inputs stringlengths 689 13.9k | targets stringlengths 29 8.29k | _template_idx int64 0 9 | _task_source stringclasses 1
value | _task_name stringclasses 1
value | _template_type stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
One example is below.
Q: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
A: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Rationale: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Q: Is there a term for a word that means itself? For example the word word means itself and is a word.
A: | From Wikipedia, emphasis mine: An autological word (also called homological word or autonym) is a word that expresses a property that it also possesses (e.g. the word 'short' is short, 'noun' is a noun, 'English' is English, 'pentasyllabic' has five syllables, 'word' is a word, 'sesquipedalian' is a long word, 'adjectival' is adjectival; see Wiktionary for a partial list). | 9 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
[Q]: How can I explain to people that the phrase off of is grammatically incorrect? I've heard this phrase used a lot, especially by Americans (though they aren't the only ones). In my understanding, off of should usually be replaced by off, as in, I took the book off the shelf as opposed to I took the book off of the shelf Am I wrong? Or is there perhaps some simple way I can explain this to most people?.
[A]: I don't know how you can explain to people in general that it's grammatically incorrect, but here is one idea: when you go to a James Brown tribute concert and the singer says 'Get up offa that thing' what you could do is to trounce the security guards, climb on to the stage, pounce onto the singer, grab the microphone and say 'In fact you should be saying not 'get up offa that thing' but 'get up off that thing' since 'offa' is grammatically incorrect.' I'm sure everyone will thank you for your grammatical corrections. Being serious for a moment though, it's very difficult to decide what is or is not 'grammatically correct'. E.g. in the UK we say 'outside my house' but US people often say 'outside of my house'. How can you actually decide which of these two is grammatically correct? Unfortunately it's not possible since English grammar is not a science like physics but merely a description of what people actually do, and that has changed very significantly over the years. If I was teaching someone English I would definitely say 'off' is correct and 'off of' is wrong, but this kind of decision is based on intuition, based on the usages of educated native speakers.
[Q]: This came up recently on programmers.SE, when someone (a Russian, presumably non-native English speaker) asked why we used the term 'sister sites', instead of 'brother sites'. Of course, I'm a native English speaker, and I have no idea either, hence this question. The full question, for context, was 'Several of our sister sites have taken to featuring Questions [...]'. It does seem odd, considering that English (usually) uses masculine terms as the default.
[A]: I suspect the terminology sister sites is derived from sister cities. Traditionally, cities, countries, and ships have been personified as feminine in English, although this is growing less common due to the influence of women's rights.
[Q]: If you look at this gif of a drone replacing a lightbulb, you'll understand what concept I'm trying to find a word for. Using dynamite for fishing would be another example. I'm looking for a word that describes the use of high-tech equipment, for a purpose that is normally filled by low-tech equipment, usually done out of laziness or amusement. This is specifically relating to technology (overengineering is very close).
[A]: | 'Bringing a gun to a knife fight' or 'Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut' or 'Killing a mosquito with a bazooka' are idioms that convey the sense of overkill, but perhaps not the overly-complex nature of the technology. 'If you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail' is another close-but-maybe-not-quite-right idiom. It might also be a 'Rube Goldberg solution' or a 'Heath Robinson' way of getting something done, or the solution might simply 'overengineered'. Sources and related questions that might give you some ideas: 'To shoot out of cannon into sparrows' Phrase for overusing just-learned skills? A word that means 'a solution in search of a problem' Saying that refers to not going overboard in solving a problem when a simple solution exists What's the word for Unnecessary Complexity
| 5 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Example: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Output: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
New input case for you: Is there a specific rule, or set of rules, that can be followed to know when to use each word? I have noticed that not is usually used with a verb, but I think that there sometimes are exceptions although I can't think of one now.
Output: | Not is a negative adverb; no is a negative quantifier; non- is a negative prefix. Since negation is so important, thousands of idioms use each of these, among other negatives. Consequently there are lots of exceptions to the general rules below. Non- is not a word, but a part of another word, usually a descriptive adjective: non-lethal, non-professional, non-native, non-technical, non-playing (The hyphen is optional.) Each of these mean 'anything but ...' -- anything that doesn't kill you is non-lethal, anything that's not technical is non-technical, etc. This meaning contrasts with un- and in-, which refer to opposites instead of complements. No is half of the answer pair Yes/No, shading off vocally into Nah, Nuh-uh, and Uh-uh. But it can also quantify and negate any noun phrase: Some blade of grass ~ No blade of grass; One who saw it ~ No one who saw it. Not is the general negator for verb phrases, including predicate adjectives and nouns. In a verb phrase, not occurs immediately after the first auxiliary verb. If there is no auxiliary verb in the verb phrase, Do-Support supplies a form of do. Not is contracted whenever possible, with auxiliaries or subjects (especially pronouns): He's not interested ~ He isn't interested; She doesn't like it, but not *She not likes it. Any of these negatives (and many others) can negate a sentence, changing its truth value. It's easy to switch between them, too; the sentences below all mean the same thing: They allowed no phone calls. They didn't allow phone calls. No one allowed phone calls. Phone calls weren't allowed. | 1 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Q: Example: [f] moving said second cart to said proximate end of said scanning device so that said trays in said second cart be passed through said scanning device at said proximate end. Is the language used in patents archaic or simply intentionally obtuse?.
A: Patent lawyer here. I wouldn't call the language you cited either 'archaic' or 'intentionally obtuse.' 'Pedantic' or 'hyperliteral' may be better adjectives. The language you cited came from Claim 1 of US Pat. No. 6888460 Language in the claims section of the patent are considered the 'metes and bounds' of the intellectual property right. That is, the claim language describes the precise extent of the patent owner's monopoly. It is necessary for the language to be as accurate as possible in order to alert everyone to the scope of the patentee's property right. Because human language is so imprecise, it is very difficult to write text that comes even close to the level of clarity one would want in such a description. Some of the terms used are also jargon. Because patents are interpreted by courts, there is an entire history of court decisions determining the meaning of specific words. For example, the word 'comprising' means 'including the listed things but also potentially including other things as well' whereas 'consisting of' means 'including only the listed things.' In the language you cited, the word 'said' in the phrase 'said proximate end' makes it unambiguous that the reference is to the same 'proximate end' as previously recited ('wherein said scanning device comprises a proximate end and a distal end'). One might also use the word 'the' rather than 'said,' in this circumstance, but that's a matter of style.
****
Q: Imagine you're in a bar and order a pint of beer, which is 3.20. You only have a 10 note but want to tip the barkeeper. As you can't use 'keep the change' for obvious reasons, what do you say to tip the barkeeper 80 pence, making the total price 4?.
A: I am occasionally in the same situation when I want to tip a taxi driver. Converting to your problem, I would say: Make it 4 pounds. or if that is not clear: Make it 4 pounds and keep the difference. This is in my country (Australia) where tipping is uncommon, however. Edit: Thinking about it even more, sometimes I add the word 'Just' to the front of the sentence. Not sure why.
****
Q: Is there a specific rule, or set of rules, that can be followed to know when to use each word? I have noticed that not is usually used with a verb, but I think that there sometimes are exceptions although I can't think of one now.
A: | Not is a negative adverb; no is a negative quantifier; non- is a negative prefix. Since negation is so important, thousands of idioms use each of these, among other negatives. Consequently there are lots of exceptions to the general rules below. Non- is not a word, but a part of another word, usually a descriptive adjective: non-lethal, non-professional, non-native, non-technical, non-playing (The hyphen is optional.) Each of these mean 'anything but ...' -- anything that doesn't kill you is non-lethal, anything that's not technical is non-technical, etc. This meaning contrasts with un- and in-, which refer to opposites instead of complements. No is half of the answer pair Yes/No, shading off vocally into Nah, Nuh-uh, and Uh-uh. But it can also quantify and negate any noun phrase: Some blade of grass ~ No blade of grass; One who saw it ~ No one who saw it. Not is the general negator for verb phrases, including predicate adjectives and nouns. In a verb phrase, not occurs immediately after the first auxiliary verb. If there is no auxiliary verb in the verb phrase, Do-Support supplies a form of do. Not is contracted whenever possible, with auxiliaries or subjects (especially pronouns): He's not interested ~ He isn't interested; She doesn't like it, but not *She not likes it. Any of these negatives (and many others) can negate a sentence, changing its truth value. It's easy to switch between them, too; the sentences below all mean the same thing: They allowed no phone calls. They didn't allow phone calls. No one allowed phone calls. Phone calls weren't allowed.
****
| 4 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
[Q]: I've read this and this. I know that the underlying question has been answered, my problem is of a different nature: I'm currently writing my master's thesis in CS and my professor thinks that the apostrophe possessive is only applicable to people. He claims to have spoken to a linguist from Cambridge who confirmed his opinion. Neither my professor nor I am a native speaker and the thesis is being written in Germany. Now, I know that he won't care if I just send him a couple of links to the answers here. So my question is: How do I convince my professor? Are there any 'more scientific™' sources that I can point to? Examples of phrases: If each plant's humidity is displayed publicly [...] [...] shows an overview of the node's structure. Due to an issue in the network stack's IPv6 subsystem [...].
[A]: As few people are addressing the ''more scientific™' sources' bit of the question, it should be pointed out that there are a number of English style guides out there, practically all of which should cover the topic of forming possessives with apostrophe-s (as it's a frequent issue even with native speakers). You should be able to find copies of at least one of the major ones in any decent University library. (At least at any decent University with English classes.) The Elements of Style by Strunk and White is the 'gold standard' for many Americans, although there are many who disagree with many of the details. The Chicago Manual of Style is a well-used standard for (American) University usage. - The online version is unapologetic and direct on this topic: 'The possessive of most singular nouns is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s', although it does go into more details. Fowler's modern English usage by Henry Fowler is also a well-regarded standard, particularly for British users. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage by Pam Peters has the benefit of the 'authority' of Cambridge. Oxford, of course, has their own: The New Oxford Style Manual, though the title has varied with edition. If physical copies aren't something you're interested in, a number of organizations (particularly journalism houses) have their house style guides online. For example, the Economist makes no mention of the conjectured rule in its advice. The Guardian gives additional examples, and also completely omits the purported rule. Others can likely be found by searching, and other major organizations (like the Associate Press and the New York Times) have theirs as printed books. Many dictionaries also have usage notes in them. (In particular, I'll point out the comment from @ps2goat mentioning Oxford Dictionaries's online page.) Ultimately, though, it's exceedingly difficult to prove a negative. Even confronted with evidence that a large number of style guides and usage manuals for English have nothing approaching the purported rule, your professor might not be convinced that he is mistaken. If that is the case, your best choice is probably to reword things to avoid the issue.
[Q]: Possible Duplicate: How to use 'tens of' and 'hundreds of'? Take this example: Hundreds of pieces were used to create it. What if the amount were something like 20 or 30? What would the equivalent sentence be that would sound natural?.
[A]: I confess, my first thought was 'dozens'. While 'tens' is probably more accurate, it doesn't feel as comfortable to say (to me, anyway).
[Q]: Possible Duplicate: What rules make 'Remember me, who am your friend' grammatical? This is a line spoken by the Emperor to Luke in Star Wars. I always wondered if this is grammatically correct. Luke says something like 'You are mistaken ...' which the Emperor answers with No, it is you who are mistaken! Why wouldn't he say No, it is you who is mistaken! instead? I don't know what rules apply here but my stomach tells me the latter is (at least also) correct, although you would say 'you are mistaken'. It feels as if he should be referring to 'you' in the third person. Could you please shed some light? Are both correct or if not which one is correct? And why?.
[A]: | The sentence It is you who are mistaken is a Cleft sentence, derived from the base sentence (shown here with focussed subject You) You are mistaken by the Clefting process, which extracts the focussed NP (you) to be the predicate of a dummy clause with It subject and some form of be as verb (generating It is you in this case), and then making the non-focussed rest of the original sentence into a relative clause modifying the focus NP (generating who are mistaken in this case). Verb agreement is invariant under clefting, so if the predicate is are mistaken in the original, it will still be are mistaken in the clefted variant.
| 5 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Teacher: Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following example:
How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Solution: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Reason: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Now, solve this instance: Sometimes I go through articles and find the expression utilize, I've always been wondering if there are special cases in which it should be used instead of used. Also because google ngram clearly shows that used is used (sorry for that ;D) much more. Thanks for your help and happy new year!.
Student: | Some dictionaries gloss utilize as using something for a purpose that it is not normally employed for. But prescriptive grammarians are pretty clear on such use. Fowler in Modern English Usage (p670) says: If differentiation were possible between utilize and use it would be that utilize has the special meaning of make good use of, especially of something that was not intended for the purpose but will serve. But this distinction has disappeared beyond recall; utilize is now ordinarily treated as a LONG VARIANT of use. A form is enclosed herewith for favour of your utilization is an example of the pretentious diction that prefers the long word. Partidge in Usage and Abusage (p343) is typically blunt: utilize is, 99 times out of 100, much inferior to use; the other one time it is merely inferior. And here is the more contemporary Grammar Girl's similar take on the issue: [link] Nevertheless, this Usage Note from TheFreeDictionary indicates when utilize might indeed be the better choice: A number of critics have remarked that utilize is an unnecessary substitute for use. It is true that many occurrences of utilize could be replaced by use with no loss to anything but pretentiousness, for example, in sentences such as They utilized questionable methods in their analysis or We hope that many commuters will continue to utilize mass transit after the bridge has reopened. But utilize can mean 'to find a profitable or practical use for.' Thus the sentence The teachers were unable to use the new computers might mean only that the teachers were unable to operate the computers, whereas The teachers were unable to utilize the new computers suggests that the teachers could not find ways to employ the computers in instruction. | 2 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Solution: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Why? Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
New input: Possible Duplicate: When to drop the 'e' when ending in -able? Both are correct for these words: sizable, sizeable sharable, shareable takable, takeable But these words are incorrect: storeable (storable) makeable (makable) tasteable (tastable) minglable (mingleable) acknowledgable (acknowledgeable) managable (manageable) Are there rules for this? The case for keeping the 'e' seems to be that the 'ga' in 'acknowledgable' would be read as 'gall' rather than 'germ', but 'minglable' shouldn't cause that problem. I'm also not sure why we couldn't keep the 'e' in words like 'storable' or 'makable'.
