Dataset Preview Go to dataset viewer
title_body (string)upvoted_answer (string)downvoted_answer (string)
“…nicer than any other…” vs “…as nice as any other…” On a practice test, this sentence was given with the instructions to select the correct version: The English teacher, Mrs. Jensen, is nicer than any teacher in the whole school. This is obviously a bit nonsensical, because “any teacher” would include Mrs. Jensen, and she can’t be nicer than herself. Two of the four answers were wrong for obvious reasons, but answers A and B were as follows: A) The English teacher, Mrs. Jensen, is nicer than any other teacher in the whole school. B) The English teacher, Mrs. Jensen, is as nice as any other teacher in the whole school. The test claimed that B was the correct answer. (No explanation was given.) Can you please tell me why answer A is incorrect? To me, they seem like two different, but correct, statements. Thanks!
Answer A is obviously correct, with no room for argument. The original phrase, while logically amusing, is easily understood and completely clear in its meaning that Mrs. Jensen is not equally as nice as another teacher (answer B), but instead is nicer than all other teachers in the school. While some may use the phrase "as nice as any" to mean the nicest, it is not explicit in its meaning. Answer A is correct.
It is only, as you say, 'a bit' nonsensical (even if something either is or isn't nonsensical). But consider that if, by ANY, you are implying "any [teacher] I know" then it makes perfect sense, and so it's fine. Where the real problem is is 'whole' school, becuase we could argue that the 'whole' school is nonsensical; 'whole' as opposed to what? 'part of the school'? Syntactically speaking, anyway, there's nothing wrong with it. It is, however, 'a bit nonsensical' if the receiver is left to question what you meant Speaking of picky... 'nicer'? what exactly do you mean by 'nice'? By the way, you could write to the authors of the practice test to point out that today there's no need to have commas there—and no period after Mrs, as well. But that's just being ...picky.
"Catalogue" versus "catalog" What is the difference between catalogue and catalog? I cannot really decide which one to use for a product catalogue for a shop.
They have the same meaning. Catalogue is used in British English whereas catalog is mostly used in American English. I've also seen cases where catalogue was used by some American friends, though.
Although both spellings originally referred to the same idea, it's my personal experience--in the U.S., at least--that these two forms have diverged over time to encompass separate domains based on the locus of ideas evoked by the word in question. Example 1: "Dialogue" refers to an undefined, dynamic exchange between two active parties (e.g., dialogue between two characters) whereas "dialog" will typically refer to a one-sided exchange--as with a computer prompt with a deterministic output (e.g., dialog box). Example 2: "Analog" (adj) almost exclusively refers to "non-digital" technology (e.g., analog amplifier), while "analogue" (n) is used almost exclusively to describe things in figurative/metaphorical domains. Example 3: "Catalog" and "catalogue" are a good example of this. Catalog often seems relegated to static, physical objects (e.g., the Sears catalog) while catalogue may refer to a more abstract (non-physical) concept of grouped elements (e.g., the Beatles' catalogue of music). In all three cases, both spellings are used heavily in American English, to different effect; I cannot speak to British (or other regional) English.
Idiom/phrase which means "to pretend not to understand or know" Sometimes (well, often) people pretend not to understand what's going on (or pretend not to understand what the other person means, etc.) when in fact they do perfectly well. For example, Person A is hoping that his friend Person B would let him crash at his place for a couple of days, but, so as not to appear too intrusive, he wants Person B to invite him instead of asking directly. So, he says to his friend: Hey, Person B! I've just been kicked out of my house and I have nowhere to go. I really have to figure out where to stay the next couple of days. Person B understands that Person A is hoping that he would offer him to stay at his place. But he chooses to pretend not to understand, and, instead of saying sorry and explaining why Person A cannot stay at his place, person B says: There's a nice hotel near here, and it's not very expensive. I can give you the address. Another example. Person B has secretly stolen the wallet of Person A. Person A has figured out that it was person B and when they meet, he says: My wallet was stolen the other day. Person B says: Really? Oh, that's so unfortunate! What idioms in English would one use to describe the behavior of Person B in the sample situations? I.e. pretending to be stupid or pretending not to understand something rather obvious, or pretending not to know something that you know; in other words, consciously imitating ignorance, indifference, or innocence. In Russian, the idiom is to pretend to be a fire hose (прикидываться шлангом) or to pretend to be a boot (прикидываться валенком). The Armenian idiom is to pretend to be a donkey (իրեն էշի տեղ դնել). For me, these phrases are not quite unimaginative and cause a certain amount of amusement. I am hoping to find an English equivalent (or equivalents) that would be informal and/or sound funny(-ish), but that's not essential. Naturally, I tried to look up the translation in the dictionary before asking, but to no avail, presumably because the phrases mentioned above are rather informal.
I'm not sure of any colorful idioms that could be English counterparts to what you mentioned. If someone behaved that way, I would probably say that she was: playing dumb feigning ignorance being deliberately obtuse
I guess you mean being Inconsiderate. For instance: Failing to replace the roll after using last of the toilet paper is very **inconsiderate**. Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inconsiderate
Word/phrase for something that succeeds in first attempt You are a creator. You are fearless. Though you lack expertise at the moment, your work has the ability to be decent most of the time. You tinker, you fail. You keep failing and start seeing the light. There are moments, though sometimes short lived, where you create a masterpiece and it becomes an instant hit. A wild hit, where your inner self knows it has a hit in the pocket. This can be a photograph, a dish or an ingenious solution to a difficult problem. How would you define such moments? Is there a phrase or a word to describe this situation?
