Unnamed: 0 int64 0 40.2k | id int64 1 196k | chunk_id stringclasses 1
value | text stringlengths 18 6.44k |
|---|---|---|---|
3,700 | 106,313 | 76823_0 | I know my sentence is dreadful but everyone now uses these words in this way, including my eight children aged 19—26. Yes, they are from Manchester but my husband uses _he was took_ and he’s from Leicester. This was never used when I was younger. Is there an easy way to explain why it is wrong, or do I have to accept it? |
3,701 | 122,283 | 76823_0 | Which of these two sentences is more appropriate in a given situation? > I am tired. > > I am feeling tired. I know this might be a very childish question, but English is not my first language and I just want to know more about authentic English. |
3,702 | 15,001 | 76823_0 | Is one stronger than the other? More correct? Just curious, one of the many abstract things to pop into my head on the drive home today... |
3,703 | 49,526 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > "It isn't" versus "it's not" When contracting "It is not Tuesday" are there any grammatical reasons to use either: "It's not Tuesday" or "It isn't Tuesday" If not, what do you prefer? |
3,704 | 119,763 | 76823_0 | Everyone agrees that: > Semantically "It's not" and "It isn't" mean the same thing: "It is not". No doubt here. See: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110704115859AAmQmxZ The reason why I'm asking is because Google is suggesting one way regardless the fact the one other one has more hits, see: "that isn't my problem" and "that's not my problem"  In general: which one is **more common** and what examples where it **makes difference** come to your mind? |
3,705 | 14,382 | 76823_0 | I came across this word in the answer provided by Robusto for the question about Thank you. Because the last _e_ in _service_ is not pronounced, I thought it should be deleted when _service_ is appended by _able_. I guess the reason for _serviceable_ may be related to the fact that the _i_ in _service_ is pronounced as [ɪ] but not [aɪ]. However, I am not sure, and I would like to know the reason behind that. |
3,706 | 33,203 | 76823_0 | I wrote this: > This means that, as with any distributed application, concurrency is key: we > have at least one flow of execution per node running concurrently with all > others, and [...] I was told to change it to "is the key". Is that right? |
3,707 | 18,601 | 76823_0 | I had a hard time phrasing the actual question title—hopefully this doesn't mean it's too subjective—, but I'm curious about why positive (or negative) statements can be terminated by negative (or positive) questions: > * You **do** like apples, **don't** you? > * We **can't** all be rich, **can** we? > Why is it (arguably) common to turn a general statement into a question like this when the intent remains the same? Is this a common use of a rhetorical question? If so, what is afforded by not simply making a statement without turning it into a question? |
3,708 | 14,387 | 76823_0 | For a game I need an "orbital weapon platform"/"orbital weapons platform" and wonder which one is correct, or sounds better for an English native speaker. |
3,709 | 14,385 | 76823_0 | The context is : > I think you are dug into a position. And you think it's a sign of weakness > to change your mind. |
3,710 | 87,004 | 76823_0 | Elision ("the omission of one or more sounds in a word or phrase") produces the following: > going → _goin(')_ > going to → _gonna_ > Worcester → _Wuster_ (ˈwʊstər) However, this hasn't affected the accepted standard spellings of the examples above. Are there any cases in the past century where the standard spelling _has_ changed? (Note: I'm not looking for a list, just the existence of a documented change.) If not, are there any notable trends that indicate we may see a spelling shift in the near future for certain words or phrases–perhaps due to the increasing acceptance of txtspk and informal English in previously "formal" communication? A concrete example or two would suffice, but I'd prefer a link to a study or paper if one's available. To reiterate, I'm looking for **a change no earlier than the 20th century**. In the early 20th century, there were multiple efforts to simplify spelling (most unsuccessful). Arguably, it was to make the written word closer to speech, in which case elidid words may have been good candidates. Historically, that seems to be the case, yet it seems elided words don't catch on other than in informal speech. Still, at least one example of an elided word replacing the original exists, albeit centuries ago: > In speech, commonly elided in _he, him, his, her_ in unstressed positions, > especially following a consonant: _What did 'e do_ ; _Tell us 'er name_. > This elision affected the spelling and pronunciation of the Middle English > pronoun _hit_ , resulting in Modern English _it_. Lacking any concrete examples, perhaps someone can answer **why does pronunciation _not_ appear to pressure orthographic changes? Why do elision- based spellings, _while noted in dictionaries_ , remain "informal" or "colloquial"?** |
3,711 | 87,006 | 76823_0 | Is there a single-term for the _Change_ or _Update_ for the future? I am currently developing an application where the user will add an entry with an effective date but I am having a difficulty labeling that button. Let's say I label the button as > Add New Entry This doesn't seem right because the user will not add a new entry on the list of active entries but rather he/she will create an entry that will be active on a certain date, or one-at-a-time. > Update Entry This will not work because the action will not immediately update the entry, the entry will change on the effective date specified by the user. What is an appropriate label for such button? |
