its superlative degree. In my language we call that \"t\u00falz\u00f3fok\", it literally translates to \"exaggerative degree.\" I'm wondering because I often hear and read phrases where the much more is used before the comparative, e.g. much more stronger but this is grammatically incorrect. Still, whenever I hear or read something like this, I can't help but think of our \"t\u00falz\u00f3f\u00f3k\" and how people who use a phrase like this may have a similar intention, they may want to exaggerate. I don't know however if that's the case or if it's just something some people do as a habit and without any particular reason. So, does English have an actual, non-arbitrary way of exaggerating adjectives in a way which is comparable to the superlative, or if it doesn't, has it ever had anything similar?","answer":"I found this pretty self-explanatory example of a \"whimsical\" usage that would be comprehensible to most native speakers even if they'd never come across it before... \u201cWanna go get some ice cream? I'm buying!\u201d asks Jazmun. \u201cSure.\u201d \u201cYou know what?\u201d asks Jazmun. \u201cWhat?\u201d \u201cYou are my best...no, my bestest friend.\u201d \u201cYou are mine, too, little sis.\u201d ...where even though everyone knows bestest isn't really a \"valid\" English word, it's perfectly acceptable in an informal context to use it to mean better than best. I'll also just flag up these several hundred written instances of more betterer - though as pointed out here, that's more \"dialectal\" than \"whimsically emphatic\". But neither of my examples (or any others, so far as I know) are valid in \"standard, formal\" English. To be strictly correct, Jazum would have needed to use a separate intensifier, such as very best friend.","output":"I found this pretty self-explanatory example of a \"whimsical\" usage that would be comprehensible to most native speakers even if they'd never come across it before... \u201cWanna go get some ice cream? I'm buying!\u201d asks Jazmun. \u201cSure.\u201d \u201cYou know what?\u201d asks Jazmun. \u201cWhat?\u201d \u201cYou are my best...no, my bestest friend.\u201d \u201cYou are mine, too, little sis.\u201d ...where even though everyone knows bestest isn't really a \"valid\" English word, it's perfectly acceptable in an informal context to use it to mean better than best. I'll also just flag up these several hundred written instances of more betterer - though as pointed out here, that's more \"dialectal\" than \"whimsically emphatic\". But neither of my examples (or any others, so far as I know) are valid in \"standard, formal\" English. To be strictly correct, Jazum would have needed to use a separate intensifier, such as very best friend."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow do you pronounce repo when it means repository? Is it \u02c8\u0279i\u02d0po\u028a or \u02c8\u0279epo\u028a?","question":"How do you pronounce repo when it means repository? Is it \u02c8\u0279i\u02d0po\u028a or \u02c8\u0279epo\u028a?","answer":"It is pronounced [\u02c8\u0279i\u02d0po\u028a] by everyone I know.","output":"It is pronounced [\u02c8\u0279i\u02d0po\u028a] by everyone I know."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it an old farming metaphor, or a military saying? Where did this(these) saying(s) originate?","question":"Is it an old farming metaphor, or a military saying? Where did this(these) saying(s) originate?","answer":"The original form of the phrase appears to be \"a hard row to hoe\". Now, \"tough row to hoe\" is found at least as far back as 1890: She's got a tough row to hoe, Dilly Gage has. She used to try to keep folks from knowin' how cantankerous he was, but she couldn't. while 1963 seems to be the earliest occurrence of \"tough road to hold\", and it is noted as an error: Certain little errors may be the result of spelling, hearing, or carelessness - \"a tough road to hold\" But we find \"hard row to hoe\" even earlier. It's found in Dickens' All the Year Round magazine in 1890, but the earliest use is no later than 1818: He loves to contend with difficulties; and if he had not a hard row to hoe, would place himself in some sphere demanding effort, in order to extricate himself. Since it's used without explanation in the 1818 book, it must have been regarded as a well-known expression even by then. So the origin is as a farming metaphor, and seems to be chiefly American in usage.","output":"The original form of the phrase appears to be \"a hard row to hoe\". Now, \"tough row to hoe\" is found at least as far back as 1890: She's got a tough row to hoe, Dilly Gage has. She used to try to keep folks from knowin' how cantankerous he was, but she couldn't. while 1963 seems to be the earliest occurrence of \"tough road to hold\", and it is noted as an error: Certain little errors may be the result of spelling, hearing, or carelessness - \"a tough road to hold\" But we find \"hard row to hoe\" even earlier. It's found in Dickens' All the Year Round magazine in 1890, but the earliest use is no later than 1818: He loves to contend with difficulties; and if he had not a hard row to hoe, would place himself in some sphere demanding effort, in order to extricate himself. Since it's used without explanation in the 1818 book, it must have been regarded as a well-known expression even by then. So the origin is as a farming metaphor, and seems to be chiefly American in usage."}