You might refer to it as a watershed moment, after which everything is changed. watershed 3. A critical point that marks a division or a change of course; a turning point:
I would say your idea "has legs"/"has got some legs".
is the phrase "long time later" correct? I have come across this weirdly formed phrase in a book , but i am not sure of its correctness. If this is correct, what would be its proper usage? Is saying "I met you a long time later" correct?
At first glance, there seems to be nothing wrong with that sentence. A long time is just another period of time, like a week or a year, and it can be substituted for those: I have been working here for a week. I have been working here for a year. I have been working here for a long time. So it makes perfect sense to use it in a similar way in a sentence like: I met him a week later. I met him a year later. I met him a long time later. However, it somehow feels “off”. I suspect this may have to do with the fact that we can convey the exact same meaning in a more concise way: I met him much later. Indeed, if we look at Google nGrams, we see that both a week later and a year later are commonly used, but a long time later, though it is used, is very rare. Much later, however, is used as often as a year later. So, in conclusion, the phrase is correct, and it is used (if rarely), but the more common, more idiomatic expression would be much later.
"a long time later" describes a passage of time between 2 events. A common usage would be in a narrative to link to scenes, the second of which happens "a long time" after the first. Your usage is incorrect because the tenses are confused "I met" refers to an event in the past, "a long time later" refers to an event in the future - they can't be the same event. Also, it is awkward telling someone that you haven't met that you will have met them. Something like "A long time later, I will meet you" would be better but still sounds a little strange to me. What exactly are you trying to say?
Dependent clause w/list *comma or semicolon* followed by independent clause Should we use a semicolon or comma when an adverbial dependent clause containing a list is followed by an independent clause? While not everyone is a Newton, Einstein, or Hawking, every one of them is a fascinating character with a unique story. or: While not everyone is a Newton, Einstein, or Hawking; every one of them is a fascinating character with a unique story.
First of all, your example sentence as an issue beyond the comma. The use of everyone clashes with every one of them. To be grammatical, it needs to be rephrased in one of two ways: While not everyone is a Newton, Einstein, or Hawking, everyone is a fascinating character with a unique story. While they aren't all a Newton, Einstein, or Hawking, every one of them is a fascinating character with a unique story. So, let's assume that the sentence has been corrected to one of those two versions. In this particular construction, the sentence takes the form while X, Y. Changing the comma to a semicolon would break that form and lead to confusion. (The while x would be stranded as a sentence fragment.) On the other hand, if you remove while, you can use a semicolon without a problem—but only if you make some other changes. For example: Not everyone is a Newton, Einstein, or Hawking; however, everyone is a fascinating character with a unique story. They aren't all a Newwon, Einstein, or Hawking; but every one of them is a fascinating character with a unique story. Note that it is an erroneous belief that you can't start a sentence with but. See the blog post "Can I Start a Sentence with a Conjunction?" by Neal Whitman where this is discussed. Just as a sentence can start with but, so can a sentence continue with but after a semicolon.
First of all, your example sentence as an issue beyond the comma. The use of everyone clashes with every one of them. To be grammatical, it needs to be rephrased in one of two ways: While not everyone is a Newton, Einstein, or Hawking, everyone is a fascinating character with a unique story. While they aren't all a Newton, Einstein, or Hawking, every one of them is a fascinating character with a unique story. So, let's assume that the sentence has been corrected to one of those two versions. In this particular construction, the sentence takes the form while X, Y. Changing the comma to a semicolon would break that form and lead to confusion. (The while x would be stranded as a sentence fragment.) On the other hand, if you remove while, you can use a semicolon without a problem—but only if you make some other changes. For example: Not everyone is a Newton, Einstein, or Hawking; however, everyone is a fascinating character with a unique story. They aren't all a Newwon, Einstein, or Hawking; but every one of them is a fascinating character with a unique story. Note that it is an erroneous belief that you can't start a sentence with but. See the blog post "Can I Start a Sentence with a Conjunction?" by Neal Whitman where this is discussed. Just as a sentence can start with but, so can a sentence continue with but after a semicolon.
"You are likely to [verb]" vs. "you are like to [verb]" In a recent answer to another question, a fellow poster just used the following turn of phrase: The nearest you’re like to get is [word][.] I only ever saw and used "you’re likely to..." myself, but something told me it wasn't a typo. So I started looking around and sure enough it wasn't. After some discussion in chat, here's what we have determined so far: 50–60 million Google hits for "you are like to"; 3 million for "you are like to get". (120 million for "you are likely to", 11 million for "you are likely to get".) 2 hits on BNC, 0 on COCA. The poster is from the UK. Seems to be a British thing. More stats follow: COCA BNC you are likely to [v*] 150 167 you are like to [v*] 0 2 we are likely to [v*] 126 67 we are like to [v*] 0 0 I am likely to [v*] 18 12 I am like to [v*] 0 1 Until we come to this outlier: he is likely to [v*] 143 92 he is like to [v*] 2 1 The two COCA cites looking legit: There's a danger that some of the weapons of mass destruction he is like to have had may have leaked out of the country. — SPOKEN, 2003, CNN. A Californian! This is herring man, a favorite to vodka. He is like to have hammer and sickle tattooed on his chest. — FICTION, 2001, Harper's Magazine. Some hits on Google Books. For example, from Burke, Paine, Godwin, and the Revolution Controversy, Marily Butler (ed.), 1984: Can I be blamed to point out to him in what manner he is like to be affected, if the sect of the cannibal philosophers of France should proselytize any considerable part of this people, and, by their joint proselytizing arms, should conquer that Government, to which his Grace does not seem to me to give all the support his own security demands? Again, Cambridge University Press, so could be a British thing, if not for the spelling of proselytize that suggests otherwise. The quick straw poll in chat produced reactions ranging from "Really? Never heard of." through "It's an odd one. I suppose it's fine colloquially." to "I have heard this, and I think it is a modern mal-back-formation of likely when the sentence structure resembles a copula." So, my questions are: Is this or is this not a strictly British thing? Does it sound grammatical to Americans? And what about Indian/Australian English? How recent is this use of like? Who knows — does it perhaps even predate the corresponding use of likely?