3,712 | 87,008 | 76823_0 | If you are from Great Britain, or other English speaking country (except US), or even most of European countries where you learn british-english and are working for an American company would you use, in your communications with them, English or American words, e.g. signalling (en-uk) or signaling (en-us)? **Edit** : also saying that, because I have seen texts where both syntaxes coexisted, probably multi-authors, so a global policy should be set in the company |
3,713 | 50 | 76823_0 | I've seen a contraction of two words. I can't see why it wouldn't be possible to contract twice. Is it possible and how should it be punctuated? **Update** : Ok, to sum up the answers so far * This appears in spoken British and American English * It is from one of the lower registers of English * Even if spoken this way sometimes, it isn't really written as a double contraction, except as written speech in fiction. * And from my own googling in Wiktionary, it appears most written forms are old British words, often nautical like fo'c'sle. |
3,714 | 689 | 76823_0 | While reading a book, I came across the word _I'd've_ , as in: > I'd've argued against it. While it was obvious what it meant, it left me puzzled. Is _I'd've_ a proper word? |
3,715 | 112,865 | 76823_0 | I've been told that compound contractions like _couldn't've_ and _I'd've_ are proper grammar. Are they? |
3,716 | 50,390 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Can a word be contracted twice (e.g. "I'ven't")? I would like to know if it is proper to chain multiple contractions into a single word when they are in a continuous string. For example: "They are not ants." You have the choices: "They're not ants." and "They aren't ants." How about: "They'ren't ants." If this case doesn't suit your fancy, feel free to suggest a more appropriate example. |
3,717 | 166,193 | 76823_0 | From what I can glean, _it'll_ and _I've_ exist as standard contractions, but I am unsure of whether _it'll've_ either exists or is acceptable. "It will have" should be able to be reduced to "it'll've", shouldn't it? |
3,718 | 152,295 | 76823_0 | We can contract "I have" to "I've" and "have not" to "haven't". My question is, is "I'ven't" a correct contraction for "I have not"? |
3,719 | 36,690 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicates:** > Is "I'd've" proper use of the English Language? > Can a word be contracted twice (e.g. "I'ven't")? I think the contraction "we'd've" for "we would have" is disallowed, but it doesn't seem technically incorrect. It seems to work well with common phrases like "we'd've gotten killed out there". Of course, it's common in spoken English, but single contractions are quite common in written English, so I can't really see any reason that doubles shouldn't be allowed. Is there a non-historical reason that it's invalid now, other than that it's not in any dictionary? Could it possibly become valid over the course of time? |
3,720 | 153,723 | 76823_0 | What is the correct preposition to be used in the blank? |
3,721 | 39,751 | 76823_0 | According to the following Google Ngram, in the U.K. the modals _should, shall,_ and _must_ were virtually missing from English writing during the 18th Century (I've added _will_ for a comparison modal which was unaffected). I have never seen this mentioned anywhere, and I couldn't find it in a brief web search. What happened? Was this a real phenomenon, or could this somehow be an artifact of Google Ngrams? Were these modals absent from speech, or just formal writing? More interestingly, how did they get reintroduced? A brief search shows that Shakespeare definitely used these words quite frequently.  |
3,722 | 39,758 | 76823_0 | In some movie I heard someone say "I am hitting now" when he was leaving. Did he use "hit" instead of "go"? edit: " **I am hitting it** " is what I exactly heard in the movie. Two guys were sitting on a bench and one of them decided to leave. |
3,723 | 146,248 | 76823_0 | I saw on the FDA website the following definition of cosmetics. What puzzles me is 'such term'. I have been taught that 'such' is used with singular nouns (e.g. such a book), plurals (e.g. such idiots), or uncountables (e.g. such nonsense). (i) The term "cosmetic" means (1) articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and (2) articles intended for use as a component of any such articles; except that such term shall not include soap. |
3,724 | 111,724 | 76823_0 | A transcript of a recent speech by Barack Obama contains the following sentence: > Boston police, firefighters, and first responders as well as the National > Guard responded heroically, and continue to do so as we speak. The usage of _continue_ in this case contrasts what I have learned about the verb to stop, as in > We stopped to let the pedestrians pass the crosswalk, so the car did not > move. > > We stopped letting the pedestrians pass the crosswalk, so I accelerated. I suppose that these three examples are grammatically correct. People like me, who learned English as a second language, could misunderstand Obama's usage of _continue_ as > [...] and continue (with doing something) in order to do so I do not believe this is the actual intention. I conclude that this _to do_ vs. _doing_ issue is not a general pattern, but rather a restricted phenomenon. So my questions are: 1. Is it correct that the aforementioned phenomenon is only relevant for a few verbs? If yes, could somebody provide a list of these verbs? 2. Is it helpful, to regard the verb _to stop_ as a homonym, where one version of _to stop_ refers to a process of ceasing movement, while the other version is an auxiliary verb followed by a gerund? |
3,725 | 44,072 | 76823_0 | My son is learning English as a foreign language and I notice a mixture of British and American words in his vocab lists. Is there such thing as a _checked shirt_ , or should it be a _check shirt_? |
3,726 | 44,076 | 76823_0 | What is the difference between _shepherding_ and _sheepherding_ (sheep herding?)? What is the difference between _shepherd_ and _sheepherder_? I had only heard _shepherd_ until I found _sheepherder_ on a page on the California minimum wage. |