{"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\nAccording to Washington Post\u2019s Breaking News Alert (May 8), President Obama faced sharply divided counsel and, in his mind, barely better-than-even odds of success when he ordered the daring May 1 commando raid that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the president said in an interview broadcast Sunday. \"At the end of the day, this was still a 55\/45 situation,\" Obama told CBS's \"60 Minutes\" To me if the chance is 51 vs. 49, it seems to be \u201cbarely\u201d better than even odd. But 55\/45 chance looks not very, but \u2018significantly positive\u2019 mark if I\u2019m asked to challenge. YMMV. Of course criterion of judgment varies by status and situation you are placed in and magnitude of consequence you expect. But from purely rhetorical point of view, is 10% margin categorized in \u201cbarely better-than-even\u201d range?","question":"According to Washington Post\u2019s Breaking News Alert (May 8), President Obama faced sharply divided counsel and, in his mind, barely better-than-even odds of success when he ordered the daring May 1 commando raid that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the president said in an interview broadcast Sunday. \"At the end of the day, this was still a 55\/45 situation,\" Obama told CBS's \"60 Minutes\" To me if the chance is 51 vs. 49, it seems to be \u201cbarely\u201d better than even odd. But 55\/45 chance looks not very, but \u2018significantly positive\u2019 mark if I\u2019m asked to challenge. YMMV. Of course criterion of judgment varies by status and situation you are placed in and magnitude of consequence you expect. But from purely rhetorical point of view, is 10% margin categorized in \u201cbarely better-than-even\u201d range?","answer":"First of all, to me, that's a 5% margin, not 10%. 50\/50 means that you have 10 chances out of 20 to succeed, while 55\/45 means you have 11 out of 20: a 1\/20 improvement, or 5%. Second, yes, a 5% improvement over 50\/50 is barely better than even, in my estimation. Third, I'm really not sure that you can approach this from a \"purely rhetorical point of view\"; this is one of those things that is almost unavoidably a personal judgment, even if there are broad ranges that can be reasonably categorized (99+% = \"a sure thing\", 95%+ = \"almost certain\", 66%+ = \"odds-on favorite\", or something like that).","output":"First of all, to me, that's a 5% margin, not 10%. 50\/50 means that you have 10 chances out of 20 to succeed, while 55\/45 means you have 11 out of 20: a 1\/20 improvement, or 5%. Second, yes, a 5% improvement over 50\/50 is barely better than even, in my estimation. Third, I'm really not sure that you can approach this from a \"purely rhetorical point of view\"; this is one of those things that is almost unavoidably a personal judgment, even if there are broad ranges that can be reasonably categorized (99+% = \"a sure thing\", 95%+ = \"almost certain\", 66%+ = \"odds-on favorite\", or something like that)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI started to read Mark Twain's book titled as \"Adventures of Huckleberry Finn\". At the very beginning of the book I came across with this sentence: I never seen anybody but lied one time or another, without it was Aunt Polly, or the widow, or maybe the Mary. Now I have two questions: Is that \"I never seen\" part correct? Does it have anything to do with the dialect? I cannot fully get the meaning of the sentence; Would you please tell me the meaning of the sentence in plain English. Particularly, I have problem with the \"but\" and \"without it\" parts.","question":"I started to read Mark Twain's book titled as \"Adventures of Huckleberry Finn\". At the very beginning of the book I came across with this sentence: I never seen anybody but lied one time or another, without it was Aunt Polly, or the widow, or maybe the Mary. Now I have two questions: Is that \"I never seen\" part correct? Does it have anything to do with the dialect? I cannot fully get the meaning of the sentence; Would you please tell me the meaning of the sentence in plain English. Particularly, I have problem with the \"but\" and \"without it\" parts.","answer":"The idea can be phrased like the following : I never met anybody who didn't lie from time to time. I think the only exceptions were Aunt Polly,the widow and Mary. He is not sure about Mary though.(Don't use the before the name). I think the author wants to show that the boy is not educated and homeless. Nobody taught him.It's a literary device based on a dialect.\"Without it\" means without this fault\"(lying).","output":"The idea can be phrased like the following : I never met anybody who didn't lie from time to time. I think the only exceptions were Aunt Polly,the widow and Mary. He is not sure about Mary though.