This is also an American colloquial usage, which I'm sure I've seen in 19th century writing but can't locate a citation just yet. I was like to hit him in the mouth for saying that. We were like to die from the heat. The latter I definitely heard my grandmother say when I was a child. Addendum Ah, found one. Mark Twain, of course (from The £1,000,000 Bank Note ): So I had to give it up and go away. What a riddle it all was! I was like to lose my mind.
I bring nothing to this answer other than my American ear and eye... If I heard the following phrase, the weapons of mass destruction he is like to have had...", I would know what was meant and would not stop to ponder the "odd" use of "like" however... If I read the same phrase, it would not go by unnoticed - my eye would dart back to "like" and wonder for a split second if that should have been "likely".
What do we call someone who takes excessive pride in their past? What do we call someone who takes excessive pride in their past ? Example : - He was always talking about his past feats. What do you such a Person?
Maybe the person is boastful Showing excessive pride and self-satisfaction in one’s achievements, possessions, or abilities "he always seemed to be rather boastful and above himself"
I think the person can be defined as nostalgic experiencing or exhibiting nostalgia, a sentimental or wistful yearning for the happiness felt in a former place, time, or situation. From Dictionary.com
Word to describe someone who makes frequent bodily sounds I am wondering if there is a word for someone whose bodily noises are especially loud. Example actions include: Sample sentence: The world had never quite seen a body like Jared's. Between the lip smacking, farting, and labored breathing, he was the embodiment of . -Lip smacking -Breathing heavily -Frequently humming/murmuring -Flatulent -Heft or weight to all their actions resulting in noise Someone similar question here, except this word would extend beyond eating. The character is not dirty, so words like slovenly don't really work. I thought the appropriate word might be gesticulating, but that is more concerned with the behavior of how someone delivers speech.
Not an exact answer, but an aversion to these sounds is sometimes called misophonia. Finally discovered a word to capture my original feeling.
Not an exact answer, but an aversion to these sounds is sometimes called misophonia. Finally discovered a word to capture my original feeling.
Has anyone here ever used the word "professionality"? (Or is it even a word?) I've heard the owner of our school say the word twice. Urban Dictionary even has a definition for it: Professionality: The art of maintaining a professional appearance and attitude while projecting a tremendous amount of personality. e.g. Jason has the professionality to meet with clients and still be the life of the office. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=professionality An academic from the University of Leeds has even used the term in a journal article: Evans, Linda (2008) Professionalism, professionality and the development of education professionals. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56 (1). pp. 20-38. Yet, the word isn't entered in any of the major dictionaries. What do you think about this word? Do you ever use it? Do many people use it?
Perhaps it's an unconscious response to a blanket negative attitude to '-isms', where 'professionality' would seem preferable to 'professionalism'. Compare with 'dualism/duality'; 'mentalism/mentality', etc, where the '-ism' seems to be more substantial; the '-ality' more qualitative.
Singular unit of professionalism- knowledge, skills and procedures that an individual uses in their approach to a profession- ideologically, intellectually and attitudinally driven. Distinct from professionalism which refers to status related elements of a professional's work.
Is it "Forty centuries was a long time" or "Forty centuries were a long time"? I need to know if the verb form should be singular or plural in such sentences.
"Forty centuries was a long time" is correct. though it's a plural noun, it makes sense of a singular meaning. for example, forty kilometers is a long distance to walk.
There's two subtle different meanings of "time" at play here. If you were to say "Forty centuries is a long time" then it's a simple statement of fact, which applies at any point in time, past, present or future. With "Forty centuries was a long time" it sounds like you are talking about something that happened to you (or someone else), ie a specific time period. That's because the use of "was" implies it's no longer a universal thing, like with "is", and that you must be talking about something more concrete and specific. It's unlikely that you mean the second sense, since nobody ever experienced a forty-century time period.
plural possessive form of a mutated plural? Here are two examples of mutated plurals: more than one goose= geese; more than one man= men 1)Say you had 2 or more groups of geese. I.e. group #1= African geese & group #2=buff geese. If you wanted to associate these groups together but still observe the fact that they are different types of geese, would you say geeses? (Buff geese + African geese = geeses) Taking this one step further, if these two distinct groups of geese share in the possession of something, would geeses' be correct? Say, one type of illness is common to two sorts of geese. [illness common to Buff geese(=Buff geese's illness) + the same illness is common to African geese(=African geese's illness) --> geeses' illness? ] 2)Say you had 2 or more groups of men: men from France(Frenchmen), men from England (Englishmen), and men from Ireland (Irishmen). Let's say you want to refer to the "European charm" that these groups of men have in common while still noting that there ARE different and distinct groups of men involved(i.e. different people groups--> peoples). Would you say the mens' charm? I guess I'm just curious if you can make the sum of multiple groups possessive while keeping a distinction between these groups intact. (distinct GROUPS with similar possession)
In terms of 'correct' usage, it's wrong to do what the OP is suggesting. Neither written English nor its spoken form has an accepted mechanism for making "the sum of multiple groups possessive while keeping a distinction between these groups intact" by inflection. Joint possession by multiple groups of the same type can be expressed, of course - but it is done analytically rather than by inflection. 1) You can say, 'an illness of both buff and African geese', or, 'a buff and African geese's illness', or a couple of other similar phrasings. The best choice of phrasing will depends on context. Writing "Geeses" or "geeses's" in ANY context would mark the author as either a learner, or hopelessly illiterate. 2) You'd have to say something like 'the charm of all these men', or 'those men's charm' ... while doing what you can to remove ambiguity. However, in very informal and colloquial oral conversations only, some native speakers DO use these kinds of 'recursive' plurals and possessives, ... but always with the awareness that it's 'bad English'. For example, someone might say, "Chimps and humans are two different specieses.Both specieses's behaviours are complex." ... but only for humorous effect.