Solution: | The general rule is that you drop the e, provided that it's actually a silent one rather than forming part of an ee digraph as with agreeable, decreeable, disagreeable, foreseeable, and seeable. You only otherwise have to keep a final silent e when adding able if it would (1) either change the pronunciation, or (2) it would cause a collision with an existing word that already means something else altogether different. The first case, pronunciation shift, is for things like raceable or purgeable, where losing the e would make the ce or ge switch from the 'soft' version to the 'hard' version due to the resulting g or c now being followed by an a rather than by an e, and cable and gable are pronounced quite differently. The second case, a collision with an existing word, occurs with such pairs as pareable / parable, placeable / placable, probeable / probable, and spareable / sparable. Notice how placeable also has the first factor in play, as too would singeable / singable. Beyond that, there is some slight variation in acceptable forms, such as both microwaveable / microwavable being attested. Normally however, you lose the e. The OED2 attests 1555 words than end in able but not in eable, while only 123 that do actually end in eable. That's a ratio of nearly 13 to 1 in favor of more able words without a preceding e. Not excluding duplicates with alternate spellings, here are the eable words from the OED2 plus quarterly supplements since 2000: acknowledgeable decreeable haveable mingleable salvageable acreable defaceable hireable mortgageable scribbleable activeable delineable holeable nameable seeable adduceable derangeable hopeable negligeable serviceable advanceable disagreeable imageable noticeable shakeable agreeable dischargeable immalleable packageable shapeable allegeable discourageable impermeable pareable shareable arrangeable displaceable inassuageable passageable sizeable balanceable divorceable indulgeable peaceable skateable batheable dyeable ineffaceable permeable sliceable biteable effaceable influenceable pierceable spareable blameable embraceable interchangeable placeable stageable bounceable enforceable irremeable pledgeable strangleable bridgeable exchangeable irreplaceable policeable swindleable carriageable experienceable irretraceable poseable takeable challengeable eyeable judgeable probeable tallageable chanceable fleeceable knowledgeable pronounceable tameable changeable foreseeable likeable purgeable tasteable chargeable forgeable liveable raceable throttleable chaseable garbleable lodgeable rateable traceable chooseable gaugeable malleable reable vengeable commenceable giveable manageable rebukeable voyageable cuddleable gorgeable marriageable replaceable whistleable damageable grazeable microwaveable ropeable danceable hateable mineable saleable As you see, there is also some tendancy to preserve the final e if in the original it's there to make a so-called 'long' vowel long. However, this doesn't happen consistently enough to make a rule for them. However, for those cases there are a lot of alternate 'sans'-e forms for those, like ropeable / ropable. Perhaps a more interesting question and certainly one with a more complicated answer is how to know which words instead take ible forms. There are 275 of these in the OED2, more than twice as many as eable words. There are actual rules there, although they are a bit complicated for some people. That one I'll leave for when it actually gets asked. :) | 0 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
--------
Question: What is the antonym of the word destination. Here is some context: Every train has a destination and a ____? I was thinking it might be origin but I've never encountered that word used in this context so I'm not sure - there might be a better word.
Answer: According to a Google search, the word origin is used as the opposite of destination on several pages on the Amtrak web site. Amtrak is the largest train operator in the United States. Here are a few examples: This schedule lists the Origin and 'Destination' of various routes. The Interactive Route Atlas page says the following: Once you have selected origin and destination stations by one of the methods above, click on the 'Go' button to send your custom route request. The Multi-Ride Ten-Ride Ticket page says the following: Ten-ride tickets are valid for ten rides within a 45-day, 60-day or 180-day period depending on your origin and destination cities.
Question: If I were to try to achieve something you could say I 'had a go'. If I tried it multiple times, how would I write that down? I had many goes or I had many go's or I had many gos.
Answer: The dictionaries I've checked seem to be unanimous that the plural of the noun 'go' is 'goes'. I didn't see one list its plural as 'gos'. However, I didn't check all dictionaries. American Heritage Dictionary: n. pl. goes Collins Dictionary: n, pl goes Merriam-Webster Dictionary: plural goes Cambridge Dictionary: plural goes Random House Unabridged Dictionary (dictionary.com): plural goes Google NGram Viewer does not show any results for 'two gos at' or 'two gos at', but does when written as 'goes'. A Google search shows the following results: 'two gos at' = 453 results. 'two goes at' = 19,500 results. 'three gos at' = 252 results. 'three goes at' = 20,200 results. Note that both Google search and Ngram Viewer may show false positives, as Google search, as far as I know, doesn't take punctuation into account when giving search results, ie., full stops, commas. But I think it's safe to assume the consensus is that the plural of go (attempt or try) is 'goes'. I think this is a good question, as somewhere in my head I have an instinct to write it 'gos'. However the answer is gotten easily by checking some dictionaries. Also, if you wrote 'I had three gos at it before giving up', I have a feeling the typical reader probably wouldn't even be surprised by it or notice it particularly as wrong. This is just my opinion. I have this feeling because the '-os'/'-oes' plural ending rules are wildly inconsistent. Potatoes, tomatoes and heroes are correct. But 'photos' and 'burritos' are correct. However most dictionaries seem to list either '-os' or '-oes' ending as acceptable in 'ghetto' and 'mosquito'. Both 'mosquito' and 'burrito' most likely come from Spanish, yet most dictionaries say only 'mosquito' can have plural ending either '-os' or 'oes', whereas they're consistent in listing '-os' for burrito plural. Same goes for 'canto', 'manifesto' and 'grotto'. These words most likely come from Italian, yet the plural of 'canto' is 'cantos', whereas the dictionaries say the plural of 'grotto' or 'manifesto' can end in either '-os' or '-oes'. Addendum As some people have claimed that the rules for -os or -oes plural endings are quite consistent (and I happen to disagree), I've included more examples to show just how unpredictable this can get. The claim generally is basically that borrowed words or imported words from other languages have -os as their endings and most everything else has -oes. The more specific claim is this rule applies for words from Romance languages specifically. embargo (Spanish): Dictionaries show only -oes plural. NGrams show -oes much more common. tornado (Spanish): Dictionaries show either -os or -oes plural. NGrams shows -oes much more common. desperado (Spanish): Dictionaries show either -os or -oes plural. NGrams shows -oes more common. cargo (Spanish) plural possibly as the pants: Dictionaries show either -os or -oes. NGrams shows -oes more common. mango (Portuguese): Dictionaries show both -os or -oes. NGrams shows -oes much more common. domino (uncertain exactly which language, but a Romance one, or maybe directly from Latin): Dictionaries give either -os or -oes. NGrams shows -oes much more common. volcano (Italian): Dictionaries give either -os or -oes. NGrams shows -oes much more common. motto (Italian): Dictionaries give either -os or -oes. NGrams shows -oes to be more common. Words taken directly from Latin many times have -oes plural ending, but not always: veto has plural vetoes torpedo has plural torpedoes However memento overwhelmingly has plural mementos. And embryo is always embryos. Echo, directly from Greek, has plural 'echoes'. hello (native English): Nearly always 'hellos'. no (native English): Much more common as 'nos', ie., 'yeses and nos'. do (native English): Dictionaries give plural as either 'dos' or 'do's'. The results for searches of these terms would be confounding to say the least. weirdo (native English): some dictionaries show both -os or -oes. NGrams shows -os is much more popular Unknown origin: hobo: Dictionaries give either -os or -oes. NGrams show roughly same frequency. gizmo: = Dictionaries only give -os, 'gizmoes' doesn't show anything in NGrams. gazebo: Dictionaries show both -os or -oes. NGrams shows -os more common. So I don't know about anyone else, but I personally need help, in many ways.
Question: I was told in a Latin class that the name Christopher has Greek roots that mean 'one who carries Christ'. I assume that the Latin connection here is fero, which is the verb to carry. With that in mind, does the name Jennifer have a similar derivation? If so what would she be carrying?.
Answer: | No Jennifer is from From a Cornish form of the Welsh name Gwenhwyfar (see GUINEVERE). This name has only been common outside of Cornwall since the beginning of the 20th century, after it was featured in George Bernard Shaw's play 'The Doctor's Dilemma' (1906). GUINEVERE From the Norman French form of the Welsh name Gwenhwyfar, composed of the elements gwen meaning 'fair, white' and hwyfar meaning 'smooth'. In Arthurian legend she was the beautiful wife of King Arthur who engaged in an adulterous affair with Sir Lancelot. Her betrayal of her husband with Mordred prompted the battle of Camlann, which led to the deaths of both Mordred and Arthur. The Cornish form of this name, Jennifer, has become popular in the English-speaking world.
| 7 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Input: Consider Input: Possible Duplicate: What rules make 'Remember me, who am your friend' grammatical? This is a line spoken by the Emperor to Luke in Star Wars. I always wondered if this is grammatically correct. Luke says something like 'You are mistaken ...' which the Emperor answers with No, it is you who are mistaken! Why wouldn't he say No, it is you who is mistaken! instead? I don't know what rules apply here but my stomach tells me the latter is (at least also) correct, although you would say 'you are mistaken'. It feels as if he should be referring to 'you' in the third person. Could you please shed some light? Are both correct or if not which one is correct? And why?.
Output: The sentence It is you who are mistaken is a Cleft sentence, derived from the base sentence (shown here with focussed subject You) You are mistaken by the Clefting process, which extracts the focussed NP (you) to be the predicate of a dummy clause with It subject and some form of be as verb (generating It is you in this case), and then making the non-focussed rest of the original sentence into a relative clause modifying the focus NP (generating who are mistaken in this case). Verb agreement is invariant under clefting, so if the predicate is are mistaken in the original, it will still be are mistaken in the clefted variant.
Input: Consider Input: What's the verb for 'to drink small amounts of drink' (especially to enjoy it as slowly and long as possibly)? What's the drinking equivalent of 'nibble'?.
Output: sip is the common word, but it does not denote 'to enjoy it as slowly and long as possibly'. For that, I suggest savor (UK: savour) Taste (good food or drink) and enjoy it to the full He has dinner and actually savors the wine, rather than drinking to get drunk. 1.1 Enjoy or appreciate (something pleasant) to the full, especially by lingering over it (Oxford Dictionaries) sip Drink (something) by taking small mouthfuls. 'I sat sipping coffee' 'she sipped at her tea' (Oxford Dictionaries) You can definitely savor a good cup of coffee. A difference is this: if your coffee is hot, you can use she sipped her coffee because it was hot but you wouldn't really say she savored her coffee because it was hot. You'd say she savored her coffee because it was delicious. sip is also a occurs as a noun, meaning A small mouthful of liquid (Oxford) And we say stuff like take a sip (very common) and have a sip. She took a sip of wine is equal to she sipped her wine (one time). Thesaurus.com lists these synonyms for sip (verb): drink in, extract, imbibe, partake, quaff, sample, savor, sup, swallow, taste, toss Only savor includes the notion of enjoy as part of its definition. Quaff means to 'drink (alcoholic beverages) heartily' but does not include the sense of slow enjoyment. In fact, it can be more of an antonym, since 'drink heartedly' can entail drinking quickly.
Input: Consider Input: In the book I am reading (Patrick Fairbairn, The Interpretation of Prophecy, 2nd ed., 1865), the abbreviation 'sq.' is used sometimes in referencing both Scripture and other books (as 'Typology of Scripture, vol. i. p. 100 sq.' or 'Ezek xxvi. 7, sq.'). What does 'sq.' mean in this context? (Instances of this abbreviation's usage may be found at Google Books here.).
| Output: Sq. is short for the Latin word sequiturque, which means the following. So p. 100 sq. means page 100 and those following pages. Here's the source.
| 2 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Example: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Example solution: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Example explanation: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Problem: Somehow I am compelled to use the word 'metal' to describe strong 'intestinal fortitude', and perseverance however I can't find the spelling or any synonym like this. Does a word that sounds like 'metal' exist when describing an individual's character? I'm looking for modern or historic usage of the word.
| Solution: Mettle Defined by Oxford Dictionaries as: a person's ability to cope well with difficulties; spirit and resilience. It is commonly seen in the phrase: (put someone) on their mettle meaning, (of a demanding situation) test someone's ability to face difficulties. 'there were regular public meetings where local MPs were put on their mettle and remorselessly pilloried' Source: ODO Other constructions are possible too, for example: test their mettle, apparently an American version (thanks, @PeterCordes) show your mettle, etc. Origins According to Merriam-Webster, mettle was, as @Sparhawk points out in the comments, originally simply a variant spelling of the word metal (which dates to at least the 13th century), and it was used in all of the same senses as its metallic relative. Over time, however, mettle came to be used mainly in figurative senses referring to the quality of someone's character, with a first known usage in 1581. Today, both words can mean 'vigor and strength of spirit or temperament,' but only metal is used of metallic substances. | 5 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
instruction:
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
question:
How can you explain that this double negation is not a double negation? Is there a rule in English about this kind of sentence? PS / Do I have to mention Pink Floyd Copyright ? :-) Edit : Since there are a lot of Pink Floyd related explanation, I'll bring a Freddy Mercury one : 'I don't have time for no monkey business', which I also understand as 'I don't have time for monkey business'. Am I right ?.
answer:
Doubled negatives are often used casually in certain dialects to indicate negative concord, an intensification of negation rather than an inversion of it. This typically happens when both words involved are simple negatives, and is most common with no standing in for a, an, or any alongside don't or ain't. So you can safely assume that He isn't not going to the concert. is double negation proper, because it has emphasis, as is She wasn't unimpressed. because this is litotes, whereas I ain't no hillbilly. is negative concord, because it's obviously casual, and uses ain't no in place of am no or am not a. (It's also a patent lie, but that's beside the point.)
question:
How can I explain to people that the phrase off of is grammatically incorrect? I've heard this phrase used a lot, especially by Americans (though they aren't the only ones). In my understanding, off of should usually be replaced by off, as in, I took the book off the shelf as opposed to I took the book off of the shelf Am I wrong? Or is there perhaps some simple way I can explain this to most people?.
answer:
I don't know how you can explain to people in general that it's grammatically incorrect, but here is one idea: when you go to a James Brown tribute concert and the singer says 'Get up offa that thing' what you could do is to trounce the security guards, climb on to the stage, pounce onto the singer, grab the microphone and say 'In fact you should be saying not 'get up offa that thing' but 'get up off that thing' since 'offa' is grammatically incorrect.' I'm sure everyone will thank you for your grammatical corrections. Being serious for a moment though, it's very difficult to decide what is or is not 'grammatically correct'. E.g. in the UK we say 'outside my house' but US people often say 'outside of my house'. How can you actually decide which of these two is grammatically correct? Unfortunately it's not possible since English grammar is not a science like physics but merely a description of what people actually do, and that has changed very significantly over the years. If I was teaching someone English I would definitely say 'off' is correct and 'off of' is wrong, but this kind of decision is based on intuition, based on the usages of educated native speakers.
question:
I was laying in bed or lying in bed?.
answer:
| According to Google NGrams, 'lying in bed' is much more common. 'To lay' is a transitive verb. It can be reflexive - 'I lay myself', 'I am laying myself', 'I was laying myself' - but it requires an object noun. 'To lie' by contrast is intransitive. It is an indicator of state, not action. Thus, your statement, which indicates your state in the past perfect, should use this verb and not 'lay'. If 'I was laying in bed', the connotation is that I was in the act of laying something in that bed, and the sentence is not proper unless that object is either stated explicitly or inferred by context; it can range from the innocent reflexive ('I was laying myself in bed') to the innocent transitive ('I was laying my infant daughter in bed') to the sexual ('I was laying my girlfriend in bed') to the absurd ('I was laying eggs in bed').
| 9 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
[Q]: The question is quite straightforward: Which of the following is preferable? 'I keep myself up-to-date on the latest technology.' 'I keep myself up to date on the latest technology.'.