3,727 | 146,246 | 76823_0 | I am looking for a word that describes a person's work as being detail oriented. For example: "His peers had confidence in his meticulous manner." Meticulous just seems too strong. The latin origin of the word is: > mid 16th cent. (in the sense ‘fearful or timid’): from Latin meticulosus, > from metus ‘fear.’ The word came to mean ‘overcareful about detail,’ hence > the current sense (early 19th cent). And when I use it in the sentence it doesn't seem right. Does anyone have suggestions for a better way to phrase this? Thanks. |
3,728 | 159,405 | 76823_0 | The Wikipedia entry Gratis versus libre contains the following text: > Libre /ˈliːbrə/ in English is adopted from the various Romance languages, > ultimately descending from the Latin word lībere; its origin is closely > related to liberty. It denotes "the state of being free", as in "liberty" or > "having freedom". The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) considers libre to be > obsolete,[2] but the word has come back into limited[3] use. Unlike gratis, > libre appears in few English dictionaries,[3] although there is no other > English single-word adjective signifying "liberty" exclusively, without also > meaning "at no monetary cost". If there truly is no such word, then I must grudgingly accept the ugliness of Libre. I must admit that nothing springs readily to mind. Is there such a word? EDIT: The basis of this question is that the people who coined (or revived) the term Libre didn't do so lightly. They were obviously of the opinion that it was necessary. |
3,729 | 70,924 | 76823_0 | I never know how to order food correctly but succinctly the first time. :( Basically: I can't eat hot stuff (i.e. most pepper, similar spices, ...). On the one hand, I don't want to say _"Please don't make it spicy"_ , because I really don't mind spice (heck, a lot of them are great!) -- I just don't want it to be _hot_ spice. On the other hand _"Please don't make it hot"_ would seem to imply I'd like my food cold! Possibilities I've considered: * _"Please don't add hot spice"_ just sounds weird * _"Please don't add pepper"_ is the best I've thought of so far, but I'm pretty sure I've come across foods without pepper (or apparently so) which nevertheless tasted pretty hot. And not just that, but it would also exclude bell peppers, etc. which I don't mind much. Any ideas for how to communicate this clearly? The fewer words the better, haha. |
3,730 | 70,927 | 76823_0 | The Encyclopædia Brittanica still uses the symbol "æ". However, I still hear everyone pronounce it as "Encyclo _pee_ dia", when their spelling suggests more along the lines of "Encyclo _pah_ dia" or "encyclo _pay_ dia". In a more general sense, should æ or Æ always be pronounced as a long e sound? When I see it used, it is in dæmon, æther, or æon. The wikipedia page makes it clear that they should be pronounced with another sound along the lines of ah or eh... confusing because I want to pronounce it as "ai" or "ay". Given the name "Aion" as a recent videogame, and the common pronunciation of a CS mailer-daemon as "Daymon", clearly others behave the same way. The problem lies in that æ used to be pronounced as ah/eh, and now seems to be pronounced as ay. Encyclopædia is the only exception... being pronounced as ee? How do I pronounce it when seen in English? ee, ay, or ah/eh? |
3,731 | 41,759 | 76823_0 | I was reading Scott's _Woodstock_ the other day, and came upon the word _outbearded_. Searching with Google reveals nothing relevant and I am wondering what it means. The context is that Everard and a youth, Kerneguy (King Charles in disguise) are quarrelling, and are barely able to remain civil to each other:- > Everard, on the other hand, stung beyond his patience, and from the grace > and composure of the youth's carriage, still conceiving him to be either > Wilmot or some of his compeers in rank and profligacy, returned to the town > of Woodstock, determined not to be _outbearded_ , even though he should seek > redress by means which his principles forbade him to consider as > justifiable. |
3,732 | 70,921 | 76823_0 | I came across the following sentences: * Defying expectations and maybe logic, people seemed _to have combined_ the countercultural sixties and the achieving eighties into one social ethos. * I seemed to have broken the pattern, but all the time a classroom was waiting for me. * Its personality, at the moment when I was about to leave it, seemed _to have detached_ itself from its inhabitants and all the human memories associated with it, and _to have become endowed_ with a friendly charm of its own. As usual, these sentences in The New York Times appear; and they appear together numerous others where the same structure occurs: _seemed to have [...]ed_. Can someone clarify if this structure is grammatical? Or should we reword the above sentences replacing the words "to have combined", "to have broken" and "to have detached" with, respectively, "to combine", "to break" and "to detach"? |
3,733 | 12,976 | 76823_0 | An example would be that the concept of 'light' necessitates an opposite: 'dark.' The idea of one entails the other. Is there a term for this? |
3,734 | 41,753 | 76823_0 | I wonder whether _subtle_ is a positive, neutral or/and negative word? Looking up its definition, it seems that the word means things unclear for good reason. For example, I wonder if _subtle_ can be used to describe a class that is not easy to understand? If so, would that mean more of that the class is difficult to understand because of the complexity of its content, or due to the inability of the lecturer? |
3,735 | 12,974 | 76823_0 | In the following sentence The citizens were forced to render up their town to the conqueror. what does `were forced` mean exactly? Does it mean that _some proactive party literally forced the citizens (like for example threatened to kill a hostage)_ or does it mean that _for whatever reason they concluded they had to perform that action_? |
3,736 | 7,081 | 76823_0 | What is meant by "present perfect", "past perfect", and "future perfect" verbs? How can I identify them or know which is which? |