Since "geese" is plural, the possessive form would be "geese's." In the second part of your question, you used geese in an entirely different context that made the word singular instead of plural. In that context, the plural of geese is geeses. If you have a plural possessive of geese, you do indeed get geeses'.
It is correct and formal to include "of" when writing dates? A friend of mine, native EN speaker, told me that the following is correct written like this: We met on the 1st of June. Is that really true? I cannot see any reference that these are used in written text.
Using 'of' is the standard form in Britain and those countries who speak the Queen's English. In spoken form 'the sixteenth of July' is used as frequently as 'July the sixteenth'. What we don't say in Britain is 'July sixteen'. When writing we do not include 'of' nor 'the'. But a lot of people, me included, place 'th', 'st', 'nd' or 'rd' after the digits. e.g. 16th July, 22nd August, 1st March, 23rd April, 21st November etc. Britain conforms to writing the short form of the date using the European method, which is used throughout almost the entire world except in the United States, i.e. day/month/year. so that 3/5/13 means 3rd May 2013, not 5th March 2013. I have heard it said that the US military follows the standard international method. If that be the case I can only think that it must lead to considerable confusion.
It's fine and definitely more formal than saying, "We met on June 1st." It is a little old-fashioned, however.
"Proper Cheerio”: Proper? A call to BrE speakers: A television outlet in NE US is advertising a gala fundraising event coinciding with the finale of the Downton Abbey television series in the States. Sunday, March 6, 2016 marks the end of an era, as Downton Abbey draws the curtain on its final episode. Join Vermont PBS to give the series a proper send-off at this gala finale event! • Screening of the FULL final episode. • Reception, hors d’oeuvres & cash bar. • Jazz-era dancing to the Vermont Jazz Ensemble. • Downton Abbey photo opportunity! They've titled their event A Proper Cheerio - which sounds grating to my untutored ear. The voiceover announcer is clearly an American making an unfortunate attempt at an RP delivery, as if the organizers are trying to sound like "poncy toffs" (an expression for which I am indebted to an EL&U guru) - and falling short. My question: is a proper cheerio a proper Briticism? Google and other search engines offer little encouragement.
Short answer: Yes. Though I agree that it sounds clumsy. From context, it's clear that the organisers are deliberately emphasising the Britishness of the event, and do so by using stereotypical British terminology. The two terms here are : cheerio - informal British slang for a friendly farewell. proper - correct, genuine or appropriate. In a British context this can be a bit nuanced, what's 'proper' depending on one's understanding of the social ettiquite. For example He's wearing a black bow tie to this event? That's not quite proper is it? While you're correct that 'proper cheerio' isn't a common expression together, proper is a descriptive adjective that can be applied to any noun. eg. A proper job. A proper car. A proper girlfriend. A proper party. So a proper cheerio does suit here. I think what makes it sounds clumsy is the use of cheerio. Cheerio is a farewell expression, not an event. What comes to mind when I think of a proper cheerio is someone saying the word with gusto and a wave of the hand. eg. The postman gave me a proper cheerio when I finished talking to him this morning, what a swell fellow! Perhaps what would have made more appropriate for this event would be a proper send-off, but of course, that doesn't sound as explicitly British.
As a native BrE speaker, I would have to say that it doesn't sound at all British to me, and I would never say anything like that except as a joke. Cheerio is a little used term now, which is perhaps not an issue in the context of Downton Abbey. Using it as a noun and modifying with 'proper' is really quite bizarre. So much so that Ngram draws a blank. It is certainly not standard BrE usage.
A word that means to add a small amount of into food (example in body) I am thinking of something like infiltration or adulteration, but for food. For example consider these sentences that should be compatible with the word being sought (as different parts of speech, of course): The food at the restaurant tasted so good that it seemed like the chef _______ it with crack. Even _______ the cake from this recipe with a small additional amount of sugar made it taste too sweet to be palatable. The cookies were _______ with a small amount of chocolate and this made them absolutely irresistible. I suppose the word “lace” would work, but I am looking for something with less of a negative connotation.
Enhance, Enhanced This means ‘improved’ and can mean ‘added to’. If you don’t like the result, (ie, it was not ultimately ‘an enhancement’), you can use the form: ‘When the recipe was enhanced with additional sugar, it unfortunately turned out too sweet’. Or ‘when we tried added sugar as a possible enhancement, it became too sweet, or overly sweet’. Your examples: The food at the restaurant tasted so good that it seemed like the chef enhanced it with crack. Even enhancing the cake from this recipe with a small additional amount of sugar made it taste too sweet to be palatable. Or, Enhancing the cake from this recipe with even a small additional amount of sugar, made it taste too sweet to be palatable. The cookies were enhanced with a small amount of chocolate and this made them absolutely irresistible. Advantages - a fairly neutral word, does not denote a negative addition like ‘laced’.