[A]: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, as quoted by the site below, you hyphenate if the compound adjective is before the noun and don't hyphenate if it is after the noun. With compound adjectives formed from the adverb well and a participle (e.g., well-known), or from a phrase (e.g., up-to-date), you should use a hyphen (or hyphens) when the compound comes before the noun: well-known brands of coffee; an up-to-date account, but not when the compound comes after the noun: His music was also well known in England. Their figures are up to date. From Oxford Dictionaries via Adverbs and Hyphens by Maeve Maddox for Daily Writing Tips. In this case the noun is myself and before the adjective, so no hyphen. In other styles, this may not necessarily hold true. For instance, in APA style, hyphens are discouraged unless they add clarity.
[Q]: For example, a man's name is Jeff Smith. My question is: When should I call him 'Jeff'? When should I call him 'Smith'? When should I call him 'Jeff Smith'? in western.
[A]: In general US usage, you would use 'Jeff' if you are friends, contemporaries, or Jeff has asked you to use his first name. First names are often used in casual settings. You would use 'Mr. Smith' (or 'Dr. Smith' or other appropriate title) if you are colleagues, younger than Mr. Smith, or in a formal or business setting. You would use 'Smith' in a very casual setting, particularly when playing sports. You would use 'Jeff Smith' when making an introduction, or if you needed to distinguish him from other Jeffs or Smiths, or sometimes when greeting him.
[Q]: Someone who, in normal settings, dresses like this: (Without falling in the category of a transsexual or a cross-dresser.) Example sentence: S/he wears _______ clothes and costumes all the time. Maybe s/he is a _______. Sources: Mad Hatter, Japanese Goth.
[A]: | I would use Flamboyant. A person with a showy style. The word doesn't just apply to clothing but to any extravagant style of behaviour. As others have said, in times gone by the words fop and dandy would have been common. However, they would nowadays be taken to referring to the Regency period.
| 5 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Teacher: Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following example:
How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Solution: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Reason: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Now, solve this instance: Someone who, in normal settings, dresses like this: (Without falling in the category of a transsexual or a cross-dresser.) Example sentence: S/he wears _______ clothes and costumes all the time. Maybe s/he is a _______. Sources: Mad Hatter, Japanese Goth.
Student: | I would use Flamboyant. A person with a showy style. The word doesn't just apply to clothing but to any extravagant style of behaviour. As others have said, in times gone by the words fop and dandy would have been common. However, they would nowadays be taken to referring to the Regency period. | 2 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Teacher: Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following example:
How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Solution: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Reason: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Now, solve this instance: I'm almost sure it's 36 thousands, since we're talking about 36 not 1. But I'm in doubt because 36 already indicates that it's more than 1, so maybe, just maybe, it could be 36 thousand?.
Student: | Oh, The grand old Duke of York, He had ten thousand men; He marched them up to the top of the hill, And he marched them down again. You can have thousands of soldiers, but when you are being exact, you have n thousand of them. same for hundreds, dozens or millions. | 2 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
TASK DEFINITION: Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
PROBLEM: When someone says I stand corrected. What does that mean?.
SOLUTION: It means 'I admit that I was wrong'. See e.g. Cambridge Dictionaries: used to admit that something you have said or done was wrong I stand corrected - the date of foundation was 1411, and not 1412 as I had written. Or Wiktionary: Said to acknowledge someone who corrects something that one says or writes that was not correct. The Battle of Hastings was fought in 1056. No it wasn't! Look in the textbook! Oh, sorry. I stand corrected - it was fought in 1066. Note that the Cambridge Dictionary marks this idiom as 'formal', and Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary as 'somewhat formal'.
PROBLEM: Opening doors, offering to pay the tab, helping with a coat or a light of the smoke: we may describe these acts of a man to be gentlemanly. In a word, how may we describe these acts of any person?.
SOLUTION: I'd go with courteous, the etymology of which also hints at a closer fit to gentlemanly than, say, decorous, polite, or respectful.
PROBLEM: Any situation, any time; this person has always something negative to say about it. It should be a noun or an adjective to describe a person who is a damp cloud walking over every sunshine situations at the cubicle, hoping to drench other people with his miserable comments. I considered 'sourpuss' but would prefer something more important sounding, like 'misogynist.'.
SOLUTION: | In British English, 'Naysayer' is common for someone who says that something is not possible, won't work, shouldn't be tried, etc.
| 8 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Example input: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Example output: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Example explanation: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Q: Can one use kindness as a synonym for politeness? What's the difference? Where do you draw the line between them?.
A: | I think this is a situation in which etymology is revealing. The background of polite, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, is: mid-13c., from L. politus 'refined, elegant,' lit. 'polished,' pp. of polire 'to polish, to make smooth.' Used literally at first in English; sense of 'elegant, cultured' is first recorded c.1500, that of 'behaving courteously' is 1762. Polite, both in its original literal usage and in its current usage, is more about superficial appearance. To be polite, one need only use polite words and manners. Nothing internal is necessary. The history of kind, on the other hand, is related to internal goodness: 'friendly,' from O.E. gecynde 'natural, native, innate,' originally 'with the feeling of relatives for each other,' from P.Gmc. gakundiz, from kunjan (see kin), with collective prefix ga- and abstract suffix -iz. Sense development from 'with natural feelings,' to 'well-disposed' (c.1300), 'benign, compassionate' (c.1300). Ultimately, politeness tells you little about a person's character; it may be sincere, or it may be highly calculated. Kindness, though, is directly related to a person's character, and is quite difficult to fake. | 3 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Let me give you an example: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
The answer to this example can be: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Here is why: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
OK. solve this:
Possible Duplicate: How do I say 'Our meeting is preponed'? A friend of mine asked me this question, and it caught my curiosity. Is there an explicit opposite of the word postpone? As in, do something in advance? Clearly what I just said is functionally equivalent to the answer I am seeking, but I was wondering if there was a single word that is the antonym. More context: Bob was supposed to start work in July, but due to a work visa issue, he had to begin in advance.
Answer: | The most business-speaky option is expedite. Other alternatives include accelerate, hasten, and advance. Technically prepone is in fact the precise antonym, but I honestly wouldn't be caught dead using it. | 8 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
[Q]: I sometimes see the term 'critical but stable' in the news. It is often used to describe someone who has been very seriously injured. For example (15 December 2019): '[A police officer] said the man who had been shot was in a 'critical but stable ' condition in hospital.' I understand that 'critically ill' means that life is in danger. Similarly 'stable' is the opposite. Quotes from www.lexico.com critically To an extreme degree with a risk of death. 'two critically wounded people died in hospital'. 'critically ill patients who were awaiting surgery' stable (of a patient or their medical condition) not deteriorating in health after an injury or operation. 'he is now in a stable condition in hospital' What does 'critical but stable' really mean?.
[A]: You specify British English but the only other answer with a quote is from a US source. I was curious if it was materially different in the UK. The UK newspaper article critical and serious condition: what hospitals mean when they report a patient's state indicates it means much the same here. (the bolded part is the direct answer to your question) Sometimes, people will include a suggestion of whether someone's condition is stable, improving or getting worse. A 'Critical but stable' condition, for instance, indicates that someone is in a bad state but not likely to get worse in the short-term. Others recommend against using that phrasing, however, since being in a critical condition implies that a patient vital signs are not stable.
[Q]: This is similar to a palindrome but, instead of a word/sentence that reads the same forwards and backward, is there a word for words/sentences that read the same right side up and upside-down? See picture below where the word 'yeah' is written in cursive:.
[A]: That is called an ambigram. It is a typographical design that can be read in more than one direction. ambigram noun A typographical design consisting of text modified in such a way that it can be read in multiple orientations, as in mirror image, inverted, or when rotated. (ODO) Famously (?) used in Dan Brown's Angels and Demons.
[Q]: Possible Duplicate: How do I say 'Our meeting is preponed'? A friend of mine asked me this question, and it caught my curiosity. Is there an explicit opposite of the word postpone? As in, do something in advance? Clearly what I just said is functionally equivalent to the answer I am seeking, but I was wondering if there was a single word that is the antonym. More context: Bob was supposed to start work in July, but due to a work visa issue, he had to begin in advance.
[A]: | The most business-speaky option is expedite. Other alternatives include accelerate, hasten, and advance. Technically prepone is in fact the precise antonym, but I honestly wouldn't be caught dead using it.
| 5 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Detailed Instructions: Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
See one example below:
Problem: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Solution: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Explanation: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Problem: Are there programmers here? I'd like to know how you guys pronounce cURL. Because I don't live in a country that uses English, I haven't heard it yet.
Solution: | According to the authors of the library, We pronounce curl and cURL with an initial k sound: [kurl]. This same FAQ notes that one of the reasons for which the name was chosen was '[t]he fact it can also be pronounced 'see URL'', an obvious pun on the use of the library, which as you know is to retrieve web resources. For what it's worth, I always pronounce it with the initial k sound, as in the English word 'curl.' | 4 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Q: In the book I am reading (Patrick Fairbairn, The Interpretation of Prophecy, 2nd ed., 1865), the abbreviation 'sq.' is used sometimes in referencing both Scripture and other books (as 'Typology of Scripture, vol. i. p. 100 sq.' or 'Ezek xxvi. 7, sq.'). What does 'sq.' mean in this context? (Instances of this abbreviation's usage may be found at Google Books here.).
A: Sq. is short for the Latin word sequiturque, which means the following. So p. 100 sq. means page 100 and those following pages. Here's the source.
****
Q: Possible Duplicate: Do you use 'a' or 'an' before acronyms? Does one use 'a' or 'an' before the word 'X-Ray'? Quite simply, should a sentence read 'a XML report' or 'an XML report'?.
A: It's 'an XML report', because which form of the indefinite article to use is decided by how the next word is pronounced. In this case, it's pronounced: An ex-emm-ell report 'XML' begins with a vowel sound, 'e', so an is used rather than a.
****
Q: Are there programmers here? I'd like to know how you guys pronounce cURL. Because I don't live in a country that uses English, I haven't heard it yet.
A: | According to the authors of the library, We pronounce curl and cURL with an initial k sound: [kurl]. This same FAQ notes that one of the reasons for which the name was chosen was '[t]he fact it can also be pronounced 'see URL'', an obvious pun on the use of the library, which as you know is to retrieve web resources. For what it's worth, I always pronounce it with the initial k sound, as in the English word 'curl.'
****
| 4 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
[EX Q]: Possible Duplicate: Types of things vs. types of thing When using the phrase 'types of' or 'kinds of,' it often seems appropriate to follow with a singular noun (e.g., types of rock), but at other times a plural noun sounds better (e.g., types of sentences). Is there some kind of rule about this?.
[EX A]: I think your essential concern is about countable vs. uncountable nouns. Countable nouns can be singular or plural; uncountable nouns are singular. Some words can be both, in different meanings. Take a look at this example discussing countable and uncountable nouns: The coffees I prefer are Arabica and Brazilian. (Here coffees refers to different types of coffee) You could write, 'The types of coffee I prefer are Arabica and Brazilian.' So with your example: The rocks I like are basalt and granite. [Rocks are countable] The types of rock I like are basalt and granite. [Rock is uncountable] When rock is taking on the uncountable meaning, it's not one rock - it's the idea of rock, the general concept. The only senses in which this is familiar to me are the 'solid mineral' one and rock as in 'rock music,' where you might say, 'The types of rock I like are grunge and punk.' Contrast the other part of your example: The sentences I like are about geology. [Sentences are countable] The types of sentences I like are about geology. [Sentences are still countable] Sentences don't have an uncountable meaning: *The types of sentence I like are about geology. [Ungrammatical for most speakers, I think]
[EX Q]: This is something I always get confuse with (native language German). As far as I know 'did + verb' is something done and finished in the past. But isn't it the same with 'verb + ed'?.
[EX A]: The normal way of talking about something in the past tense is to use 'verb + ed'. For example, 'I finished the project on time'. You might use 'did + verb' if you wanted to emphasise the point. In the previous example, if someone claimed that you completed the project late, you might say 'I did finish the project on time, and here's the evidence'. Using 'did + verb' where there is no doubt about the truth sounds strange to native English speakers. Saying something like 'I did go shopping for food yesterday' will probably lead to the response 'Well nobody said you didn't!'