3,737 | 174,253 | 76823_0 | The following paragraph is quoted from Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" and it's originally presented by Benjamin Lee Whorf in his "Language, Thought, and Reality" > “We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The > categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not > find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, > the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to > be organized by our minds - and this means largely by the linguistic systems > in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe > significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to > organize it in this way - an agreement that holds throughout our speech > community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, > of course, an implicit and unstated one, BUT IT’S TERMS ARE ABSOLUTELY > OBLIGATORY; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization > and classification of data which the agreement decrees. I think I may know literally what does "The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face" mean, or maybe not.But I don't see the logic it bears. My understanding is that we isolate the categories and types because they stare every observer in the face, what does that supposed to mean? |
3,738 | 7,086 | 76823_0 | From the context of discussion, I took "hard done by" to mean "taken advantage unfair of" as in "He felt _hard done by_ by former friends." I had never heard the phrase before and have not heard it since. In fact I'm not sure my example sentence is properly constructed using two "by's". Is it generally Canadian? A Canadian regionalism? Or is it more widely used by non-American English speakers around the world? EDIT: Does the phrase include the word "by" and then require a second by for proper usage? If the meaning is akin to "betrayed", then does the sentence "He felt betrayed by his friend" equate to He felt _hard done_ by his friend ("by" is not part of the phrase) OR He felt _hard done by_ **by** his friend ("by" IS part of the phrase and so needs another by) Another example, is it: The situation made him feel _hard done_ OR The situation made him feel _hard done by_ |
3,739 | 123,483 | 76823_0 | In response to the death of Elmore Leonard the New York Times has posted a list of writing tips he composed back in 2001. Among them is the following: > To use an adverb this way (or almost any way) is a mortal sin. This is not the first time I have read of professional writers discouraging the use of adverbs. While technically (adverb!) appropriate English, why are they treated with such disdain, and what makes a good adverb substitute? |
3,740 | 123,486 | 76823_0 | Is there any difference between the two? Which one is more common? Which of the two words is more appropriate if the _"piece of furniture"_ is big, comfortable and expensive? |
3,741 | 159,404 | 76823_0 | Reading an account of the Round Oak Train Crash, I came across this passage:- > A good deal of suspicion, to say the least of it, must fall upon the hind > guard, Frederick Cook, as to the mode in which the break of the last van was > employed on the journey towards Worcester; and this suspicion is by no means > lessened by the circumstance that he permitted half-a-dozen passengers to > ride with him in his van, and that he employed one of their number, > according to his own admission, to take the break off in two cases. And later > In descending the incline from Round Oak to Stourbridge, there were four > persons acting as breaksmen in different parts of the train... which fixes the spelling _break_ in 1858. But no dictionary definition of _brake_ I have been able to find mentions this older spelling. Does anyone know when and why the spelling changed? Is there some etymological reason for this? |
3,742 | 71,030 | 76823_0 | I'm currently editing some chemistry test questions, and I have several sentences like the following: * What is the total number of moles of HCl produced when _3 moles of hydrogen **is_** completely consumed? * How many _moles of hydrogen **are_** consumed in this reaction? I originally flagged "are" in the latter sentence to be changed to "is" in order to be consistent, but intuition is leading me to doubt this. Does the "How many..." construction of the sentence make "moles" dictate agreement in this case? I suspect that "How many..." contextually sets the expectation that the subject is a count noun ("moles" in this case), whereas in cases like the first sentence, there is no clear contextual indication whether the subject is a count or mass noun. Does anyone know if there is a clear rule for cases like this? If not, would you stick with "are" in the second sentence or change it to "is"? |
3,743 | 71,036 | 76823_0 | Of course, I understand that the nature of the Internet means that a given person is not necessarily fluent in the English Language. But what I don't understand is how people can mangle a simple question. > How do I go from X to Y? As questions go, this kind of question is quite an important one to be able to ask. And yet, more often than not, I see this instead: > How to go from X to Y It looks more like a heading that's about to be followed by an explanation, not a question. The strange thing is, though, is that so many people make this error. It's not like other mistakes that vary from person to person based on their own knowledge, it's like an epidemic: Either the person knows how to ask the question in its proper form, or they use the exact erroneous form shown here. One thing I've noticed is that often a person will try to directly use their own language's sentence structure when speaking/writing in a foreign language. But in all the languages I know, none of them have this kind of sentence structure. Where does this malformation come from? |
3,744 | 71,039 | 76823_0 | I have always argued adamantly, as long as the issue has been around, that _gift_ should never be used as a verb. However, someone whose English knowledge I quite respect disagrees. I’ve done some searching and I haven’t found a consensus; should _gifting_ be shunned? |