Annointed Which is a word that literally means putting a sacred oil on someone’s head to bless them. Poetic, and would allow the feeling that the addition of the ingredient makes the cake (or whatever) divine. Your examples The food at the restaurant tasted so good that it seemed like the chef annointed it with crack. (This one becomes funny, because of the contrast. sugar example - it doesn’t really work for and this example doesn’t make sense to me anyway. The cookies were annointed with a small amount of chocolate and this made them absolutely irresistible. (Works well as the ‘addition made them heavenly). Example in use ‘A good quality Greek extra-virgin is my annointing oil of choice’ (for a joint of meat) - Simply Nigella, cookbook, Nigella Lawson
What does “rising senior” mean and what countries use it? I know it is something to do with universities, but as I have never come across the term before today (and have lived in England all my life including going to an English university), I am assuming it is only used by none native English speakers. Senior common room is the common room that cannot be used by students doing their 1st degree, so I assume “rising senior” must in some way be related to students doing a 2nd degree.
Senior in the USA refers to the fourth year of a standard four-year college degree (an undergraduate degree or BA, for most Commonwealth English speakers). Students in the four years of a standard US college degree are known respectively as freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. (Confusingly, the last two years of high school — roughly, ages 17–19 — are also known as junior and senior year. This is usually disambiguated by context, though.) Rising senior genrally means that the person in queston is in between designations, but that senior will be the next applicable one. If I was a junior in the 2010–2011 academic year and will be a senior in the 2011–2012 academic year, then right now (summer 2011), I am a rising senior. It’s similar to the usage of going on in a phrase like “Jessica is six and a half, going on seven.” If I’m right in reading this as a US or possibly Canadian usage, then it’s quite unrelated to the use of senior in phrases like senior common room; this is just one of those times when transatlantic differences really start to get jarring. I’m sorry…
Someone who has completed his junior year and will be a Senior in the following year would more accurately be described as a Rising Junior. Or, at best, a senior in incubation.
"Can easily be" vs. "can be easily" — what's the difference? I'm wondering what the difference is between: It can easily be obtained. It can be easily obtained. Also, what's the preferred way to write it? If there is any... I googled for both options between quotes and it returned almost the same result (38 million for "can be easily" and 34 million for "can easily be"), so statistically both have similar usage from the people. Edit: fixed the second point which I had mistyped as "it easily can be obtained".
I would go with "it can be easily obtained". "It can easily be obtained" sounds fine, too, but "it easily can be obtained" doesn't. The complete Google stats look as follows: "it can be easily obtained" — 2,100,000 "it can easily be obtained" — 400,000 "it can be obtained easily" — 289,000 "it easily can be obtained" — 8,410 Searching the British National Corpus returns these results: it can easily be — 40 it can be easily — 20 it easily can be — 0
I think it is can easily be. Because once I read that we can use an adverb between two auxiliary verbs.
Is there a single word for “Seeing the Unseen”? Is there a single word which means “Seeing the Unseen”? Imagine one needs special equipment or accessories (for example, a microscope, telescope, or periscope) to see something that otherwise is not seen with the naked eye. What is the act of “seeing the unseen” called?
You could use the word "unobservable" in this case. Whilst I could see the dog, its fleas were unobservable. or He could see the river but the fish in it were unobservable. Or how about "not discernible": I could see the rainbow but, through the rising fog, the colours were not discernible. Or perhaps "not visible" or "invisible". From up here, I could see the leaves but the ants were not visible.
Not exactly seeing the unseen: scoop. more towards your example: insight.
What's a word that means to force something to fit? Is there a verb that means the act of forcing a square peg into a round hole, so to speak? More specifically, in my case I'm facetiously suggesting that we take an absurd notion and try to fit the facts to the assertion. What's a teensy bit harder to ____ [about/to/for] this assertion is [contradictory evidence]. The best I've come up with are reconcile and rectify, but those have more to do with our response to these facts than the act of mashing them into a space in which they cannot fit in the first place. Explain away works, but I'd rather have a single word, if possible. Conform is probably the most exact word I've found for what I mean, but doesn't fit into my sentence structure, and it's not particularly playful. If I cant find a single word, I'll probably just use... What's a teensy bit harder to square-peg into this round-hole assertion is [contradictory evidence]. ...as it fits the playful, sarcastic tone, but again, I'd rather have a single word if possible.
You jam a square peg into a round hole. Oxford: Push (something) roughly and forcibly into position or a space.
I think I found my word: reckon. If someone has a better answer, though, I'm still interested. Update: A friend of mine suggested shoehorn. That's a great word.
Is there a verb for "doing the wrong thing by force of habit" I sometimes find myself doing something I did not intend, just because the force of habit is so strong. For instance: On the way back from work, turning toward home instead of the grocery store, even though I was planning on doing the shopping. Or tossing the newspaper in the recycling bin right after my wife asked me to save an article for her. Is there a verb for this behavior? As in "Sorry, I just {screwed up by habit}."
There is an idiom used in the US on autopilot (or on automatic pilot) meaning you do something without thinking about what you are doing, usually because you have done it many times before: By the second week of the election campaign she was making all her speeches on automatic pilot. While not a verb in itself, you could say I was on autopilot.
"Guilty pleasure" or a form of "vicious" are the ones, that imply doing something wrong, by force of habit. Other than that, the situation of tossing the newspaper into the bin is not vicious per se, but could become so, if you do it daily and your wife wants to have cut out something before daily... All together: I do not think there is something that combines "autopilot" (which does not mean by force of habit implicitly, but doing something without thinking / "in trance") with wrong, except these two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice
"Explicit", "classified", "graphic" - did these words originate as abbreviations of longer phrases? Explicit means clearly stated. Classified means assigned to a class. Graphic means pictorial. But these words have second meanings (respectively: offensive, secret, depicting something violent). Can these be regarded as some form of abbreviated meaning/phrase? How are they named, if so? What are other examples? Like "sexually explicit", "classified as top secret" (or other such designation) and "graphic violence" got abbreviated?