[EX Q]: When it comes to cities and boats named after saints, it seems that 'Santa' is always female and 'San' is always male. e.g. Male Saints: San Diego, San Francisco, San Antonio Female Saints: Santa Barbara, Santa Maria So why isn't 'Santa Claus' a woman like all the other 'Santa's?.
[EX A]: | The city names you quote are all derived from Spanish, where 'San' (or 'Santo', as @tchrist clarifies below) is the male inflection and 'Santa' the female one. However, Santa Claus isn't derived from Spanish, but from Dutch, where it was originally rendered as Sante Klaas, and was modified to Santa when it was adopted into English (and from English, to the rest of the world). Here's Etymonline's take on it: from dialectal Dutch Sante Klaas, from Middle Dutch Sinter Niklaas 'Saint Nicholas,' English, like all other languages, borrows words from many sources, and they often carry over remnants of their original grammar or usage, even when it makes for inconsistent usage in English.
| 6 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
[Q]: What is the proper way to write this term when writing product documentation? Hyphenated or not? drop down list or drop-down list?.
[A]: If it's just the compound adjective, use drop-down list. Note, however, that there are classes of components in various frameworks that are called DropDown or DropDownList or various alternatives of the same thing. In such cases use the framework name as is.
[Q]: There is a particular taste that I could never quite translate in English. It is not bitter, although it sometimes occurs with it. The best example is eating a raw quince fruit. The mouth and tongue get a sort of dry feeling. Similar taste can be experienced with some persimmon fruit, and unripe plums. I know the word in French (apre) and Bulgarian (). Google translates these as rough, but that somehow seems unlikely. Any ideas?.
[A]: Astringent, maybe? Astringent taste is the least common of all the 6 Tastes and can be found in legumes (such as beans and lentils), fruits (including cranberries, pomegranates, pears, and dried fruit), vegetables (such as, broccoli, cauliflower, artichoke, asparagus and turnip), grains (such as rye, buckwheat, and quinoa), spices and herbs (including turmeric and marjoram), coffee, and tea.
[Q]: Is there a semantic difference between engine and motor? In some cases, would the use of one or the other word be technically incorrect?.
[A]: | I like the definitions provided by WordNet and their definition is the way I've understood the difference: A motor is a machine that converts other forms of energy into mechanical energy and so imparts motion. An engine is a motor that converts thermal energy to mechanical work. wordnetweb.princeton.edu So an engine is a specific type of motor. That's why it's not incorrect to speak of a motorboat, or a motorcar, or a motor speedway, even if the boat or car is clearly powered by combustion. Note that if there's no combustion, there's no engine. Purely electric cars don't have engines. As nouns, motor can also refer to a nonspecific agent that causes motion: 'happiness is the aim of all men and the motor of all action', and engine can refer to something used to achieve a purpose: 'an engine of change', a railway locomotive, or a machine used in warfare: 'medieval engines of war'.
| 5 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Example Input: How should often be pronounced in formal speech? 'off-ten' or 'of-fen'?.
Example Output: 'Should' is inappropriate in the question. Both pronunciations occur. In the 19th century /:fn/ ('aufn') was the normal pronunciation, so in The Pirates of Penzance, there is an elaborate joke on the confusion of 'often' and 'orphan'.
Example Input: I'm looking for an idiom or expression that means someone just makes frustrating or disappointing remarks. Maybe some of you have watched the TV cartoon 'The adventures of Gulliver' in which there was as a character named 'Glum'. He was all the time pessimistic about everything and used statements like: 'We'll never make it'; 'We'll never get out of here alive'; and 'We're doomed.' I want to use that idiom or expression in examples like this: Husband: After getting my promotion, I will take you to a fantastic trip. Wife: Oh, stop talking nonsense! I know It won't never happen, it's impossible you get a promotion. Husband: You remind me of 'Glum'! All the time _____ (i.e. acting like Glum, just having a gloomy outlook on everything). Please stop using such remarks and be a little optimistic! I have found wet blanket for describing such people. PS: We Iranians use an expression that literally says 'to read a frustrating or disappointing verse'. So in above example, the husband might reply like this: Hey Glum, the only thing you know is reading a frustrating/ disappointing verse! (Sometimes we call these people 'Glum'.).
Example Output: I've got a gut feeling that this question is a duplicate, but 'naysayer' fits in your context: a person who habitually expresses negative or pessimistic views: 'Despite a general feeling that things were going well, a few naysayers tried to cast gloom. [Dictionary.com]
Example Input: What's the difference between the two? Later the doctors found out that my case was a bit different. Later on the doctors found out that my case was a bit different. Is one more common than the other?.
Example Output: | 'later' and 'later on' have the same meaning. Sometimes 'later on' is preferred because it has another, smoother rhythmical flow. You can consider 'later on' as just a variant for 'later'.
| 3 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Example Input: How should you reply to 'what's up?'.
Example Output: 'What's up' means 'What's happening.' I usually just reply 'nothing.' because nothing is happening to me. But, there are alternatives, such as the usual reply to a greeting: Not much Nothing. Yourself? I'm good, yourself? Good. How are you? However, if there is something that you would like to tell the other person e.g. You've sold your car, it might go like this: A: What's up? B: I've sold my car. A: Good on you mate!
Example Input: Possible Duplicate: 'Alternately' or 'alternatively' What is the difference between alternate and alternative? For example, I have two versions of the same software and I want to write one of the following: Software Name (alternate version) Software Name (alternative version).
Example Output: In British English, an alternative version is one that can be considered as a possible choice, while an alternate one changes places at regular intervals with another version. However, I understand that in American English 'alternate' is an alternative to 'alternative'.
Example Input: So I thought I'm sure about this and my instincts say that: 'If anyone has seen them ..' would be right but then again when I said it like: 'If anyone have seen them ..' I started thinking which one would be the right one. Can you please guide me through which is the right one and why? P.S. English is not my first language.
Example Output: | It's 'if anyone has', because 'anyone' functions as third person singular. It probably just seems right to use 'have' because you would for any other number or person.
| 3 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
One example: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Solution is here: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Explanation: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Now, solve this: Possible Duplicate: 'Nikki's and Alice's X' vs. 'Nikki and Alice's X' Consider describing the wedding of X and Y. If I want to avoid the overly-formal and poor-flowing 'wedding of', it is more correct to say 'X and Y's wedding' or 'X's and Y's wedding'? I acknowledge a very similar question has already been asked: What possessive forms are used for mutual 1st person ownership? But unfortunately the example given is able to be easily phrased a different way and so respondents have been able to get away with avoiding the direct question. Let's face it, we come across the need to get across the concept of mutual possession all the time and we don't always want to have to resort to the more tortured 'Z of X and Y' as with the French language. NB: In some cases, people get around this problem by dropping the apostrophes altogether and 'adjectivising' the owners, especially if the owners are actually plural entities themselves. Eg. The 'Mazda and Mitsubishi combined outputs' instead of the 'Mazda's and Mitsubishi's combined outputs'. Let's not let this muddy the waters though.
Solution: | This site states it very well: A less-often faced decision involves the use of apostrophes where multiple owners are named. Where two or more people own one item together, place an apostrophe before an 's' only after the second-named person. For example: Incorrect: Bill's and Mary's car was a lemon, leading them to seek rescission of their contract under the state's lemon law. Correct: Bill and Mary's car was a lemon, leading them to seek rescission of their contract under the state's lemon law. However, when two or more people own two or more items separately, each individual's name should take the possessive form. For example: Incorrect: Joanne and Todd's cars were bought from the same dealer; both proved useless, even though Joanne's car was an import and Todd's was a domestic model. Correct: Joanne's and Todd's cars were bought from the same dealer; both proved useless, even though Joanne's car was an import and Todd's was a domestic model. ('The Legal Writing Teaching Assistant: The Law Student's Guide to Good Writing', by Marc A. Grinker) So, saying 'X's and Y's weddings' (note that it's weddings not wedding) has a different meaning from 'X and Y's wedding'. The first one is denoting two separate weddings, and the two subjects named are not getting married to one another, but the second one is the one you are probably trying to say. | 6 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Q: I am studying English and I want to know the main difference between 'Have you got?' and 'Do you have?' questions. Are they the same? Is one more formal than the other?.
A: Contrary to the above, 'Have you got' is more common in British English than 'Do you have' (about 2:1); but 'Do you have' is much more common in American English than 'Have you got' (more than 10:1). Note that the response includes only the relevant auxiliary: - 'Do you have a pen'; 'Yes, I do'. - 'Have you got a pen'; 'Yes, I have'. In fact, the most common form where I live (in Northern Ireland) is simply 'Have you', but that sounds old-fashioned to many English speakers elsewhere. Have a look at the 'Separated by a Common Language' blog.
****
Q: Imagine you're in a bar and order a pint of beer, which is 3.20. You only have a 10 note but want to tip the barkeeper. As you can't use 'keep the change' for obvious reasons, what do you say to tip the barkeeper 80 pence, making the total price 4?.
A: I am occasionally in the same situation when I want to tip a taxi driver. Converting to your problem, I would say: Make it 4 pounds. or if that is not clear: Make it 4 pounds and keep the difference. This is in my country (Australia) where tipping is uncommon, however. Edit: Thinking about it even more, sometimes I add the word 'Just' to the front of the sentence. Not sure why.
****
Q: Is there a single word to describe birds that can fly? Am I struggling to think of a word because the default notion of a bird is that it can fly? So we generally only need to differentiate the ones that can't fly. I've seen the term 'winged' in a few google searches, but to my mind an ostrich is winged, but it is also flightless. I guess I'm looking for the word you'd put into this blank: Penguins are flightless because they cannot fly. Ostriches are flightless because they cannot fly. Pigeons are ____ because they can fly.
A: | I think you can just use flying to describe them; flying birds sounds perfectly normal and isn't a tautology, nor does it only apply to birds in the air, cf. the title of the Wikipedia article 'Flying and gliding animals'. It's obviously an awkward choice for your example sentence, where another option, volant, could be used instead: 2: flying or capable of flying (source: Merriam-Webster)
****
| 4 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
One example is below.
Q: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
A: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Rationale: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Q: Possible Duplicate: 'Did it close' vs 'Has it closed'? As a English non-native speaker it is difficult for me to understand when I must use present perfect or past simple because in my official language there isn't the present perfect tense. I know that present perfect is related to something that happened in the past but its result is important now. But for instance: The message has been sent. The message was sent. Please help me point me out any examples/contexts where I should use 1. instead of 2.
A: | 1 means that the action happened just now. You would typically see it in your e-mail program just after you send an e-mail. Your program might give you this message to let you know that the message you just sent has indeed been sent. 2 refers to something that happened at some time in the past. It could have been an hour ago, a day ago, or even a century ago! But it wasn't just now. | 9 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Example input: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Example output: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Example explanation: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Q: I once read that JRR Tolkien, a linguist by profession and of The Lord of the Rings fame, wrote his masterpiece using elements of archaic English to emulate the Bible. Following a question on writers.SE, and comments below, this statement is not as clear as I took it. As non-native speaker, I stumbled upon a few words the first time that I read the book (in original version). It is clear that he did use a few words that, IMHO, were deemed archaic already by the time the novel was published in 1954. Most notably amongst them are the use of thou and thee. He also used less common or less modern words (or meanings), as can be seen in this list. It is even the subject of a book. As an illustration 'Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!' A cold voice answered: 'Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye.' A sword rang as it was drawn. 'Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.' 'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!' Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. 'But no living man am I!' -- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings (source) Tolkien is known to have written a story to give life to made-up languages. And I have the feeling he used (somewhat) old(er) English for the speech of the Elves with Men, equally for educational purpose. I understand that one needs to define some terms, in particular 'archaic'. I would say that archaic words and/or expressions are words and/or expressions that would be out of place (due to it being too old) in a conversation of the time, and which would be noticed by the participants of the conversation as such. Or hasn't been used commonly for 50-100 years. Now, from the elements above, did Tolkien use archaic elements of language when writing the Lord of the Ring? Or do these words strike me as old because I am non-native and/or they are not so much in use today, but were faily common back then (when he wrote it) at least in University circles where he was. PS. I did hesitate to ask this question in Writers.SE, SciFi.SE, ELL.SE or here. But ultimately as it is about English language as such I thought it was better here. But please to tell me if I should ask it somewhere more appropriate? PPS. I hope I managed to limit the 'opinion-based' part of the question.