3,745 | 76,561 | 76823_0 | What word or sequence of words can I use if I have more than several, but less than many? E.g. if I have 10–15 of something, it may not be many (depending on context), but it's too many to be several. What word or phrase can I use? * There are many studies which show... (not true, in my context I don't consider 10–15 is many) * There are 10 studies which show... (not correct, it's not exactly 10 and I don't know the exact number, nor is it relevant) * There are several studies which show... (not correct, 10 is too many to be several) * There is a number of studies which show... (means nothing? 0 is a number, as is 1000?) What is the correct word or sequence of words here? |
3,746 | 8,175 | 76823_0 | I found the word _YMMV_ in an answer to my question "How important to write down mission statement in learning English? Do I have to?", which I posted on January 6. As _YMMV_ is a quite strange word to me, I consulted Urban dictionary, and found that it's an abbreviation of _Your Mileage May Vary_ , meaning _your results will be varied_ and that is often used in forum talk. However, is the expression _Your mileage may vary_ by itself a well-established idiom? Do baby-boomers use this expression casually in day-to-day conversation? Would I raise somebody's eyebrows if I use the abbreviation _YMMV_ in ordinary conversation? Please teach me. |
3,747 | 8,178 | 76823_0 | And if so, how did they differentiate between male, female or neuter nouns? Did English ever have gender-specific (in)definite articles? (like der/die/das in German) |
3,748 | 184,225 | 76823_0 | If I want to express that I'm in urgent state what is the best way to say it? like `I'm in haste! let me enter first please.` Update: I want a word used for general purposes: like a child is late for his school, or employee is late for his work. ex `It's your work time! you must be in (some word)` . |
3,749 | 119,114 | 76823_0 | It seems like this word exists, but maybe it's because I know it in another language (non-Romance) that I thinking it exists. I'm drawing a blank on it. I'd like to write a sentence that says "He listed the [causes of death]: ...." |
3,750 | 159,906 | 76823_0 | For example... The Animal Control representative described the lost puppy as a golden retriever wearing a silver collar weighing 150 pounds. In this case is "weighing" used correctly? My book says this sentence contains a misplaced modifier but I don't know which modifier is incorrect. |
3,751 | 6,948 | 76823_0 | From one of the survey result (IT related), I came across the following line: > Agile Development and Service-Oriented-Architectures (SOA) represent the > “new normal.” What does "new normal" mean here? Is it an idiom? |
3,752 | 159,907 | 76823_0 | When we refer to two people, which is right — "both of you" or "the both of you"? Are both the same or is there any difference between them? |
3,753 | 15,473 | 76823_0 | Is it possible to verb anything other than a noun? Although slightly meta, I noticed that English SE has verbing as a tag, rather than verbing-nouns. |
3,754 | 100,442 | 76823_0 | My brain is standing completely still on this. I'm sure I've known this in the past. The difference between the number: 123 and 123.25 is obviously that the first number number is a "full" number. There is no fraction of a number that requires that the number be written with a period symbol and more numbers describing the fraction. What is a number _called_ when it can be written without a period, and what is it called otherwise? Also, what are the numbers behind the period symbol called? (So really this is a request for three words, not one. I hope that flies.) |
3,755 | 15,476 | 76823_0 | > The authors make no mention **whatsoever** about... Is this sentence appropriate for formal writing? |
3,756 | 123,159 | 76823_0 | I found several way to write the same thing, but it may be that only one is really correct, can you help me to find the correct sentence. I want to specify the type of a parameter for a function (a C programming API). What is the correct version ? 1,2,3 or 4 ? And for `bit`should I use `s` as their are 64 ? :) * unsigned 64bit integer (1) * unsigned 64-bit integer (2) * 64-bit unsigned integer (3) * 64bit unsigned integer (4) |
3,757 | 6,945 | 76823_0 | I know that commonly in America, they use "damn" or "damned" to describe things. Sometimes, more appropriately, it's even "darn" or "darned". For example, > This damn/damned computer is too slow. But what I can't wrap my head around is when to use "damn" and when to use "damned"? Or is only one of them correct? |
3,758 | 167,671 | 76823_0 | Please let me know which sentence is correct. I have faced the first and third one in the Longman dictionary, but dictionaries are prone to typos and errors. So I couldn't be sure which one is correct and which one is not. Please help me know. > 1. The verb is **in the** past tense. > 2. The verb is **in** past tense. > 3. The verb is past tense. > |
3,759 | 151,324 | 76823_0 | I am not a native speaker but both sounds good to me. Which one should be more accurate or in fact correct. |
3,760 | 181,357 | 76823_0 | Can "at" and "in" be used interchangeably without worry or is one of them specifically wrong especially in the case of: Working at a new job vs. Working in a new job? and Living in a new apartment vs. Living at a new apartment? |
3,761 | 159,703 | 76823_0 | If someone is asked to do something important, they might say "I'll prioritize that". But if someone is asked to put something aside to work on something else more important, what could they say? In the past I've used "de-prioritize", but I'm not sure if that's actually a word. Is it a word? Is there some other way to get this point across? |
3,762 | 159,704 | 76823_0 | What's the difference between the two. |