The way these meanings got attached to the words is speakers using shorthand and listeners making assumptions based on past experience. So people said “[sexually] explicit” enough times that the word explicit gained the additional meaning “[sexually] explicit.” Same with your other examples. However, keep in mind that when you say “graphic [violence]” I hear “graphic” because I sometimes work as a graphic artist. Context matters.
There are times when we'd rather not say precisely what we mean/know (e.g. detailed descriptions of illness and accident). At such times we can use euphemisms - figures of speech which consist in the substitution of a word or expression of comparatively favourable implication or less unpleasant associations, instead of the harsher or more offensive one that would more precisely designate what is intended (OED). The 'second meanings' of 'explicit', 'classified' and 'graphic' would seem to me, at least some of the time, to be euphemisms. Notice that when they are used euphemistically their meaning is different to their usual, dictionary definition: Would that movie be OK for the kids ? Hmm, I don't think so it was a rom-com and some of the scenes were pretty explicit. (i.e. too much sex) (Mates chatting) So, how often have you been pulled over for speeding? Sorry, that information's classified. (i.e. none of your business) He described the accident, graphically. (i.e. in shocking and excessive detail)
Making sense of "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" is the title of a book by Richard Feynman. The use of the first "what" sounds very unusual to me (a non-native speaker of English) since I've never seen the word "care" taking both a direct object ("what") and an indirect one ("what other people think"). Does the sentence has about the same meaning with "Why Do You Care What Other People Think?", which seems to be more common (e.g. 1, 2)? Is the usage here really unusual?
There was a similar question five years ago: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/11611/what-do-you-care The answer from that question pointed out that "Why Do You Care?" is a genuine question while "What Do You Care?" is more of a dismissive way to talk to someone, saying they don't or shouldn't care about something. In the case of the Feynman book, I think it is not fair to characterize it as dismissive. I could imagine those eight words being spoken in a positive way. Here's an example of a friendly usage of that phrase: // "I'm worried that my classmates think I'm a loser," said Jim. Bob gave Jim a friendly look. "Why worry? What do you care what they think?" // I agree it is a very unusual usage. I don't hear it often.
Why do you care? ... is an actual question. The one who poses it might actually want to know why the matter in question seems to be bothering you. What do you care? ... is a rhetorical question at best, similar to "What's it to you?" and "Do you really imagine you would somehow benefit from focusing on this matter? Yeah, right. Dream on," or simply "Forget it. Your pretending to care about it strikes me as atrociously boring and spectacularly stupid."
Conditional sentences punctuation: Comma before "if" if there is an "or" before it? Should there be a comma before "if" on this sentence? Stop by and introduce yourself or, if you’ve already had a chance to meet him, swing by to get to know him a little better!
The comma should go before "or". The standard you are looking for is 'commas with coordinating conjunctions with independent clauses.
The comma should go before "or". The standard you are looking for is 'commas with coordinating conjunctions with independent clauses.
"They weren’t much concern" or "They weren’t much of a concern"? They weren’t much concern as long as they didn't catch him. I don't know what I feel is wrong with using concern here. I think I could change it to: They weren't much of a concern as long as they didn't catch him. Or could I since, it's speaking of people as plural and then using the word A implies singular? I am sure I'm over thinking it. Is it incorrect as it is? Thanks.
The most common usage I have seen for this in American English would be the following mutation of your original sentence: They weren’t of much concern as long as they didn't catch him. "of much concern," being the common structure that I've seen.
I agree that much is the wrong word (slang possibly) as it is an abbreviation of 'too much' plus wrong usage of the word 'much' 'They were not concerned as long as they did not catch him.' 'There was not much concern as long as they did not....' But I agree with the usage of 'very' but prefer 'too' 'They were not very concerned as long as they did not catch him.' 'They were not too concerned as long as they did not catch him.'
Is the structure of this sentence correct? "She was awarded with a medal and a trophy, giving her the rights to brag." "She was awarded with a medal and a trophy, giving her the rights to brag." Often when I use Microsoft word, I get a squiggly line if I wrote sentence structures like the example given. The program recommended that I added 'and' before 'giving' which did not sound right to me. I've seen similar structures when reading novels and I wonder if this kind of structure has some grammatical restrictions?
how about "She was awarded with a medal and a trophy, and that gave here right to brag" or "She was awarded with a medal and a trophy, which gave here the right to brag" or "A recipient of medal and a trophy, she has the right to brag"
how about "She was awarded with a medal and a trophy, and that gave here right to brag" or "She was awarded with a medal and a trophy, which gave here the right to brag" or "A recipient of medal and a trophy, she has the right to brag"
through vs. from vs. nothing at all? I've been thinking so hard over this for a good 15 minutes. Would like to know which makes sense? ...the Member State which the asylum seeker first enters European Union (EU) is responsible for processing the asylum claim. ...the Member State which the asylum seeker first enters European Union (EU) through is responsible for processing the asylum claim. ... the Member State which the asylum seeker first enters European Union (EU) from is responsible for… Thanks a lot!
Let's first deconstruct your sentence into two independent clauses and worry later about combining them by subordination. The Member State is responsible for processing the asylum claim. The asylum seeker enters the European Union ________ a Member State. The preposition from doesn't work because, while one might enter the EU from a non-member state like Turkey or Morocco, once an asylum seeker has arrived in a member state, they are already in the EU. One cannot enter a place where one already is. Instead, one enters the EU through a member state, say Italy or Poland, even if the ultimate goal is France or Germany. This yields: The asylum seeker enters the European Union through a Member State. Subordinating this sentence to the first as a relative clause modifying the noun phrase the Member State yields: The Member State through which an asylum seeker enters the European Union is responsible for processing the asylum claim. There is no need for stranding the preposition in the construction which the asylum seeker enters the EU through. This is fine for informal conversation or writing with different vocabulary and a lower register but not for formal writing.