A: | The basic answer to your question of whether he used archaic language to emulate the Bible is no, of course not. There is one specific exception, however, which I explain further on. The Lord of the Rings is composed entirely in Modern English using all manner of style and register. This is deliberate. (I will exempt Eomer's 'Westu Theoden hal!' taken directly from Beowulf's 'Ws u, Hrogar, hal', as that actually is Old English. Nothing else is.) Tolkien himself specifically explains exactly why he resorts to the second-person singular in certain situations. Please read Appendix F, section II, 'On Translation' for this and a great deal more about what he was doing, and why, when he attributed different styles of speech to different characters at different times. The Witch-king's use of the second person was intended to be belittling. In Tolkien's letter to Milton Waldman, while attempting to present a summary of the book's plot and character, Tolkien states that: . . . even in style it is to include the colloquialism and vulgarity of the Hobbits, poetry and the highest style of prose. So his mixing of low and high, and even of poetry and prose, was done with full awareness and intent. Indeed, in the same Waldman letter he also wrote: Hardly a word in its 600,000 or more has been unconsidered. And the placing, size, style, and contribution to the whole of all the features, incidents, and chapters has been laboriously pondered Perhaps the best explanation for why Tolkien ever used archaic phrasing can be found in his Letter #171, wherein he takes up the accusation of gratuitous 'tushery' (archaism). He addresses the point of why one would use archaic language to represent what was (purported to be) spoken by an archaic people in this way. Dear Hugh, ....Don't be disturbed! I have not noticed any impertinence (or sycophancy) in your letters; and anyone so appreciative and so perceptive is entitled to criticism. Anyway I do not naturally breathe an air of undiluted incense! It was not what you said (last letter but one, not the one that I answered) or your right to say it, that might have called for a reply, if I had the time for it; but the pain that I always feel when anyone in an age in which almost all auctorial manhandling of English is permitted (especially if disruptive) in the name of art or 'personal expression' immediately dismisses out of court deliberate 'archaism'. The proper use of 'tushery' is to apply it to the kind of bogus 'medieval' stuff which attempts (without knowledge) to give a supposed temporal colour with expletives, such as tush, pish, zounds, marry, and the like. But a real archaic English is far more terse than modern; also many of things said could not be said in our slack and often frivolous idiom. Of course, not being specially well read in modern English, and far more familiar with works in the ancient and 'middle' idioms, my own ear is to some extent affected; so that though I could easily recollect how a modern would put this or that, what comes easiest to mind or pen is not quite that. But take an example from the chapter that you specially singled out (and called terrible): Book iii, 'The King of the Golden Hall'. 'Nay, Gandalf!' said the King. 'You do not know your own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall in the front of battle, if it must be. Thus shall I sleep better.' This is a fair example moderated or watered archaism. Using only words that still are used or known to the educated, the King would really have said 'Nay, thou (n')wost not thine own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall...' etc. I know well enough what a modern would say. 'Not at all, my dear G. You don't know your own skill as a doctor. Things aren't going to be like that. I shall go to the war in person, even if I have to be one of the first casualties' and then what? Theoden would certainly think, and probably say 'thus shall I sleep better'! But people who think like that just do not talk a modern idiom. You can have 'I shall lie easier in my grave', or 'I should sleep sounder in my grave like that rather than if I stayed at home' if you like. But there would be an insincerity of thought, a disunion of word and meaning. For a King who spoke in a modern style would not really think in such terms at all, and any reference to sleeping quietly in the grave would be a deliberate archaism of expression on his part (however worded) far more bogus than the actual 'archaic' English that I have used. Like some non-Christian making a reference to some Christian belief which did not in fact move him at all. Or p.127, as an example of 'archaism' that cannot be defended as 'dramatic', since it is not in dialogue, but the author's description of the arming of the guests which seemed specially to upset you. But such 'heroic' scenes do not occur in a modern setting to which a modern idiom belongs. Why deliberately ignore, refuse to use the wealth of English which leaves us a choice of styles without any possibility of unintelligibility. I can see no more reason for not using the much terser and more vivid ancient style than for changing the obsolete weapons, helms, shields and hauberks into modern uniforms. 'Helms too they chose' is archaic. Some (wrongly) class it as 'inversion', since normal order is 'They also chose helmets' or 'they chose helmets too'. (Real mod. E. 'They also picked out some helmets and round shields.) But this is not normal order, and if mod. E. has lost the trick of putting a word desired to emphasize (for pictorial, emotional or logical reasons) into prominent first place, without addition of a lot of little 'empty' words (as the Chinese say), so much the worse for it. And so much the better for it the sooner it learns the trick again. And some one must begin the teaching, by example. I am sorry to find you so affected by the extraordinary 20th C. delusion that its usages per se and simply as 'contemporary' irrespective of whether they are terser, more vivid (or even nobler!) have some peculiar validity, above those of other times, so that not to use them (even when quite unsuitable in tone) is a solecism, a gaffe, a thing at which one's friends shudder or feel hot under the collar. Shake yourself out of this parochialism of time! Also (not to be too donnish) learn to discriminate between the bogus and genuine antique as you would if you hoped not to be cheated by a dealer! He does not actually write archaic language, or not fully archaic, for he would have lost the reader. What he does do at times is watered or moderated archaism, and he does this for a distinct reason given above. Every linguistic effect he used has a specific purpose that makes good sense in that context. Tolkien was a master of this, and if you think it all archaic, you haven't been reading closely enough. Look at the rustic speech of the hobbits or the coarse speech of the orcs and trolls: all styles and registers are represented in the book, from the low to the very highest. I would say that most uses of archaic language in fantasy literature written today are fake. That's because there is so much of it, and Sturgeon's Law applies. They are the very embodiment of what Tolkien complained of in his letter to Hugh Brogan. He himself doesn't do that because he actually knew what he was writing. Most people do not, and so their would-be antique language comes off sounding bogus, not authentic. About that exception. The one, and I believe only, place where Tolkien deliberately echoed the KJV is in the chapter 'The Stewart and the King' from Book VI. The eagle's song found there is quite obviously cast in the stylized language of the Psalms. I believe Tolkien felt that nothing short of Biblical language could suitably convey the 'sudden joy as poignant as grief' of the unexpected eucatastrophe after all but the wannest of hopes had been forgotten. You really should read Tom Shippey's The Road to Middle-Earth: How J. R. R. Tolkien Created a New Mythology, preferably the 2003 edition. Shippey discusses Tolkien's use of language at length. He also shows that all modes of Frye's Anatomy of Criticism are present based on the characters involved, all the way from the mythic to the ironic. | 3 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
TASK DEFINITION: Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
PROBLEM: Are both is equal to and equals similar in meaning? Which is the more natural? For example, one plus one equals two or one plus one is equal to two.
SOLUTION: Both are grammatically correct and mean the same. And both are the natural ways of saying it. Use either.
PROBLEM: Possible Duplicate: 'Alternately' or 'alternatively' What is the difference between alternate and alternative? For example, I have two versions of the same software and I want to write one of the following: Software Name (alternate version) Software Name (alternative version).
SOLUTION: In British English, an alternative version is one that can be considered as a possible choice, while an alternate one changes places at regular intervals with another version. However, I understand that in American English 'alternate' is an alternative to 'alternative'.
PROBLEM: I once read that JRR Tolkien, a linguist by profession and of The Lord of the Rings fame, wrote his masterpiece using elements of archaic English to emulate the Bible. Following a question on writers.SE, and comments below, this statement is not as clear as I took it. As non-native speaker, I stumbled upon a few words the first time that I read the book (in original version). It is clear that he did use a few words that, IMHO, were deemed archaic already by the time the novel was published in 1954. Most notably amongst them are the use of thou and thee. He also used less common or less modern words (or meanings), as can be seen in this list. It is even the subject of a book. As an illustration 'Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!' A cold voice answered: 'Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye.' A sword rang as it was drawn. 'Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.' 'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!' Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. 'But no living man am I!' -- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings (source) Tolkien is known to have written a story to give life to made-up languages. And I have the feeling he used (somewhat) old(er) English for the speech of the Elves with Men, equally for educational purpose. I understand that one needs to define some terms, in particular 'archaic'. I would say that archaic words and/or expressions are words and/or expressions that would be out of place (due to it being too old) in a conversation of the time, and which would be noticed by the participants of the conversation as such. Or hasn't been used commonly for 50-100 years. Now, from the elements above, did Tolkien use archaic elements of language when writing the Lord of the Ring? Or do these words strike me as old because I am non-native and/or they are not so much in use today, but were faily common back then (when he wrote it) at least in University circles where he was. PS. I did hesitate to ask this question in Writers.SE, SciFi.SE, ELL.SE or here. But ultimately as it is about English language as such I thought it was better here. But please to tell me if I should ask it somewhere more appropriate? PPS. I hope I managed to limit the 'opinion-based' part of the question.
SOLUTION: | The basic answer to your question of whether he used archaic language to emulate the Bible is no, of course not. There is one specific exception, however, which I explain further on. The Lord of the Rings is composed entirely in Modern English using all manner of style and register. This is deliberate. (I will exempt Eomer's 'Westu Theoden hal!' taken directly from Beowulf's 'Ws u, Hrogar, hal', as that actually is Old English. Nothing else is.) Tolkien himself specifically explains exactly why he resorts to the second-person singular in certain situations. Please read Appendix F, section II, 'On Translation' for this and a great deal more about what he was doing, and why, when he attributed different styles of speech to different characters at different times. The Witch-king's use of the second person was intended to be belittling. In Tolkien's letter to Milton Waldman, while attempting to present a summary of the book's plot and character, Tolkien states that: . . . even in style it is to include the colloquialism and vulgarity of the Hobbits, poetry and the highest style of prose. So his mixing of low and high, and even of poetry and prose, was done with full awareness and intent. Indeed, in the same Waldman letter he also wrote: Hardly a word in its 600,000 or more has been unconsidered. And the placing, size, style, and contribution to the whole of all the features, incidents, and chapters has been laboriously pondered Perhaps the best explanation for why Tolkien ever used archaic phrasing can be found in his Letter #171, wherein he takes up the accusation of gratuitous 'tushery' (archaism). He addresses the point of why one would use archaic language to represent what was (purported to be) spoken by an archaic people in this way. Dear Hugh, ....Don't be disturbed! I have not noticed any impertinence (or sycophancy) in your letters; and anyone so appreciative and so perceptive is entitled to criticism. Anyway I do not naturally breathe an air of undiluted incense! It was not what you said (last letter but one, not the one that I answered) or your right to say it, that might have called for a reply, if I had the time for it; but the pain that I always feel when anyone in an age in which almost all auctorial manhandling of English is permitted (especially if disruptive) in the name of art or 'personal expression' immediately dismisses out of court deliberate 'archaism'. The proper use of 'tushery' is to apply it to the kind of bogus 'medieval' stuff which attempts (without knowledge) to give a supposed temporal colour with expletives, such as tush, pish, zounds, marry, and the like. But a real archaic English is far more terse than modern; also many of things said could not be said in our slack and often frivolous idiom. Of course, not being specially well read in modern English, and far more familiar with works in the ancient and 'middle' idioms, my own ear is to some extent affected; so that though I could easily recollect how a modern would put this or that, what comes easiest to mind or pen is not quite that. But take an example from the chapter that you specially singled out (and called terrible): Book iii, 'The King of the Golden Hall'. 'Nay, Gandalf!' said the King. 'You do not know your own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall in the front of battle, if it must be. Thus shall I sleep better.' This is a fair example moderated or watered archaism. Using only words that still are used or known to the educated, the King would really have said 'Nay, thou (n')wost not thine own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall...' etc. I know well enough what a modern would say. 'Not at all, my dear G. You don't know your own skill as a doctor. Things aren't going to be like that. I shall go to the war in person, even if I have to be one of the first casualties' and then what? Theoden would certainly think, and probably say 'thus shall I sleep better'! But people who think like that just do not talk a modern idiom. You can have 'I shall lie easier in my grave', or 'I should sleep sounder in my grave like that rather than if I stayed at home' if you like. But there would be an insincerity of thought, a disunion of word and meaning. For a King who spoke in a modern style would not really think in such terms at all, and any reference to sleeping quietly in the grave would be a deliberate archaism of expression on his part (however worded) far more bogus than the actual 'archaic' English that I have used. Like some non-Christian making a reference to some Christian belief which did not in fact move him at all. Or p.127, as an example of 'archaism' that cannot be defended as 'dramatic', since it is not in dialogue, but the author's description of the arming of the guests which seemed specially to upset you. But such 'heroic' scenes do not occur in a modern setting to which a modern idiom belongs. Why deliberately ignore, refuse to use the wealth of English which leaves us a choice of styles without any possibility of unintelligibility. I can see no more reason for not using the much terser and more vivid ancient style than for changing the obsolete weapons, helms, shields and hauberks into modern uniforms. 'Helms too they chose' is archaic. Some (wrongly) class it as 'inversion', since normal order is 'They also chose helmets' or 'they chose helmets too'. (Real mod. E. 'They also picked out some helmets and round shields.) But this is not normal order, and if mod. E. has lost the trick of putting a word desired to emphasize (for pictorial, emotional or logical reasons) into prominent first place, without addition of a lot of little 'empty' words (as the Chinese say), so much the worse for it. And so much the better for it the sooner it learns the trick again. And some one must begin the teaching, by example. I am sorry to find you so affected by the extraordinary 20th C. delusion that its usages per se and simply as 'contemporary' irrespective of whether they are terser, more vivid (or even nobler!) have some peculiar validity, above those of other times, so that not to use them (even when quite unsuitable in tone) is a solecism, a gaffe, a thing at which one's friends shudder or feel hot under the collar. Shake yourself out of this parochialism of time! Also (not to be too donnish) learn to discriminate between the bogus and genuine antique as you would if you hoped not to be cheated by a dealer! He does not actually write archaic language, or not fully archaic, for he would have lost the reader. What he does do at times is watered or moderated archaism, and he does this for a distinct reason given above. Every linguistic effect he used has a specific purpose that makes good sense in that context. Tolkien was a master of this, and if you think it all archaic, you haven't been reading closely enough. Look at the rustic speech of the hobbits or the coarse speech of the orcs and trolls: all styles and registers are represented in the book, from the low to the very highest. I would say that most uses of archaic language in fantasy literature written today are fake. That's because there is so much of it, and Sturgeon's Law applies. They are the very embodiment of what Tolkien complained of in his letter to Hugh Brogan. He himself doesn't do that because he actually knew what he was writing. Most people do not, and so their would-be antique language comes off sounding bogus, not authentic. About that exception. The one, and I believe only, place where Tolkien deliberately echoed the KJV is in the chapter 'The Stewart and the King' from Book VI. The eagle's song found there is quite obviously cast in the stylized language of the Psalms. I believe Tolkien felt that nothing short of Biblical language could suitably convey the 'sudden joy as poignant as grief' of the unexpected eucatastrophe after all but the wannest of hopes had been forgotten. You really should read Tom Shippey's The Road to Middle-Earth: How J. R. R. Tolkien Created a New Mythology, preferably the 2003 edition. Shippey discusses Tolkien's use of language at length. He also shows that all modes of Frye's Anatomy of Criticism are present based on the characters involved, all the way from the mythic to the ironic.
| 8 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Teacher: Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following example:
How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Solution: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Reason: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Now, solve this instance: I'm looking for an idiom or expression that means someone just makes frustrating or disappointing remarks. Maybe some of you have watched the TV cartoon 'The adventures of Gulliver' in which there was as a character named 'Glum'. He was all the time pessimistic about everything and used statements like: 'We'll never make it'; 'We'll never get out of here alive'; and 'We're doomed.' I want to use that idiom or expression in examples like this: Husband: After getting my promotion, I will take you to a fantastic trip. Wife: Oh, stop talking nonsense! I know It won't never happen, it's impossible you get a promotion. Husband: You remind me of 'Glum'! All the time _____ (i.e. acting like Glum, just having a gloomy outlook on everything). Please stop using such remarks and be a little optimistic! I have found wet blanket for describing such people. PS: We Iranians use an expression that literally says 'to read a frustrating or disappointing verse'. So in above example, the husband might reply like this: Hey Glum, the only thing you know is reading a frustrating/ disappointing verse! (Sometimes we call these people 'Glum'.).