3,763 | 140,850 | 76823_0 | Is there a word for making a cross with your hands in the air? It's a four point motion that goes from head to chest, then shoulder to shoulder. An example situation where someone does this might be a funeral procession passing by. |
3,764 | 86,755 | 76823_0 | I found the phrase “ _less is never more_ ” in Maureen Dowd’s article “An Irish Catholic wake-up,” dealing with vice-presidential debate on October 11 in October 13’s NY Times. It comes in the following statement: > “Biden was trying to do what Romney did well: come across as a senior > partner chastising a junior associate who screwed up. For this vice > president, though, _less is never more_. He mugged condescension as if he > were the star of a silent movie. But who ever accused Uncle Joe of > subtlety?” Does “ _less is never more_ ” mean it’s better to overdo than underdo, or is it vice versa? What does it imply in particular to Joe Biden case? Is it a fancy turn of word, or just a cliche? PS. We have a Japanese adage, 過ぎたるは及ばざるが如しliterally meaning "Too much is as bad as too little," which I presume to be similar to "Less is never more." |
3,765 | 126,202 | 76823_0 | > After helping with the dishes, Eri swung her purse on her shoulder and said > goodbye to her mother, promising she'll come back to see her soon. **Keys in > hand, her dad led Eri to the car, and then they drove (off) to the main > street.** Do I have to add _off_ in that last sentence? I've seen examples like that before. When is neccesary and when not? |
3,766 | 159,709 | 76823_0 | I am about to collect information from multiple sources and transform them into one language/terminology. I wonder what would be the correct term for this process? Maybe a different word would fit even better? Thanks! |
3,767 | 152,018 | 76823_0 | How would you punctuate this sentence? If someone gives you a hard time about ending a sentence with a preposition, feel free to respond to the criticism, as Winston Churchill, according to unconfirmed legends did, his tongue firmly in cheek: 'This is just the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.' * * * Or would I use dashes and parentheses? If someone gives you a hard time about ending a sentence with a preposition, feel free to respond to the criticism—as Winston Churchill (according to unconfirmed legends did, his tongue firmly in cheek): 'This is just the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.' |
3,768 | 125,647 | 76823_0 | Is there any phrase with the word "prize" that would describe that the prize is a material one? I.e. you would get some kind of a product or thing, not money. |
3,769 | 126,505 | 76823_0 | Is there a verb which means the same as "to dumb down" or "to make milder", in relation to an account of something I had witnessed? More specifically, a verb which describes telling your account of something you witnessed in a milder form so as to not scare the other person and "play down" the event. |
3,770 | 126,506 | 76823_0 | Working on the laptop all day, I want a word for when my cursor (pointer) just keeps going on its own even though my hand is nowhere close to the laptop mouse controls. Profanity is fine! Note that I have only witnessed this phenomenon when using the native mousepad or mouse control button on a laptop. If I plugged in a regular usb mouse this wouldn't happen. I have not noticed this on tablets yet. But I have had at least 20 laptops and happened with all of them. Usage: Coworker - "What is taking so long?" Me - "F*cking mouse thing, wait a minute." Would like to have a phrase to replace "F*cking mouse thing." |
3,771 | 126,206 | 76823_0 | The explanation in the dictionary of "aim" is "The aim of something that you do is the purpose for which you do it or the result that it is intended to achieve. "and the explanation of "purpose" is "The purpose of something is the reason for which it is made or done. " So are there any differences between "aim" and "purpose"? And which word should I fill in the blank? "But for the ___ __of communication, we dress in clothes of different colors." |
3,772 | 127,678 | 76823_0 | I sometimes see phrases like "smart hotel", "smart restaurant" (especially in guide books). From context I usually understand it as "expensive but worthy". Is it correct understanding? Why is word "smart" used? I rarely see it used in that way outside of this context. I never heard "smart car" in that sense for example. **Edit:** Example of usage (that actually encouraged me to ask this question), this is quote from guide book about Morocco: "However, it is a waste of time trying to negotiate at peak of the high season, or in the very smart hotels, such as the La Mamounia in Marrakech". So it is even used in comparative form. Apparently this La Mamounia Hotel is one of the most luxurious and expensive hotels in Marrakech. |
3,773 | 127,677 | 76823_0 | To utilize things as(when) you need to, but never be captivated by things.(self-made, a translation from ancient text in Chinese) I think "as you need" and "as you need to" is different in this context. Because "as you need" may be followed by noun, but "as you need to" is to be followed by verb. Which one do you think is more appropriate in this sentence? |
3,774 | 138,621 | 76823_0 | For example: There is a problem A. To solve A x, y and z are needed. But you can't have x without y, the lack of y is problematic for z, without which x is impossible. Looking for a word that would describe this and would be more colorful than 'complex'. Thank you! |
3,775 | 40,407 | 76823_0 | On this page: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=27645 There is a sentence: > All these database servers allow this, so what's the hangup?! What does `what's the hangup` mean? |