(Don't use the before the name). I think the author wants to show that the boy is not educated and homeless. Nobody taught him.It's a literary device based on a dialect.\"Without it\" means without this fault\"(lying)."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"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'm writing an article about a myth in which two epic heroes facing each other before a single combat. The part I'm at now is when the two heroes start bragging about their abilities and things they've accomplished while at the same time they try to belittle their opponent by saying things like, \"now tell me boy, you think you can handle a man?\" or \"before you were born I had been the champion of the champions.\" I think this part of the battle was mainly to diminish the opponent's self-confidence. The modern version of this can be seen when let's say you want to have street car racing and start saying things like, \"let's see how fast you can be on that wreck.\" My questions are simply about describing this activity that people do before a competition, but since I provided two contexts, (one out of need, and the other out of curiosity), probably two words with a formal and informal register would be excellent. However, a neutral word is good enough. My sentences are: The heroes started [verb]ing. The racers were [verb]ing for a few minutes before going down the street at full throttle. Thanks.","question":"I'm writing an article about a myth in which two epic heroes facing each other before a single combat. The part I'm at now is when the two heroes start bragging about their abilities and things they've accomplished while at the same time they try to belittle their opponent by saying things like, \"now tell me boy, you think you can handle a man?\" or \"before you were born I had been the champion of the champions.\" I think this part of the battle was mainly to diminish the opponent's self-confidence. The modern version of this can be seen when let's say you want to have street car racing and start saying things like, \"let's see how fast you can be on that wreck.\" My questions are simply about describing this activity that people do before a competition, but since I provided two contexts, (one out of need, and the other out of curiosity), probably two words with a formal and informal register would be excellent. However, a neutral word is good enough. My sentences are: The heroes started [verb]ing. The racers were [verb]ing for a few minutes before going down the street at full throttle. Thanks.","answer":"See synonyms for \"taunt\": mock, belittle, deride, insult, derogate, disparage, deprecate, ridicule, jeer, put down, make fun of, as well as slang terms like disrespect, trash, or hate on. \"Taunt\" is the verb closest to your meaning, but not necessarily the one you want to use since it doesn't automatically mean \"insult\". \"Trash\" is a good slang term in a contemporary context, but not necessarily when talking about mythical or historical figures since it would be a modern anachronism.","output":"See synonyms for \"taunt\": mock, belittle, deride, insult, derogate, disparage, deprecate, ridicule, jeer, put down, make fun of, as well as slang terms like disrespect, trash, or hate on. \"Taunt\" is the verb closest to your meaning, but not necessarily the one you want to use since it doesn't automatically mean \"insult\". \"Trash\" is a good slang term in a contemporary context, but not necessarily when talking about mythical or historical figures since it would be a modern anachronism."}
{"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\nSenator, these drills, code reds, active shooters, they've been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. Stoneman students' questions to lawmakers and the NRA at the CNN town hall See also this video at 31:40. Does \"drills, code reds\" mean alarms (firm alarms etc.)? Reference I found: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Code_Red Thanks.","question":"Senator, these drills, code reds, active shooters, they've been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. Stoneman students' questions to lawmakers and the NRA at the CNN town hall See also this video at 31:40. Does \"drills, code reds\" mean alarms (firm alarms etc.)? Reference I found: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Code_Red Thanks.","answer":"From context, Deitsch (the speaker) is talking about practices related to school shootings. The town hall is being held in Florida, where \"code red\" seems to be a standard term for an immediate threat to students and staff. \"Drills\" in this context would refer to a scheduled practice for a code red situation, and of course an active shooter is a specific, real code red scenario. This is a good example of the rule of three in rhetoric: Deitsch is using three closely linked examples of what modern students are facing today in ascending order of seriousness (preparing for threats, real threats of any kind, real threat of a school shooter). Using three specific examples instead of a more vague umbrella term drives home the idea of these things being pervasive in his life and the lives of others.","output":"From