The first two are equivalent and appropriate. The third seems to imply that the individual comes originally from the EU which they do not by definition. It is meant to mean "The EU country From which they enter the other countries is responsible...". It could pass but the first two are better.
How to pronounce LINQ? How to pronounce LINQ? Or should I just say L-I-N-Q? (LINQ is a .NET extension for queries.)
It seems the consensus is on "link".
It is supposed to be pronounced as LINK.
"woman" or "women" as a stand-in for the adjective "female"? As in, Emily Dickinson was a great woman poet or Emily Dickinson was a great women poet in order to mean Emily Dickinson was a great female poet Think I may have seen this adjectival usage of "women/woman" in a feminist art criticism paper, wondering if there's an accepted spelling...
If you must specify the sex of Emily Dickinson, I'd suggest that you switch the order of words A great woman poet was Emily Dickinson One of the greatest women poets was Emily Dickinson Note that woman poet is singular, whereas women poets is plural. You could replace woman poet with poetess but as Wiktionary points out 'Poetess' is rare in contemporary usage according to which both sexes are known normally as 'poets'. Consequently, placing the noun woman or women in front of occupations that are (or were) typically associated with men may be considered sexist or politically incorrect, but consider the following professions: woman prison officer (859 results Google books) woman truck driver (1,960) woman scientist (16,800) Despite this usage, if I had to introduce a friend called Emily I would never say: "This is Emily, she's a woman scientist." But simply "This is Emily, she's a scientist".
"Woman" is a noun, not an adjective*. You can join nouns together in this way, but take care of retaining meaning. For instance, if you write "woman poet" it could imply that Emily Dickinson only wrote poems about women. What you should write is "woman-poet", indicating she is a woman and a poet. On a side note, you could also use a solidus "woman/poet" to indicate she was both a great woman AND a great poet, not just a great poet who happened to be a woman. *In some instances Woman is used as an adjective, such as in Woman activist, but let's be honest - it's usage is not that common, and when I looked it up in Oxford, it definitely said noun, so until they change it, stick to "female poet" or "woman-poet"
Is there lunchtime analogue of the 'breakfast of champions' idiom? In British English (possibly US too) there is an an idiom which it is to suggest that something is the 'breakfast of champions' when the content of the breakfast is particularly notable. Perhaps a large quantity of breakfast. Perhaps something that would not normally be eaten for breakfast. Perhaps its not technically a breakfast but in the context of breakfast. Is there a lunchtime analogue of this idiom? Or a phrase that can be used in a similar context where the meal concerned is lunch. Note I am not looking for 'lunch of champions' but real unadulterated idioms.
I think the term Power Lunch is both common and its slang definition fits your needs. In the corporate world it would simply mean a meeting of top officials over lunch but in common usage it would imply a high-energy meal at lunch.
I think "Liquid Lunch" fits the bill rather well, particularly in the context of KVJ's ironic use of BoC.
"Was it a girl?" or "Was that a girl?" Here's a conversation. "I saw a salesperson there" "Was it a girl?" Is it OK to use "it" when you refer to the salesperson? Or should you use "that" instead of "it"?
The use of "it" or "that" when referring to a person would depend on context and intent. In the scenario you lay out, it is correct to say "Was it a girl?", (assuming you didn't see the salesperson and thus don't know their gender). You would not say "that" in such a scenario. If you were walking with a friend and passed a person of ambiguous gender, you might turn to your friend and ask "Was that a girl?", which could also be read as "Was that person a girl?". (This could be considered insulting to the person of unknown gender, but that doesn't mean the sentence is wrong...just don't say it in their hearing; just as you wouldn't ask that person "Are you a girl?" (for the same reason)) Typically, I would put forward that if you could/would point to a person while making the statement/question, you should use 'that': [while pointing] "Who is that?", "Is that who you mean?" etc. If instead you are referring to a theoretical person, or a person who you haven't seen with whomever you are with, you would use 'it': "Who was it?" The above is why you often hear 'it' being used to refer to infants - often, the speaker can't tell the gender and, rather than using an inappropriate pronoun, will use 'it'. When saying "It's a boy/girl", you are explaining that the infant (of previously unknown gender) can now be qualified as a given gender. From then on, the parents, doctors, etc would generally begin using the appropriate pronoun. That said, if there is a more appropriate pronoun, it should usually be used. "It" and "that" tend to be more objectifying, and thus could be at the least odd and at the worst insulting. In all the examples I gave, an appropriate pronoun can replace both 'that' and 'he': "Who is he?" "Are they who you mean?"/"Is he who you mean?" "Who was she?"
If I was approached and someone said, "Was it a girl?", I wouldn't answer. I would, instead, want to know why he referred to the salesperson as it. Generally, if your puzzled by someone's appearance, I guarantee, that the most common expression, would be "Was it a girl." Think about it, you are referring to someone you two just saw. Therefore, saying that refers to that person. Also, it is a bit inhumane. It almost gives the presence that such a person you are referring to is not human, but an object. That, in my argument, gives personage to an already existing subject. Lastly, if your truly spiteful, saying "was that a girl" give's more power in your argument. It gives off the presence that you are defining the definition of what a woman should be.
Difference between "game" and "sport" Can any one tell me for meaning about the difference between game and sport in the broadest context possible? I mean, Magic: The Gathering tournament play is still a game, while hunting is considered a sport.