Student: | I've got a gut feeling that this question is a duplicate, but 'naysayer' fits in your context: a person who habitually expresses negative or pessimistic views: 'Despite a general feeling that things were going well, a few naysayers tried to cast gloom. [Dictionary.com] | 2 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
--------
Question: I want to know what the longest palindrome word is.
Answer: Detartrated. Edit: surprise, surprise, Wikipedia has more: The longest palindromic word in the Oxford English Dictionary is the onomatopoeic tattarrattat, coined by James Joyce in Ulysses (1922) for a knock on the door. The Guinness Book of Records gives the title to detartrated, the preterit and past participle of detartrate, a chemical term meaning to remove tartrates. Rotavator, a trademarked name for an agricultural machine, is often listed in dictionaries. The term redivider is used by some writers but appears to be an invented or derived termonly redivide and redivision appear in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. Malayalam, an Indian language, is of equal length. So let's see: tattarrattat (onomatopoeic) detartrated Rotavator (trademark) redivider (disputed) Malayalam
Question: Possible Duplicate: Is it correct to use 'punctuation outside of the quotations', or 'inside?' I've heard that you should always place ending punctuation inside of quotes, no matter what. Are there any cases where it is appropriate for a sentence to end with '.?.
Answer: Yes. See the Economist style guide: If the quotation does not include any punctuation, the closing inverted commas should precede any punctuation marks that the sentence requires. More at the Guardian style guide.
Question: What's an antonym for 'virgin'? A single word would be preferable.
Answer: | This is OP's second question on EL&U, and the previous one refers to the fact that he's 'writing an application that deals with blind studies'. In light of that, I assume OP is effectively looking for a medical term. I'm not a doctor, but these people are, and they use the term coitally experienced. Here's an NGram showing they're not alone. In case anyone objects that (besides not being single-word) coitally experienced applies to males as well as females, I suggest post-coitarchal or perhaps my own neologism coitarchated (which I think would be well enough understood on first encounter by people working in that area). Coitarche (first experience of full intercourse) didn't really enter the lexicon until the early '80s, but it's clearly formed by association with menarche (a pubescent girl's first period), so I think that's good enough to say coitarche and derivatives relate more to the female than the male side of the experience.
| 7 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Example input: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Example output: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Example explanation: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Q: Is penultimate commonly used in English, or are its variations (such as second to last) more common? I need to use it in conjunction with the expressions First Payment Date and Last Payment Date to name variables while programming. In my mother language (Portuguese) Penultimate Payment Date would be fine, but it feels strange in English. (I know feels strange is not very helpful, but I'd like to know how to convey the meaning in the most natural way.).
A: | Someone I know who is a native speaker of Spanish and a professor at a university in the United States has complained that when he used the word 'penultimate' in class, the students don't know what he's talking about. The word is perfectly, unimpeachably, 100% correct. It is a bit of an upscale, literary word though. It certainly is a 'term of art' in fields like linguistics, where it is used commonly to refer to syllables. I searched for the word in the Corpus of Contemporary American English, and divided the results by section: spoken, fiction, magazine, newspaper, and academic, and got these results: spoken: 10 fiction: 53 magazine: 55 newspaper: 36 academic: 93 total: 247 So, it is certainly used in all areas of English, with a moderate skew towards higher registers like academic writing. Depending on the intended audience, a writer contemplating using the word 'penultimate' should consider that there is a relatively high likelihood that word will not be understood. Instead of 'penultimate', the phrasing in common usage is either 'next to last' or 'second to last'. Both of those should be universally understood. Interestingly, Google Ngrams shows that the word 'penultimate' rose in usage (in published books) steadily from 1800 to about 1990, and since 1990 it has shown a steep dropoff, taking us back to usage levels from the late 1960s. The better-understood terms 'second to last' and 'next to last' are less common (again, though, in published booksGoogle Ngrams tells us nothing about spoken usage), with 'next to last' having more historical usage but a slow tapering off of usage since 1960 and 'second to last' increasing in usage from 1970 on, with both enjoying approximately the same usage today. | 3 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Example Input: Possible Duplicate: When to drop the 'e' when ending in -able? Both are correct for these words: sizable, sizeable sharable, shareable takable, takeable But these words are incorrect: storeable (storable) makeable (makable) tasteable (tastable) minglable (mingleable) acknowledgable (acknowledgeable) managable (manageable) Are there rules for this? The case for keeping the 'e' seems to be that the 'ga' in 'acknowledgable' would be read as 'gall' rather than 'germ', but 'minglable' shouldn't cause that problem. I'm also not sure why we couldn't keep the 'e' in words like 'storable' or 'makable'.
Example Output: The general rule is that you drop the e, provided that it's actually a silent one rather than forming part of an ee digraph as with agreeable, decreeable, disagreeable, foreseeable, and seeable. You only otherwise have to keep a final silent e when adding able if it would (1) either change the pronunciation, or (2) it would cause a collision with an existing word that already means something else altogether different. The first case, pronunciation shift, is for things like raceable or purgeable, where losing the e would make the ce or ge switch from the 'soft' version to the 'hard' version due to the resulting g or c now being followed by an a rather than by an e, and cable and gable are pronounced quite differently. The second case, a collision with an existing word, occurs with such pairs as pareable / parable, placeable / placable, probeable / probable, and spareable / sparable. Notice how placeable also has the first factor in play, as too would singeable / singable. Beyond that, there is some slight variation in acceptable forms, such as both microwaveable / microwavable being attested. Normally however, you lose the e. The OED2 attests 1555 words than end in able but not in eable, while only 123 that do actually end in eable. That's a ratio of nearly 13 to 1 in favor of more able words without a preceding e. Not excluding duplicates with alternate spellings, here are the eable words from the OED2 plus quarterly supplements since 2000: acknowledgeable decreeable haveable mingleable salvageable acreable defaceable hireable mortgageable scribbleable activeable delineable holeable nameable seeable adduceable derangeable hopeable negligeable serviceable advanceable disagreeable imageable noticeable shakeable agreeable dischargeable immalleable packageable shapeable allegeable discourageable impermeable pareable shareable arrangeable displaceable inassuageable passageable sizeable balanceable divorceable indulgeable peaceable skateable batheable dyeable ineffaceable permeable sliceable biteable effaceable influenceable pierceable spareable blameable embraceable interchangeable placeable stageable bounceable enforceable irremeable pledgeable strangleable bridgeable exchangeable irreplaceable policeable swindleable carriageable experienceable irretraceable poseable takeable challengeable eyeable judgeable probeable tallageable chanceable fleeceable knowledgeable pronounceable tameable changeable foreseeable likeable purgeable tasteable chargeable forgeable liveable raceable throttleable chaseable garbleable lodgeable rateable traceable chooseable gaugeable malleable reable vengeable commenceable giveable manageable rebukeable voyageable cuddleable gorgeable marriageable replaceable whistleable damageable grazeable microwaveable ropeable danceable hateable mineable saleable As you see, there is also some tendancy to preserve the final e if in the original it's there to make a so-called 'long' vowel long. However, this doesn't happen consistently enough to make a rule for them. However, for those cases there are a lot of alternate 'sans'-e forms for those, like ropeable / ropable. Perhaps a more interesting question and certainly one with a more complicated answer is how to know which words instead take ible forms. There are 275 of these in the OED2, more than twice as many as eable words. There are actual rules there, although they are a bit complicated for some people. That one I'll leave for when it actually gets asked. :)
Example Input: A few days ago, a friend and I were discussing how every 'rule' of English spelling or pronunciation has an exception, and every exception has an exception as well. Then I brought up the rule of a ph cluster equaling an f sound (as in phonetic, elephant, morph, etc.) as a pronunciation rule that didn't have any exceptions I could think of. Is this a true hard-and-fast rule or does it have some exceptions as well? I'm not counting abbreviations such as pH scale.
Example Output: The exceptions come in two categories: Greek words that were originally pronounced with an 'f' diphtheria, diphthong, ophthalmology, phthisis but have come to be pronounced with a 'p' by no process I understand. Compound words uphold, saphead, peephole that are just a word ending in 'p' run up against a word beginning with an 'h'. Neither of those really feel like exceptions: mispronunciations that have become accepted and two words being treated as one. Then there is aphelion. Arguably, that's a compound word and a mistake. By analogy with apogee and apastron, it should be apohelion: 'apo' ('from') + 'helion' ('sun'). Several people brought up 'Stephen', which is often pronounced like 'Steven'. Eh, I think we should play with Scrabble rules: no proper names. Finally, there is an example that will really blow your minds: phthalate. The ph- is silent.
Example Input: Possible Duplicate: How should I punctuate around quotes? When should end punctuation go inside quotes? Or is it region specific? I was always taught that when ending a quotation, that punctuation remains inside of the quote. I think he said, 'we should go to the store.' Are you sure he said, 'we should go to the store?' As opposed to: I think he said, 'we should go to the store'. Are you sure he said, 'we should go to the store'? This is just an arbitrary example off of the top of my head, and it's hard for me to come up with an example for the second usage because it looks completely wrong to me. I actually got into a small argument with my girlfriend earlier this year because she uses something similar to the second example, and said that's how she was taught (which is why I ask if it's region-specific.) Anyway, is there a correct usage for ending a quotation with punctuation?.
Example Output: | In American English, commas and periods go inside the quotation marks. Semi-colons, question marks and exclamation marks go inside the quotation marks only if they're part of the quotation. E.g., 'What time is it?' he asked. Did he really say, 'I don't care'? So your example should be the following: I think he said, 'we should go to the store.' Are you sure he said, 'we should go to the store'?
| 3 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
[EX Q]: Is it more correct to say a computer program is erroring out, or it is erring out? Or are both statements grammatically incorrect?.
[EX A]: erroring error (third-person singular simple present errors, present participle erroring, simple past and past participle errored)
[EX Q]: I am looking for the term describing when your hair grows kind of in a circular direction (defined by the direction of your hair root). Many people have something like this on the back of their heads or even on their foreheads. I found the term hair crown on dict.cc but I feel like this is either not the correct term for it or it is not very widely used. There is a German article on human hair including a section about these things but I could not find the English equivalent. In German, these are called Haarwirbel meaning something like hair whirl.
[EX A]: You probably want to use hair whorl. You'll notice that it's virtually the same as the German term, except with the alternate spelling of whorl/whirl. In English, whirl is the verb form, whorl is the noun.
[EX Q]: Wikipedia says: A postscript may be a sentence, a paragraph, or occasionally many paragraphs added to, often hastily and incidentally, after the signature of a letter or (sometimes) the main body of an essay or book. When all letters were handwritten, and adding a new thought to the letter would have likely involved rewriting the entire letter, a postscript had obvious practicality. Now, however, one can just as easily add the thought to the main text.
[EX A]: | I use a P.S. rather often in my emails, when the content of the P.S. is unrelated to the rest of the body of the message. For example, if I was writing two or three paragraphs about a database problem to a colleague, but I knew his wife had been recently released from the hospital, I might end the message with something like: P.S. I hope your wife is doing better. That's an easy way to make an abrupt transition to something unrelated to the rest of the message. Such modern usage isn't driven by an inability to conveniently insert the text (which is easily done electronically) it's more a matter of how much that closing thought is related to the rest of the message. P.S. You know you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia, right?
| 6 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Example input: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Example output: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Example explanation: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Q: Possible Duplicate: '-zation' vs '-sation'? Each post has an indicator which summarises who the post is shared. What is the difference between these two terms? Should I write summarises or summarizes?.
A: | Compare the results from the COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English) to the results from the BNC (British Natural Corpus): Summarize Summarise COCA 1135 10 BNC 199 264 Summarise is more common in British English, where summarize can also be found frequently. Summarize is more common in American English, where summarise is rarely used. Note: this page in the Wikipedia contains a long list of words that end with 'ize' or 'ise' depending on whether the usage is American English or British English. You will find words like summarize(ise), organize(ise), authorize(ise) and many others there. | 3 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
[EX Q]: When one buys a house with a fully done basement, is it known as a furnished basement or a finished basement? I've heard both used, but I was always under the impression that the right usage is a furnished basement. I thought, being that the words sound similar, the two terms became confused and eventually interchangeable, but perhaps both are correct. Regardless, any logical, coherent answer to this question would be appreciated!.
[EX A]: Both expressions are used, they just refer to different contexts: Finished basement: a basement that has floors, ceilings, and walls like the rooms in the main part of the house. (M-W) Furnished basement: A basement equipped with furniture so that you can comfortably live in it. From fullhomeliving.com Please compare with a partially finished basement: From Tim Wohforth Blog
[EX Q]: Possible Duplicate: Definite article with plural nouns I recently reviewed (as I believe, rather thoroughly) the rules of using articles in English and I do not recall any rule on absence of definitive article THE with plural nouns. Can you give me a reference on such a rule?.
[EX A]: Plural nouns with the definite article are, well, definite. Consider Cats don't like me. versus The cats don't like me. The former implies every cat on Earth doesn't like me; the latter, that some (contextually obvious) specific group of cats don't like me. ADDED In my opinion, yes, unmemorize that reference in your other question and memorize the following: use the definite article with a plural only to denote a known or stated subset of the class ('The elephants [in this zoo] are dangerous'); omit the article for the whole class ('Elephants [all of them] are dangerous'). Use an indefinite article with a singular to denote the whole class when you want to emphasize the singular nature ('A glass of wine is healthy, but two can lead to dissolution.') Use the definite article with a singular when referring to a specific instance or when you need, for some reason, to sound like Sir David Attenborough in a BBC nature documentary ('The elephant is a regal creature, reigning over his home, the savanna ...'). Of course, an indefinite article with a plural ('An elephants are dangerous') and omitting articles with the singular of a countable noun ('Elephant is dangerous') are both just wrong, wrong, wrong. Edit Two years later and I realize another rule: 'the' is used to mark adjectives that have been promoted to nouns. When Paul Revere said, 'The British are coming', he was referring to the British 10th Regiment of Foot, not to every subject of King George, so the 'the' was de rigeur under the above rule. However, when Quentin Crisp wrote, 'The British do not expect happiness,' he did mean every single Briton. The 'the' is only necessary to make it clear that the word 'British' is being used as a noun. With an ordinary noun, it would be different. 'Plumbers [all plumbers] do not expect happiness' but 'The plumbers [in London] do not expect happiness.' Compare Jacques Brel's lyric, 'The naked and the dead should hold each others' hands' with Dean Wormer's line, 'Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.' 'Naked' and 'dead' are nouns (or adjectives being used as nouns); 'fat', 'drunk', and 'stupid' are adjectives, which is why he uses 'is' instead of 'are': the subject of the verb is 'no way'.