context, Deitsch (the speaker) is talking about practices related to school shootings. The town hall is being held in Florida, where \"code red\" seems to be a standard term for an immediate threat to students and staff. \"Drills\" in this context would refer to a scheduled practice for a code red situation, and of course an active shooter is a specific, real code red scenario. This is a good example of the rule of three in rhetoric: Deitsch is using three closely linked examples of what modern students are facing today in ascending order of seriousness (preparing for threats, real threats of any kind, real threat of a school shooter). Using three specific examples instead of a more vague umbrella term drives home the idea of these things being pervasive in his life and the lives of others."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"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 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\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was listening to John Lennon's song \"Gimme Some Truth\" just now, and in it there's a recurring line: \". . . money for rope.\" I never thought about it much before, but it strikes me this has to be some kind of aphorism or at least a familiar idiom somewhere. Does anyone know what it means and where it comes from? I've found some things on the Web that say it refers to the rope trade, and driving a bad bargain, etc., but none of these seem entirely convincing. Or at least they left me feeling unsatisfied. Does anyone have a clear line on this one?","question":"I was listening to John Lennon's song \"Gimme Some Truth\" just now, and in it there's a recurring line: \". . . money for rope.\" I never thought about it much before, but it strikes me this has to be some kind of aphorism or at least a familiar idiom somewhere. Does anyone know what it means and where it comes from? I've found some things on the Web that say it refers to the rope trade, and driving a bad bargain, etc., but none of these seem entirely convincing. Or at least they left me feeling unsatisfied. Does anyone have a clear line on this one?","answer":"It is a common expression in England and means easily earned or easily obtained money, with the suggestion of having sold something that is normally considered worthless or of low value. Many idiomatic English expressions seem to have their origins in the days of wind-powered seafaring. Rope made from hemp had a limited lifetime. When it wore out it was picked apart and recycled. It was used for caulking. Rope fibres (known as oakum) were hammered into the seams between planks of a ship and hot pitch was poured over it. This was done to waterproof the ship. Of course you got money for the old rope. The phrase came to mean money for anything (seemingly) worthless. From localhistories.org There\u2019s a suggestion that \u201cmoney for old rope\u201d dates back to the days of public executions in England (hangings). The hangman was responsible for his rope and was obliged by law to keep it. However, macabre souvenir hunters were willing to pay a good price for pieces of a used noose, so the hangman would cut it up into pieces and sell it, hence the phrase. From when we were kids THE SAYING MONEY FOR OLD ROPE IS DERIVED FROM DAYS IN THE WORKHOUSE, WORKERS WHERE GIVEN DAMAGED, AND USED ROPE TO PICK INTO STRANDS WHICH WOULD THEN BE RE SPUN INTO NEW ROPE, THEY WOULD EARN JUST ENOUGH MONEY FOR A MEAL, HENCE THE SAYING \"MONEY FOR OLD ROPE\" From Answers.com I don't know whether there is much truth in the above. Picking apart old rope was apparently work given to people in the workhouse or in foundlings homes at the end of the 18th Century - At least according to author Bernard Cornwell - who gives the impression of having researched his subjects well. Others say the expression is not recorded before the mid-20th Century.","output":"It is a common expression in England and means easily earned or easily obtained money, with the suggestion of having sold something that is normally considered worthless or of low value. Many idiomatic English expressions seem to have their origins in the days of wind-powered seafaring. Rope made from hemp had a limited lifetime. When it wore out it was picked apart and recycled. It was used for caulking. Rope fibres (known as oakum) were hammered into the seams between planks of a ship and hot pitch was poured over it. This was done to waterproof the ship. Of course you got money for the old rope. The phrase came to mean money for anything (seemingly) worthless. From localhistories.org There\u2019s a suggestion that \u201cmoney for old rope\u201d dates back to the days of public executions in England (hangings). The hangman was responsible for his rope and was obliged by law to keep it. However, macabre souvenir hunters were willing to pay a good price for pieces of a used noose, so the hangman would cut it up into pieces and sell it, hence the phrase. From when we were kids THE SAYING MONEY FOR OLD ROPE IS DERIVED FROM DAYS IN THE WORKHOUSE, WORKERS WHERE GIVEN DAMAGED, AND USED ROPE TO PICK INTO STRANDS WHICH WOULD THEN BE RE SPUN INTO NEW ROPE, THEY WOULD EARN JUST ENOUGH MONEY FOR A MEAL, HENCE THE SAYING \"MONEY FOR OLD ROPE\" From Answers.com I don't know whether there is much truth in the above. Picking apart old rope was apparently work given to people in the workhouse or in foundlings homes at the end of the 18th Century - At least according to author Bernard Cornwell - who gives the impression of having researched his subjects well. Others say the expression is not recorded before the mid-20th Century."