3,776 | 40,408 | 76823_0 | I have some friends, and they say “Yo!” when I call them. I haven”t heard this response until quite recently (somehow), and I thought it was some word coined by rappers in their songs, and was adopted as a response by other people (like my friends, who happen to listen to rap). So I was rather surprised, when looking this up on Wiktionary, I read: > (military slang) Present! Here! > > Sergeant: Smith? > Private Smith: Yo! I thought to myself, “Obviously this ain’t coined by them rappers!” Then, I saw a similar question on Yahoo Answers, with an answer stating (one link provided): > Yo is an American English slang interjection. The origins of the word may > possibly be traced back to 14th century England. However, it was highly > popularized after being commonly used among Italian Americans and African > Americans in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Clicking on the link provided, it turns out to lead to Answers.com. But the funny thing was, the new source included this information: > An exclamation used as a greeting, to express excitement, to attract > attention, or as a general sign of familiarity (originating among young > African-Americans). (1966–) . I am inclined to think that the word _yo_ came from the 14th century, but have no real evidence to say so. Can anyone provide solid stuff? That is, did it come from a military response, or a word used among young African-Americans in 1966? **Edit** : I am asking specifically in relation to _yo_ being used as a response/reply. |
3,777 | 151,035 | 76823_0 | In designing a learning management system for a university, and I would like to define a user role which groups together teachers and students. Is there any word that refers to them collectively? The only word that I can think of is "participants", in the sense that both teachers and students participate in learning activities. Luckily, aside from participants, I only have "system administrators" in my system, so there is no notion of e.g. university administration staff. |
3,778 | 2,625 | 76823_0 | I assume that the following sentences are grammatically correct: > * He resents your being more popular than he is. > * Most of the members paid their dues without my asking them. > * They objected to the youngest girl's being given the command position. > * What do you think about his buying such an expensive car? > * We were all sorry about Jane's losing her parents like that. > I'm still getting used to this possessive gerund structure. It sounded me so weird at first. Is the structure used in both formal and informal contexts? Are there any alternative structures that result in the same meaning and are more frequently used? (Examples taken from http://grammartips.homestead.com/possessivewithgerund.html) |
3,779 | 186,365 | 76823_0 | The following ia a quote from CNN News: > A Gallup poll Friday showed that 18% of Americans surveyed said Clinton > becoming the first woman president would be "the best or most positive" > thing about her winning the election. Is it possible to say "Clinton's becoming ..." instead of "Clinton becoming ...?" If both are correct, which is more common? |
3,780 | 139,660 | 76823_0 | I have been thinking of this sentence: > All these factors culminated in my choosing [some life decision]. Is the usage of _my choosing_ correct? |
3,781 | 127,482 | 76823_0 | I have used these kinds of sentences in talking and writing for so long without really knowing the grammar behind them: > This resulted in **my getting** late > > It's unfortunate that even after **his trying** to convince her, she didn't > agree > > He couldn't resist himself despite **my warning** him |
3,782 | 76,756 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > When is a gerund supposed to be preceded by a possessive pronoun? The phrase “We look forward to your spending time with us” is common in invites in my industry but it feels like “all your base are belong to us” to me. `:-P` Is it proper English? |
3,783 | 114,464 | 76823_0 | Would a hypothetical sentence be marked with it? For example, as opposed to: "It's your beating me in chess that angered me." a sentence such as: "It's like you beating me in chess: it'll never happen." It raises a circumstance that is in theory, so I don't think anything can be attributed to it. The chess match hasn't been won yet, so the listener does not yet "possess" the win. Another way I could expound upon it is as "A case of you beating me in chess." I don't think this would take the possessive because it's not definite. Or does it not matter? Would the possessive form of the pronoun be used regardless, and, if so, is it a set rule? * _EDIT_ *They're both gerunds, but the meanings are changed because of their syntax. The former represents a case where a reason is provided, involving an embedded gerund and the effect. It's the normal situation that's been addressed. The second is a situation that has not been experienced while it's being said. In a sentence like "I'm frightened by his reddening." it's the typical gerund with a prevedent possessive, all in the present-tense. "The idea of him reddening." is another type of sentence, altoghether. And on purpose, too. I doubt the answer is the same as that question from the threas that was compared to this one. Try: "The situation of [a person] [verb-ing]." In other words, the situation where one is performing a verb. Suddenly, the possessive seemls unneeded. Compare it to: "A person's [own] [doing a verb](The respective activity attributed to their behavior.). Yeah, the constructions and implications differ, but the extent at which they do leads me to velieve the simple pronoun is actually preferred over the possessive, or should be. (I'm on my phone, so sorry about any typos.) |
3,784 | 114,089 | 76823_0 | Tough to choose a title for this question. Here's my sentence: "An outcome of this was **my** leading the development of a budget management plan." OR "An outcome of this was **me** leading the development of a budget management plan." I've heard it both ways, but I'm guessing one way is correct and the other is not. For now, I've revised the sentence to be "As an outcome, I led the development of a budget management plan." to get around the grammar question. I would also be curious to hear the explanation. Thanks. |