[EX Q]: Possible Duplicate: What day is next Tuesday? Imagine that it's Monday, the 1st. The weekend would be the 6th & 7th. How do you refer properly to the coming weekend, 'This weekend' or 'Next weekend'? I believe that using 'next weekend' would refer to the 13th & 14th and 'this weekend' would refer to this week's end. Technically the coming weekend (6th & 7th) would be the next weekend on the calendar. So which is correct? I'm hoping for a definitive answer with backing since this is an argument over opinion.
[EX A]: | The issue isn't as definitive as you might think. Ultimately, it comes down to what interpretation of 'next' you consider to be correct. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed) defines 'next' simply as Immediately following, as in time, order, or sequence Following this definition, 'next weekend' will always mean the weekend with the start date in closes proximity in time. If the phrase is used during a weekend, of course, you'd be referring to the weekend following the one you are currently experiencing. However, the issue gets more complicated if you look to other definitions. The Oxford American Dictionary has a specific definition for 'next' when used in the context of time: (of a day of the week) nearest (or the nearest but one) after the present : not this Wednesday, next Wednesday Here, we're given the choice: it can either mean the weekend with the closest start date, or the following one (as specified by the parenthetical addition or the nearest but one). This definition has come about mostly because of usage development. Many words and phrases in the english dictionary have meanings contrary to their technical definitions, and yet are still used commonly and considered valid. Thus, while technically 'next' implies immediate sequence, it is used in other ways (which dictionaries like the OAD have accommodated for validity), so it's really a matter of personal preference. For example, it is unlikely that I will even use the phrase 'next weekend' during the week, because some people might be confused as to what I am referring to. Instead, I will say 'this weekend,' unless it is currently the weekend, in which case I will say 'next weekend.'
| 6 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Let me give you an example: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
The answer to this example can be: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Here is why: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
OK. solve this:
My spellchecker insists on replacing 'furthest' with 'farthest'. I was under the impression that farthest is strictly speaking in terms of distance, whereas furthest is more abstract. A poster on this forum gives the following example: The further [quantity] you walk, the farther [distance] you get. What gives?.
Answer: | The NOAD I had on my Mac Mini reported the following note, which is the same note found on the Oxford Living Dictionaries about farther and farthest. Traditionally, farther and farthest were used in referring to physical distance: the falls were still two or three miles farther up the path. Further and furthest were restricted to figurative or abstract senses: we decided to consider the matter further. Although farther and farthest are still restricted to measurable distances, further and furthest are now common in both senses: put those plants the furthest from the window. | 8 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Solution: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Why? Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
New input: Ok, if I say 'this car is too expensive' or 'this car is very expensive', then I can not express the connotation of 'expensive'. However, if I say 'this car is damn expensive' then I better convey the connotation of 'expensive'. So my question is: What is the English idiom about 'expensive' that expresses the idea that 'It is so expensive that you feel like you got ripped-off and/or overcharged and/or unmeaningfully expensive'? For example, 'damn expensive' could be ok but is there any other term?.
Solution: | exorbitant is also used for extremely unreasonable prices. An example of using it, quoting the Oxford dictionary: some hotels charge exorbitant rates for phone calls | 0 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
One example: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Solution is here: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Explanation: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Now, solve this: Should I write it like this? Or perhaps like this? Should I write it like this? or perhaps like this? What about after an exclamation mark or semicolon?.
Solution: | Did the sentence end after the question mark? Yes. Then you need a capital letter to start the new sentence, just as usual. No. Then the question mark shouldn't have been there, since it ends a sentence. Right, I should expand on that rather than just be a grumpy old man. The capitalization rule that we care about here is that the first word of a sentence starts with a capital letter, so the question is really about what ends a sentence. The answer to that is easy: terminal punctuation, i.e. a full stop (or period if you're American), question mark or exclamation mark. There's a visual clue in that '?' and '!' are decorated full stops; you just have to remember that a colon (':') isn't really a decorated full stop, not that you'd ever know by looking at it. Colons, semicolons and commas aren't terminal punctuation, so they don't end a sentence and so don't force the next letter to be a capital. It may be a capital letter for some other reason such as being the start of a proper name, but not because it is starting a sentence. There are exceptions to this rule, occasions when '?' and '!' become non-terminal punctuation. The most obvious is in quoted speech: if the speaker asks a question or makes an exclamation, the '?' or '!' doesn't have to be terminal if the sentence carries on after the quote. 'Should I write it like this?' he asked. 'Or perhaps like this?' The other class of exception is for what are probably really parenthetical comments. If you have a short phrase that you could have put aside in parentheses or dashes, then a question mark or exclamation mark can be used at the end of that phrase without ending the sentence. Be sparing with this. It looks wrong at a first read, and engenders the sort of argument I had with Jason in the comments below! Should I write it like this, or abracadabra! like this? Going back to the examples, and adding a few more for fun: Should I write it like this? Or perhaps like this? Should I write it like this? or perhaps like this? Should I write it like this, or perhaps like that? 'Should I write it like this?' he asked, 'or perhaps like that?' Example 2 with the lowercase 'or' is just plain wrong. Crusty old grammarians who disapprove of starting sentences with conjunctions may frown at example 1 all they like, but it's a perfectly acceptable fragmentary sentence. Whether it's the right answer or not is another question entirely. Example 1 makes the point that the questions are distinct, though they are strongly linked otherwise the whole structure wouldn't work. Example 3 on the other hand emphasizes that the two questions are options in a common situation, as well as reflecting a different way of saying them. That is obvious in this case because the two questions really are tightly coupled alternatives. However, consider the following: Are the lights green? Or is the switch up? Are the lights green, or is the switch up? Both of these examples imply that the state of the lights and the state of the switch are related somehow. Version 2 couples them more tightly; I would usually assume (without more context) that either this is the same question being asked in two different ways (i.e. that the switch being up should cause the lights to be green), or that they are an exhaustive list of possibilities (either the switch is up or the lights are green, but not both or neither). This isn't an absolute rule, but it is quite strongly implied. Example 4 is also wrong, though it has a better disguise. If you unwrap the quotes, what you get is: Should I write it like this? or perhaps like this? which is our duff example 2 back again. What you actually want is one of: 'Should I write it like this?' he asked. 'Or perhaps like this?' (i.e. example 1) 'Should I write it like this,' he asked, 'or perhaps like that? (i.e. example 3) depending this time on how much of a break there is supposed to be in the middle of what was said. But speech-marking is a topic for another question :-) Exclamation marks work just like question marks for this purpose! Semicolons don't; they end a clause, not a sentence. | 6 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Example: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Output: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
New input case for you: I just realized there are some people around my workplace who always try to correct me when using a certain word, saying that that's not how I should speak, and I should use other words (the ones they provide me with) or pretend they didn't understand what I was saying, but it's pretty clear that they did understand. This again with the same purpose, of making me rephrase, or use the words they expect. When doing this, they use, among others, the argument that they sure have understood, but others might not. But then, nobody else complains of not having understood what I was saying. Another argument they use is that even if they understood it, what I said was incorrect. I make the assumption that when I express my ideas in words, I use enough details to get the point across. I would call this type of non-constructive attitude a 'hater' attitude, but I'm curious whether there's a more specific word for this. meta: I'm not a native English speaker, and I don't know a word for this in my language, I'd just use the dictionary to find out if my language has an analogous word. Anyway it would be good to know if there's a word for this concept in these two languages. meta: Also, the situations I refer to happen (mostly) when I'm speaking my own language, but the language really isn't the point here, because I do speak multiple languages and I did meet this behavior (though very rarely) when speaking any language.
Output: | You could call a person who does that a pedant: Pedant (noun) a person who annoys other people by correcting small errors and giving too much attention to minor details; one who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge (Merriam-Webster) | 1 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Solution: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Why? Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
New input: When telling a story about myself from the past, I have found myself in an internal debate over whether the correct way to segue into the present is: That was me twelve years ago. Or: That was I twelve years ago. My instincts tell me the first is correct (object pronoun after a verb and it sounds better to my ears). But, I'm not sure if pronouns after linking verbs should be object pronouns. Which is correct?.
Solution: | Professor Geoffrey Pullum has this to say: Myth: Expressions like 'It was me' and 'She was taller than him' are incorrect; the correct forms are 'It was I' and 'She was taller than he.' Pullum responds: The forms with nominative pronouns sound ridiculously stuffy today. In present-day English, the copular verb takes accusative pronoun complements and so does 'than.' My advice would be this: If someone knocks at your door, and you say 'Who's there?' and what you hear in response is 'It is I,' don't let them in. It's no one you want to know. 'People have been living in fear of grammar rules that don't exist,' said Pullum, who wrote The Cambridge Grammar with Rodney Huddleston of the University of Queensland, Australia. 'We're going into the 21st century carrying grammar books from the 20th century that haven't shaken off grammar myths from the 19th century,' said Pullum. | 0 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Example input: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Example output: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Example explanation: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Q: Are Backronym and Acronym same? I don't understand the difference between these two terms.
A: | An acronym is a word formed by the initial letters of other words, such as Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation). Note that this is different to an initialism where the initial letters are spelled out, as in BBC for example. A backronym is where the word comes first, and the initial letters are made to fit the word. An example is Alex the parrot (Wikipedia) who to date is the only non-human to spontaneously use language and throws doubt on the notion that a large brain is a prerequisite for language. The name Alex was subsequently said to be 'Avian Language Experiment', which then became 'Avian Learning Experiment. As this was decided (or at least stated) after naming the bird, it is a backronym. Another example would be the USA PATRIOT Act, where : The title of the act is a ten-letter backronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Wikipedia) | 3 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
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?.
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.
I need a single-word to describe something good that (unexpectedly) resulted from something bad. This good thing could not have occurred without the bad event happening first, as a precursor. Example sentence: 'I got in a horrible car accident and broke my leg, but falling in love with my nurse at the hospital was the ____,' (something like that).
silver lining 'I got in a horrible car accident and broke my leg, but falling in love with my nurse at the hospital was the silver lining' From Wikipedia A silver lining is a metaphor for optimism in the common English-language which means a negative occurrence may have a positive aspect to it. Etymonline says: a 'bright side' which proverbially accompanies even the darkest trouble; by 1843, apparently from oft-quoted lines from Milton's 'Comus,' where the silver lining is the light of the moon shining from behind the cloud. Was I deceived? or did a sable cloud Turn forth her silver lining on the night? I did not err, there does a sable cloud, Turn out her silver lining on the night And casts a gleam over this tufted grove. To which Thomas Warton added the commentary: 'When all succour eems to be lost, Heaven unexpectedly presents the ilver lining o a able cloud to the virtuous.'
Duplicate: What day is next Tuesday? I have always considered next Friday to be not this coming Friday, but the one after. This Friday is the Friday at the end of this week. I have a Canadian friend, however, who enforces the more literal meaning of next Friday the Friday that comes next. Is there a correct meaning for next Friday, or does this entirely depend on cultural differences?.
| People generally understand next Friday as the Friday after this, that is, if you are on a Thursday, and someone tells you to meet him next Friday, it doesn't mean the next day, but rather, Friday week, the Friday after. Some pedantics will believe and argue that it is, as you say, the Friday that comes next. That is valid reasoning. However, if you want to be understood by the majority, 'next Friday' will mean Friday next week. So, in order to mean the Friday that actually comes next, you would say this Friday, but next Friday is generally understood by more people to mean the Friday after this.
| 0 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
[Q]: What is the difference between 'parentheses' and 'parenthesis'?.
[A]: Parenthesis is of course Greek and means in fact 'insertion'. It has taken the meaning of the signs ' ( ' or ' ) '. Parentheses is the regular plural. Usually, you use a pair of the signs showing an insertion, then 'between parentheses' - or brackets ; however, 'in parenthesis' means : as an afterthought.
[Q]: Possible Duplicate: What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s? Before you vote to close as a duplicate, note that these two questions deal with similar issues to this, but none of them address all three criteria of this question: The singular already ends with an s. I am dealing with multiple of the thing. I want the possessive of all of them in general. The singular is class, and the plural is classes. The singular possessive is class's (as addressed here). What is the plural possessive? Is it classes's, or classes'?.
[A]: It is classes', which sounds the same as the singular class's. I would have thought this was a general rule for plural nouns ending -s', -es' or -ies'.
[Q]: I know that 'ad hoc' is a Latin phrase and I've typically seen it used without a hyphen. However, many technical articles use a hyphen. For example: Ad-hoc mode is useful for establishing a network where wireless infrastructure does not exist or where services are not required. Is 'ad hoc' always the correct usage? If it can be 'ad-hoc', is the usage of the hyphen specific to certain circumstances?.
[A]: | The rule-of-thumb I've found in researching this issue, (though no reference to a specific style guide was referenced one site linked here) is if Latin and other foreign phrases are not hyphenated in their original language, then they are not hyphenated in English.
| 5 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
One example: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Solution is here: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Explanation: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Now, solve this: A knife has a handle and a blade. A spoon has a handle and a... Bowl? A fork has a handle and... Spikes? Prongs? I guess this can be extended to more esoteric cutlery such as sporks.
Solution: | A spoon has a bowl. A fork merges at its neck into a root carrying prongs or tines Source: Visual dictionary online 1 and 2 | 6 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Is singular correct, or is plural of 'credential' correct for a single username & password pair?.