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs \u22129 a smaller number than \u22128? And is \u22129 a lower number than \u22128? What is the difference between lower and smaller here?","question":"Is \u22129 a smaller number than \u22128? And is \u22129 a lower number than \u22128? What is the difference between lower and smaller here?","answer":"My gut instinct as a PhD mathematician is that \u22129 is lower than \u22128, but not smaller than \u22128. There is not a technically correct term without more context being given. If you are talking about the integer numbers (including positive and negative numbers) then I wouuld prefer to say that -9 is lower than -8. If you are talking about the magnitude of the numbers, rather than their place on the integer number line, then -8 is smaller and lower than -9 (although I would prefer to say smaller). As there is not a technically correct answer, these phrases are often used interchangeably in practice. Mathematical notation, such as -9 \"Less than\" is also a good alternative phrase. It is the words intended by the In summary, I would say that a small number is close to 0 and, in a context where negative numbers make sense, a low number is close to minus infinity. It is best to give more context of what kind of numbers you are talking about.","output":"My gut instinct as a PhD mathematician is that \u22129 is lower than \u22128, but not smaller than \u22128. There is not a technically correct term without more context being given. If you are talking about the integer numbers (including positive and negative numbers) then I wouuld prefer to say that -9 is lower than -8. If you are talking about the magnitude of the numbers, rather than their place on the integer number line, then -8 is smaller and lower than -9 (although I would prefer to say smaller). As there is not a technically correct answer, these phrases are often used interchangeably in practice. Mathematical notation, such as -9 \"Less than\" is also a good alternative phrase. It is the words intended by the In summary, I would say that a small number is close to 0 and, in a context where negative numbers make sense, a low number is close to minus infinity. It is best to give more context of what kind of numbers you are talking about."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nRussian has the term \"\u0420\u0430\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u044f\u0434\u043e\u043a \u0434\u043d\u044f.\" It means a to-do list of things that you do every day or your \"order of life\" (routine). For example: Get up at 7:00 Work from 9:00 to 15:00 Go to sleep at 22:00 A similar term is \"schedule,\" but a schedule may be different every day. \"\u0420\u0430\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u044f\u0434\u043e\u043a \u0434\u043d\u044f\" is always alone. Is there such a term in English?","question":"Russian has the term \"\u0420\u0430\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u044f\u0434\u043e\u043a \u0434\u043d\u044f.\" It means a to-do list of things that you do every day or your \"order of life\" (routine). For example: Get up at 7:00 Work from 9:00 to 15:00 Go to sleep at 22:00 A similar term is \"schedule,\" but a schedule may be different every day. \"\u0420\u0430\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u044f\u0434\u043e\u043a \u0434\u043d\u044f\" is always alone. Is there such a term in English?","answer":"This is your \u201croutine\u201d. The things you do day in, day out, usually at the same times. If you use \u201croutine\u201d like this it will be understood in British English; if you want to be more specific use \u201cdaily routine\u201d. noun a customary or regular course of procedure commonplace tasks, chores, or duties as must be done regularly or at specified intervals; typical or everyday activity: the routine of an office regular, unvarying, habitual, unimaginative, or rote procedure. Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, \u00a9 Random House, Inc. 2015.","output":"This is your \u201croutine\u201d. The things you do day in, day out, usually at the same times. If you use \u201croutine\u201d like this it will be understood in British English; if you want to be more specific use \u201cdaily routine\u201d. noun a customary or regular course of procedure commonplace tasks, chores, or duties as must be done regularly or at specified intervals; typical or everyday activity: the routine of an office regular, unvarying, habitual, unimaginative, or rote procedure. Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, \u00a9 Random House, Inc. 2015."