3,785 | 181,074 | 76823_0 | > Thank you baby for **my** being able to share this with you or > Thank you baby for **me** being able to share this with you Which is correct? |
3,786 | 181,377 | 76823_0 | Which of the following is correct? In the case of "their" being granted a bond the deal will go through. or: In the case of "them" being granted a bond the deal will go through. |
3,787 | 77,775 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > When is a gerund supposed to be preceded by a possessive pronoun? I am a German mathematician. In some research papers I find grammatical constructions like the one in the title, e.g.: "Because of our ignoring the boundary conditions, the following analysis is easier." I wonder whether this is grammatically and stylistically correct English. I know there are some original constructs in "mathematical English", so if it is not standard grammar, it might very well be an import from another language. Can you help me? |
3,788 | 75,718 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > When is a gerund supposed to be preceded by a possessive pronoun? > * 1. Do you mind _me_ smoking? > 2. Do you mind _my_ smoking? > * 1. There's little chance of _you_ getting a sunburn. > 2. There's little chance of _your_ getting a sunburn. > I was taught in school to use the latter of each pair, though have heard the former in daily life. Which is correct, or does it matter? |
3,789 | 137,239 | 76823_0 | > Would you mind **me** opening the window? > > Would you mind **my** opening the window? Who uses which form, and why? Is this a difference in dialect? A difference between formal and informal grammar? |
3,790 | 70,488 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > When is a gerund supposed to be preceded by a possessive pronoun? > “Me being” versus “my being” > Usage of the gerund preceded by the possessive pronoun I don't really know what to call it but basically there are two forms that I have seen across different texts: > _My_ being here obviously upsets him. > > _Me_ being here obviously upsets him. * * * > _My_ taking interest in her research has had fantastic effects. > > _Me_ taking interest in her research has had fantastic effects. * * * > _Your_ coming here is quite disturbing > > _You_ coming here is quite disturbing * * * > Please forgive _my_ being aggressive. > > Please forgive _me_ being aggressive. I think I must have seen the latter more often but in my head the former makes more sense. |
3,791 | 94,235 | 76823_0 | I have a problem analysing this sentence from the point of finite/nonfinite clauses, clause elements and their functions: > He does not want to destroy his parents' **dream of him achieving a > Cambridge degree**. I am especially interested in the: dream of him achieving a Cambridge degree. I know that 'achieving a Cambridge degree' is a non-finite -ing participle clause. However what is its function? and what is the function of 'of him'? Is it a postmodification? |
3,792 | 110,947 | 76823_0 | Which of the following two sentences is preferred (and why)? > Jane is confused by you using the metric system. Or: > Jane is confused by your using the metric system. I've seen both but my intuition says that the latter is preferred. Is there a definitive answer? If so, what is the rationale for one being superior to the other? |
3,793 | 182,995 | 76823_0 | 1. He did not appreciate the men taking charge of the project. vs. 2. He did not appreciate the men's taking charge of the project. If sentence 2 is technically correct it seems awfully silly and affected. |
3,794 | 167,294 | 76823_0 | I often use the pattern 'I appreciate your noticing this' but recently decided it sounds strange, and switched to 'you'. (I do this with different verbs; this is just an example.) Are they both valid? |
3,795 | 31,437 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Gerund preceded by possessive pronoun (e.g. "He resents your being more > popular than he is") Until a few months ago, I had always thought that sentences like this were correct: > They always hated me being an atheist. Only later to find out that the correct form is: > They always hated my being an atheist. I came to understand the reason behind this and started using the proper form, but as I've seen the latest futurama episode, I found out the problem is far from over. The main cast character, Fry, said the following: > Never bet against me being stupid. And now I'm totally lost. I've tried googling for an answer and all I found (by @Cerberus here or by others here, here, here and here) seems to disprove the fact of "me being" being correct. So I ask: did the creators of futurama make such a horrible mistake, or does this problem go deeper than meets the eye? |
3,796 | 147,282 | 76823_0 | Here is a quote from "Ever Wonder Why / the color red angers a bull? " (page 20). > It has been suggested that this reaction to red (my note: of bull which is > color-blind to a shaking cape in red) may be due to **its** being the color > of blood. My question : the above "its" should be "it"? |
3,797 | 195,091 | 76823_0 | Can I say: > I understand **_your wanting_** to wait a while longer. I have heard it being said, but how correct is it? |
3,798 | 105,428 | 76823_0 | "I like horse," screams Hendry. "I like horse," scream Hendry. "I like horse," Hendry screams "I like horse," Hendry screamed (why used past tense) Say you are writing a story about people talking to each other. Which one will you use? For example, in http://www.fanfiction.net/s/569887/1/Little-Red-Riding-Hood- The-Wolf-s-Version people use past tense to describe speech. In most stories I read people use past tense. I wonder why. Here, another story also uses past tenses http://www.magickeys.com/books/noblegnarble/page9.html#pictop Is there any stories that use present tense so it's easier to understand? Is using past tense the de facto standard in grammar? |
3,799 | 47,752 | 76823_0 | There is an expression " _in the realm of ..._ ". What does it mean exactly, and in what cases it is used? |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.