This isn't a question you can answer by thinking about the grammar - it's just a case of conventional usage. I've previously worked in the tech industry, and we would always say credentials, never credential. That would still be true even if the credentials were a single item like a certificate. [Edit to add: but Samuel has provided a counter-example to this in a comment on the OP.] In wider English, credential is valid - it's used for example in this Wikipedia article - but it's still more common to use the plural (see Oxford Dictionaries for confirmation). For example, I could say that I have presented my credentials to someone if I have shown them my passport, even though I've only shown them one physical item.
What is the difference between 'parentheses' and 'parenthesis'?.
Parenthesis is of course Greek and means in fact 'insertion'. It has taken the meaning of the signs ' ( ' or ' ) '. Parentheses is the regular plural. Usually, you use a pair of the signs showing an insertion, then 'between parentheses' - or brackets ; however, 'in parenthesis' means : as an afterthought.
I recently had somebody tell me that a mutual friend of ours who is genderqueer prefers that people refer to him/her using the gender-indefinite pronoun they. In some cases, this almost seems okay: Kris left their umbrella at our house. On the other hand, if Kris is sitting right next to you, it feels very odd to say They (meaning just Kris) would like more cake. Or even odder, Kris would like some more cake, can you please pass it to they/them?' Are these usages grammatically correct? Are they in the process of becoming grammatically correct? Are there more correct alternatives?.
| I think the reason for your friend's preference is that using either the male or female pronouns implicitly pigeon-holes the person in question as either one or the other. However, all of the examples you give seem to me to be forced, and to shout out loud 'Hey, look at how sensitive I'm being! I'm not calling Kris either male or female!' There are sensible alternatives to all of these examples that do not break any grammatical rules. 'Kris left their umbrella at our house' : Kris left an umbrella at our house (yes, it could technically then be somebody else's umbrella that was left behind, but would you really know?) 'They [Kris] would like more cake.' : Kris would like some more cake. 'Kris would like some more cake, can you please pass it to they?' : Could you please pass the cake? Kris would like some more. While my dictionary (Chambers 1990) does have a secondary definition of 'they' as 'he or she', it also says that this usage is 'with pl. verb', as in 'there are lots of people; they are happy'. 'They is' would not be correct.
| 0 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
[EX Q]: Possible Duplicate: Does 'notified by [date]' include the end date? When someone says 'I will do it by Monday', does it mean that they will get it done before the beginning of Monday or before the end of Monday?.
[EX A]: Without further context, it generally means before the end of Monday. Now end can be defined as midnight, bedtime, end of work day, or any previously discussed time, depending on context.
[EX Q]: Please point out where 'abaft the beam' is on this picture. I cannot find it. abaft adv. Toward the stern. prep. Toward the stern from.
[EX A]: Here is a another picture which points out all locations on a boat and which indicates where 'abaft the beam' refers to, whether port or starboard beam. I have highlighted the relevant terms for you, in red. 'Abaft' is formed (from 'baft') within English by derivation, says the OED 'Baft' : 1. Of place: Behind, in the rear; in later usage only Nautical: Astern, aft, abaft. arch.
[EX Q]: What did 'Four-F.' mean in the United States of the 1940s? Here is the quote from Catch-22: They had to send a guy from the draft board around to look me over. I was Four-F. I had examined myself pretty thoroughly and discovered that I was unfit for military service.
[EX A]: | It's a classification for military service. 4-F means 'Registrant not acceptable for military service.' The context clue here you might have used to deduce an area of inquiry would be the reference to a 'draft board', which is part of the Selective Service System that determines the eligibility and thus the classification of potential draftees.
| 6 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Is there a word which has this definition: usage of vulgar or abusive words too often especially while chatting or talking to someone or while giving a speech. What do you call a person who uses abusive words too often without needing to.
Two adjectives come to my mind for a person who uses excessive foul language: 1) crass having or showing no understanding of what is proper or acceptable; rude and insensitive 2) vulgar (as you used in the title of your own question) not having or showing good manners, good taste, or politeness. Both of these suggestions are more reflective of the person's demeanor or temperament than the cursing itself, but I think they could be more colorful (pun intended) alternatives. I hope this is helpful to you!
How do you know when to use singular or plural nouns if they're used as adjectives? i.e. 32-bit computer vs 32-bits computer? teacher union vs teachers union? wedding planner vs weddings planner? sport medicine vs sports medicine? student council vs students council? Which one is correct?.
You are thinking of noun adjuncts, or attributive nouns. Both Wikipedia and someone from Pearson Education state that traditionally, all attributive nouns are singular. However, the number of plural attributive nouns have increased over the years in a rather arbitrary manner. This means that there is no longer a set rule to determine whether the attributive is singular or plural. Despite this, there is a rough guide that you can use. The attributive noun tends to be plural in the following situations: 1: The singular form might lead to ambiguity an arts degree (a degree in the humanities) as opposed to an art degree (a degree in fine art) [I believe that this situation is what is referred to on wikipedia as 'lexical restrictions', providing the example of 'arm race' vs 'arms race'] 2. There is no singular form of a noun (in pluralia tantum) a customs officer 3. There is a need to denote variety a soft drinks manufacturer [but] a car manufacturer 4. A topical issue comes forth, often in newspaper stories... the tapes issue the tapes compromise the Watergate tapes affair the White House tapes mystery and other examples, including jobs cut. [I am not entirely sure what the point of this fourth category is] [Source: Pearson Education , directly quoted apart from what is enclosed inside square brackets] To this list I add my own: 5. [The attributive noun is plural if] it comes from the possessive form of the word teachers union ladies man However, this is more of an explanation rather than a rule you can use. There are too many exceptions, and you are unlikely to know the origins of the word. It doesn't make sense that it is teachers union but not students council. Note that we often 'choose by ear and it doesn't matter (employee lounge, employees lounge)' (Chicago Manual of Style). I would argue that it would be easier to just look it up every time and memorise words instead of trying to find a rule or categorise them. Even as a native speaker, I was not entirely sure whether it was 'sport medicine' or 'sports medicine' before looking it up. If you find yourself completely lost and without internet, go with the singular form because it is the traditional form and more common.
Is there a feminine equivalent for 'Casanova' without negative connotations?.
| I don't think you can find a term that is entirely symmetrical, because the cultural concepts of romantic and sexual pursuit aren't symmetrical. Identical behavior in a man and a woman will usually be interpreted differently in most cultures I know. The reason it's hard for you to find a non-perjorative female counterpart to casanova, and the reason so many of the suggestions given here are either negative in connotations (maneater, siren) or full of other connotations (Mata Hari, Cleopatra) isn't in the words and names, they just reflect a cultural bias inherent in our society.
| 0 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
instruction:
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
question:
When it comes to cities and boats named after saints, it seems that 'Santa' is always female and 'San' is always male. e.g. Male Saints: San Diego, San Francisco, San Antonio Female Saints: Santa Barbara, Santa Maria So why isn't 'Santa Claus' a woman like all the other 'Santa's?.
answer:
The city names you quote are all derived from Spanish, where 'San' (or 'Santo', as @tchrist clarifies below) is the male inflection and 'Santa' the female one. However, Santa Claus isn't derived from Spanish, but from Dutch, where it was originally rendered as Sante Klaas, and was modified to Santa when it was adopted into English (and from English, to the rest of the world). Here's Etymonline's take on it: from dialectal Dutch Sante Klaas, from Middle Dutch Sinter Niklaas 'Saint Nicholas,' English, like all other languages, borrows words from many sources, and they often carry over remnants of their original grammar or usage, even when it makes for inconsistent usage in English.
question:
For example, a computer security expert can be an expert and making a basic mistake, perhaps unrelated to his personality but highly relevant to his field of expertise and a mistake that just about anybody could do but just because he is a security expert he especially should not have done it. I don't mean stupid mistake or stupid error but I mean contradictory and almost similar to a double-standard. Jeff teaches English but he couldn't spell 'occurrence'. Or for example George is a professional Microsoft Windows programmer but he doesn't know what alt+tab does. Or Henry is a surgeon but he cut himself shaving. I don't necessarily mean something like a police officer who himself is corrupt or a judge who is corrupt because those are not accidents or mistakes but deliberate. Albert Einstein was a genius but couldn't remember his own address and entered the wrong house when going home. (Perhaps the above Einstein example is not a great example because scientist could be absent-minded.) I mean more like actually mistakenly missing the basics of your own speciality or making a human error that anybody else could do except you because you are supposed to be the specialist. I think the classic example could be Bill Gates trying to show how good Microsoft Windows is and it crashes. Or a news anchor, who should be a specialist in not making a word mistake, actually makes a word mistake. Or a judge or an attorney, who should be experts in law and rights, wouldn't know something trivial about law and right e.g. unknowingly about that blackmailing is a crime. I almost made such a mistake myself. I was an IT specialist and computer technician at a client's office and their boss was teaching himself the basics of programming and asking me about something basic. I actually got it right but I was not completely certain about something basic while actually being able to solve complicated and advanced problems for them.
answer:
Such mistakes are bloopers. ODO: blooper NOUN North American informal 1 An embarrassing error 'Home cooks perhaps identified with Mrs. Child, who, though she clearly knew her sauces and souffles, also committed bloopers on camera.'
question:
These two seem very similar. What are the major differences between the two? For example, in the following sentence, Substitute the lesser punishment for the greater one. Can one use 'less' instead of 'lesser' here?.
answer:
| Less refers to quantity, lesser refers to quality. Your sentence could be rephrased as 'substitute less punishment for more punishment.' Here we are saying that the amount of punishment is smaller. But if you say 'substitute the lesser punishment' you are saying the type of punishment is not as severe. Forty lashes is less punishment than 100 lashes. Being pelted with rotten tomatoes is a lesser punishment than being pelted with rocks.
| 9 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
One example: How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Solution is here: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Explanation: Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
Now, solve this: I have to write this on a website, which one is better? Are you looking for [...](description of our service)? You've come / You came to the right place!.
Solution: | When you mention something that happened in the past, its timing isn't mentioned and is perhaps no significance to your mention, and you're mentioning it because of its significance in relation to something happening in the present then the present perfect is suitable. In this case, 'You came to the right place' isn't grammatically incorrect, but it doesn't express as explicitly what 'You've come to the right place' does: That, because of your having come here, you are now, in the present, in the right place (to receive good service, to eat a delicious meal, etc.). This use of the present perfect is summarized here. | 6 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
How are i.e. and e.g. pronounced?
Solution: i.e. stands for id est (Latin), which means 'that is'. You use it to link in a deeper explanation about something. Pronounce it 'eye - ee'. e.g. stands for exempli gratia (also Latin), which means 'for example'. You use it to link in an example of a more generic term. Pronounce it 'ee - jee'
Why? Perfect answer because it's consistent with context uses required information from the question to provide the detailed answer with an example.
New input: What is the difference between 'day off' and 'off day'? What I found is 'day off' means a holiday when you are not working, while 'off day' is the day when you do not work up to the mark. Can anyone put more light on this?.
Solution: | you are correct, the word 'off' like many small english words has a large number of meanings, some of them are even opposites. 'day off' meaning 'not present this day' Either scheduled break or due to dishonesty, illness or other emergency. off(adverb) 'away from a place' 'off day' meaning 'not performing well this day' off(adjective) 'not up to standard; not so good or satisfactory as usual; inferior or subnormal' | 0 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
Input: Consider Input: What's a word that means 'not knowing everything'? This would serve as a complementary antonym of omniscient, which means having infinite knowledge, or simply 'all-knowing'. Thesaurus.com shows these possible words: stupid (opposite of being clever, which = being omniscient) unknowing (opposite of being knowing, which = being omniscient) fallible (opposite of being infallible, which means 'not able to make mistakes', which = being omniscient, since I can know everything and still make mistakes) erring (which means 'capable of making mistakes', which = being omniscient, since I can know everything and still make mistakes) imperfect (opposite of being perfect, which is a superset of being omniscient... how could I be perfect if I'm both omniscient and fallible?) faulty (which means 'to have fault(s) / defect(s)', is the opposite of 'to have no fault(s) / defect(s)', which means being perfect, which = being omniscient) ignorant (which means 'having inadequate knowledge', is the opposite of 'having adequate knowledge', which = having infinite knowledge) uneducated (opposite of being educated, which = being omniscient) unaware (opposite of being aware, which = being omniscient) uninformed (opposite of being informed, which = being omniscient) Yet, none of them are true antonyms for omniscient. Is there an alternative?.
Output: According to reference.com, the Random House dictionary registers unomniscient as a legitimate word. There are a handful of hits on Google Books which include the following examples: Chaucer deepens Jean de Meun's joke about the God's ersatz divinity: immediately after the God has just issued some clearly unomniscient judgments ... If at every world, God knows at that world only the propositions whose truth-values are modally constant, then it would seem that God is necessarily unomniscient. There are actually two types of unomniscient focus, since the narrator may know the same as or even less than the characters. The impossibility of an unomniscient intelligence demonstrating the supposed contradiction, and thus transforming our universe into an untrustworthy universe, with which one can have no intercourse, is the attitude primarily assumed towards ... Also of interest is the term bounded rationality: Bounded rationality is the idea that in decision-making, rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make a decision.
Input: Consider Input: Suppose I tell something to my companion and I want to make sure he understands me. I thought I may simply ask 'Do you understand me?'. But recently I heard that in such cases I should ask 'Does that make sense?' instead. Is this true? Which option is appropriate to use in business communication?.
Output: 'Do you understand me?' slightly carries the implication that it is your fault if you do not understand. 'Does it make sense?' carries the implication that it is my fault if you do not understand. So politeness suggests that the latter is better.
Input: Consider Input: What is the difference between 'day off' and 'off day'? What I found is 'day off' means a holiday when you are not working, while 'off day' is the day when you do not work up to the mark. Can anyone put more light on this?.
| Output: you are correct, the word 'off' like many small english words has a large number of meanings, some of them are even opposites. 'day off' meaning 'not present this day' Either scheduled break or due to dishonesty, illness or other emergency. off(adverb) 'away from a place' 'off day' meaning 'not performing well this day' off(adjective) 'not up to standard; not so good or satisfactory as usual; inferior or subnormal'
| 2 | NIv2 | task225_english_language_answer_generation | fs_opt |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 3