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHere I am talking about the gas stove. Can I say \"put it on fire\" where the fire is actually the flame of the gas stove? Do I have to say \"Put it on flame\"? Which one is better? Why?","question":"Here I am talking about the gas stove. Can I say \"put it on fire\" where the fire is actually the flame of the gas stove? Do I have to say \"Put it on flame\"? Which one is better? Why?","answer":"I usually use burner in this context: Don't use the microwave; put it on the burner. As Cambridge says: burner (n.) the \u200bpart of a \u200bcooker, \u200blight, etc. that \u200bproduces \u200bflame or \u200bheat A burner can apply to a gas or an electric stove. Although I wouldn't usually say, \"Put the food on the flame,\" the word flame is often used in cooking contexts; for example: Heat the onions over a low flame.","output":"I usually use burner in this context: Don't use the microwave; put it on the burner. As Cambridge says: burner (n.) the \u200bpart of a \u200bcooker, \u200blight, etc. that \u200bproduces \u200bflame or \u200bheat A burner can apply to a gas or an electric stove. Although I wouldn't usually say, \"Put the food on the flame,\" the word flame is often used in cooking contexts; for example: Heat the onions over a low flame."}
{"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\nThe man sitting in the iron seat did not look like a man; gloved, goggled, rubber dust mask over nose and mouth, he was a part of the monster, a robot in the seat. The thunder of the cylinders sounded through the country, became one with the air and the earth, so that earth and air muttered in sympathetic vibration. The driver could not control it-straight across country it went, cutting through a dozen farms and straight back. A twitch at the controls could swerve the cat', but the driver's hands could not twitch because the monster that built the tractors, the monster that sent the tractor out, had somehow got into the driver's hands, into his brain and muscle, had goggled him and muzzled him-goggled his mind, muzzled his speech, goggled his perception, muzzled his protest. (John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath) What is cat\u2019? Is it displaying a certain pronunciation for cat or does it mean something else?","question":"The man sitting in the iron seat did not look like a man; gloved, goggled, rubber dust mask over nose and mouth, he was a part of the monster, a robot in the seat. The thunder of the cylinders sounded through the country, became one with the air and the earth, so that earth and air muttered in sympathetic vibration. The driver could not control it-straight across country it went, cutting through a dozen farms and straight back. A twitch at the controls could swerve the cat', but the driver's hands could not twitch because the monster that built the tractors, the monster that sent the tractor out, had somehow got into the driver's hands, into his brain and muscle, had goggled him and muzzled him-goggled his mind, muzzled his speech, goggled his perception, muzzled his protest. (John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath) What is cat\u2019? Is it displaying a certain pronunciation for cat or does it mean something else?","answer":"It refers to the tractor: The Free Dictionary: 6) cat - a large tracked vehicle that is propelled by two endless metal belts; frequently used for moving earth in construction and farm work The most famous tractor company in the world is Caterpillar Tractor, known as \"cat\" for short, which is why the term is sometimes used to mean \"tractor.\"","output":"It refers to the tractor: The Free Dictionary: 6) cat - a large tracked vehicle that is propelled by two endless metal belts; frequently used for moving earth in construction and farm work The most famous tractor company in the world is Caterpillar Tractor, known as \"cat\" for short, which is why the term is sometimes used to mean \"tractor.\""}
{"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\nWhere does the internet jargon \"Troll\" come from? The way I see it. If it's a fishing reference, then you can't accuse someone of \"Being a troll\" and if it's a mythology reference then someone isn't really \"Trolling\" they're just \"Being a troll\". It seems like it has roots in both, because it's like they're waiting under a bridge to pop out and get you it's like dropping a line in and waiting for someone to take the bait while moving around a lot.","question":"Where does the internet jargon \"Troll\" come from? The way I see it. If it's a fishing reference, then you can't accuse someone of \"Being a troll\" and if it's a mythology reference then someone isn't really \"Trolling\" they're just \"Being a troll\". It seems like it has roots in both, because it's like they're waiting under a bridge to pop out and get you it's like dropping a line in and waiting for someone to take the bait while moving around a lot.","answer":"You really have to go to the newsgroups to see the evolution of the word. Before 1991, the word almost exclusively meant actual trolls of the D&D \/ Tolkien \/ Scandinavian vein. Troll dolls became popular that year, and that kind of diluted the issue a bit. Then around early 1992, there came a user named Troll on the old alt.flame usergroup that was (for lack of a better word) a troll - more of a proto-troll, as he was on a usergroup dedicated to flaming, so he fit in. But even by their standards he brought the race-baiting, sexism, feigned ignorance, extremist political views, etc. to a new high. First post July 8, 1992. http:\/\/groups.google.com\/group\/alt.flame\/msg\/472da61199f426b1?utoken=3mCmCCkAAACa7VhXKNFnDL2EKUH4mq34cDgoNievjXoMAC-Lp0spl0T7OnOQKuqZvRM6KifiAp0 He seems to indicate his name comes from being a good insulter, and thus a sort of nasty guy -in other words, a troll. I believe his name popularized a growing concept and made it the meme it is today. Eventually it spread out, here's a 1993 post on alt.folklore.urban that still uses quotes around trolling to indicate its status as jargon.. http:\/\/groups.google.com\/group\/alt.folklore.urban\/browse_thread\/thread\/cd29352f5cb19116\/16e2d7b5e327a44b?#16e2d7b5e327a44b The second post explicitly conflates trolling and fishing. And the third confirms that trolling at a.f.u. began \"1-1.5 years earlier\", which syncs with what Wikipedia broadly states about the etymology. Then Kibology blew up and kind of ran with it, and actually added notes about it to their FAQ, and stabilized it forever. So trolling when it was just flaming was \"nasty thing\", then when it became more sophisticated it became \"fish baiting.\"","output":"You really have to go to the newsgroups to see the evolution of the word. Before 1991, the word almost exclusively meant actual trolls of the D&D \/ Tolkien \/ Scandinavian vein. Troll dolls became popular that year, and that kind of diluted the issue a bit. Then around early 1992, there came a user named Troll on the old alt.flame usergroup that was (for lack of a better word) a troll - more of a proto-troll, as he was on a usergroup dedicated to flaming, so he fit in. But even by their standards he brought the race-baiting, sexism, feigned ignorance, extremist political views, etc. to a new high. First post July 8, 1992. http:\/\/groups.google.com\/group\/alt.flame\/msg\/472da61199f426b1?utoken=3mCmCCkAAACa7VhXKNFnDL2EKUH4mq34cDgoNievjXoMAC-Lp0spl0T7OnOQKuqZvRM6KifiAp0 He seems to indicate his name comes from being a good insulter, and thus a sort of nasty guy -in other words, a troll. I believe his name popularized a growing concept and made it the meme it is today. Eventually it spread out, here's a 1993 post on alt.folklore.urban that still uses quotes around trolling to indicate its status as jargon.. http:\/\/groups.google.com\/group\/alt.folklore.urban\/browse_thread\/thread\/cd29352f5cb19116\/16e2d7b5e327a44b?#16e2d7b5e327a44b The second post explicitly conflates trolling and fishing. And the third confirms that trolling at a.f.u. began \"1-1.5 years earlier\", which syncs with what Wikipedia broadly states about the etymology. Then Kibology blew up and kind of ran with it, and actually added notes about it to their FAQ, and stabilized it forever. So trolling when it was just flaming was \"nasty thing\", then when it became more sophisticated it became \"fish baiting.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is noun that can be used to express weariness or dismay about what someone is about to say? I looked at a few different sites and no words came up. Example: Howie looks at his brother with _________, but holds his tongue, knowing what his brother is about to say won't be nice, but not wanting to start trouble beforehand. I originally used the word \"consternation,\" but I don't feel as if that is the right word to describe this situation.","question":"What is noun that can be used to express weariness or dismay about what someone is about to say? I looked at a few different sites and no words came up. Example: Howie looks at his brother with _________, but holds his tongue, knowing what his brother is about to say won't be nice, but not wanting to start trouble beforehand. I originally used the word \"consternation,\" but I don't feel as if that is the right word to describe this situation.","answer":"If you know what is coming and can't do a thing to change or stop it, you can say it like this: \"Howie looks at his brother with \"resignation\", but holds his tongue, knowing what his brother is about to say won't be nice, but not wanting to start trouble beforehand.\" \"Resignation\" as defined by MW-O (and other dictionaries - typically the 2nd definition): the feeling that something unpleasant is going to happen and cannot be changed","output":"If you know what is coming and can't do a thing to change or stop it, you can say it like this: \"Howie looks at his brother with \"resignation\", but holds his tongue, knowing what his brother is about to say won't be nice, but not wanting to start trouble beforehand.\" \"Resignation\" as defined by MW-O (and other dictionaries - typically the 2nd definition): the feeling that something unpleasant is going to happen and cannot be changed"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"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\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}