Definition of sport: Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. A particular form of this activity. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. An active pastime; recreation. Definition of game: An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games. A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy. A single instance of such an activity: We lost the first game. GAMES: An organized athletic program or contest: track-and-field games; took part in the winter games. [like the Olympics] A period of competition or challenge: It was too late in the game to change the schedule of the project. The total number of points required to win a game: One hundred points is game in bridge. The score accumulated at any given time in a game: The game is now 14 to 12. The equipment needed for playing certain games: packed the children's games in the car. A particular style or manner of playing a game: improved my tennis game with practice. (There are more meanings to "game" but they are not relevant) There is an overlap between games and sports. Generally, sports require some sort of physical effort of specialised skill while games are more organised affairs with rules. The word game has several meanings. You can, for example, play a game of sports, but you can't sport a game. A good example would be if you think of the Olympics. The Olympics are referred to as a the Olympic Games yet the game is a competition to collect as many medals as possible by partaking in specific sports. Another example is baseball. Baseball is a sport but the Baseball World Series is a game in which teams play the sport of baseball while their overall scores between games are tracked for a position on a leaderboard (the game).
It depends a lot on who you ask. Chess is considered by the International Olympic Committee to be a sport. Games are by their nature activities that aren't serious. Games are supposed to be fun. Sport on the other hand are about performance. You have fixed goals that you want to achieve.
A word for a single piece of type of information, equivalent to a field on a form I'm inventorying all types of information used by the people involved in a business process, things such as client name, price, price index, adress,quantities sold, stocks etc. If I were to do the same thing about a form I would call it inventorying the form fields. Here, I'm looking for a single word that would mean the same thing on a whole businness process involving dozens of steps and around forty different #### of information. What could we replace #### by ? The alternatives, so far: "type" of information/data seems to wide for the purpose. Numerical/text/financial/psychological are types. I feel that "name, adress, temperature of the day, gross margin..." are too narrow to fill a whole "type". "field" cannot be used as it for a whole business process involving tens of forms, data that stays in the background, information on spreadsheets, information transmitted through phones, snail mail, email etc. The data used does not necessarily go on a form or a spreadsheet. "category" seems to fit the 6 or 7 fields that, for example, identify a client (name, surname, middle name, address, id # ...). In my mind, that would constitute a category of information, i.e. identification constitute a category of data. "piece" of data/info is okay for a single entry, "John Doe" is a piece of info, "address"/"margin"/"date of entry" is not a single piece. listing, record, catalogue, account, roll, file, tally seem all too narrow/ too wide, too specific to a field of interest.
Would it be "item" the word you're looking for? from MW item (noun) "a separate piece of news or information" e.g. "He always orders the most expensive item on the menu." from TFD item (noun) "a clause of a document, a bit of information, a detail." e.g. "Here is the insurance form. Please fill in the blank items."
Try snippet small piece of information or news or its synonym nugget a small thing such as an idea or a fact that people think of as valuable Although they could be a bit informal for your requirements.
Can quotation marks be followed 's? In academic publication, I must use inverted commas. "The fact that they had accepted the offer was sufficient to give rise to a binding contract, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs were mistaken and that they pointed out their mistake to the defendants immediately and before the defendants had acted on it in any way."1 Presume I must write out "The fact that" like this. Their having "accepted the offer was sufficient to give rise to a binding contract, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs were mistaken and that they pointed out their mistake to the defendants immediately and before the defendants had acted on it in any way."1 Now presume I must quote antecedent of "Their", "[T]he defendants [who] clearly ought to be given leave to defend this action"2. Can I write this? "[T]he defendants [who] clearly ought to be given leave to defend this action"2's having "accepted the offer was sufficient to give rise to a binding contract, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs were mistaken and that they pointed out their mistake to the defendants immediately and before the defendants had acted on it in any way."1 I start another example, but same question. "The fact that the pursuers had supplied drivers to operate the machinery and remove the silt did not demonstrate the existence of a contract on the defender’s terms."3 Presume I must write out "The fact that" like this. The pursuers' "having supplied drivers to operate the machinery and remove the silt did not demonstrate the existence of a contract on the defender’s terms."3 Now presume I must clarify pursuers, "pursuers [who] offered to supply machinery that could be used to remove silt from the defender’s pond"4. Can I write this? The "pursuers [who] offered to supply machinery that could be used to remove silt from the defender’s pond"4's "having supplied drivers to operate the machinery and remove the silt did not demonstrate the existence of a contract on the defender’s terms."3 1McKendrick. Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (2020 9 ed). p 29. 2 Op. cit. p 28. 3 Op. cit. p 89.         4 Op. cit. p 88.
The "pursuers [who] offered to supply machinery that could be used to remove silt from the defender’s pond"4's "having supplied drivers to operate the machinery and remove the silt did not demonstrate the existence of a contract on the defender’s terms."3 The sentence needs restructuring: The pursuers. [who] offered to supply machinery that could be used to remove silt from the defender’s pond, having supplied drivers to both operate the machinery and remove the silt but they/this[1] did not demonstrate the existence of a contract on the defender’s terms." [1]They or this depends upon context.
The "pursuers [who] offered to supply machinery that could be used to remove silt from the defender’s pond"4's "having supplied drivers to operate the machinery and remove the silt did not demonstrate the existence of a contract on the defender’s terms."3 The sentence needs restructuring: The pursuers. [who] offered to supply machinery that could be used to remove silt from the defender’s pond, having supplied drivers to both operate the machinery and remove the silt but they/this[1] did not demonstrate the existence of a contract on the defender’s terms." [1]They or this depends upon context.
Is there a word to describe a person who likes chaos? I am wondering if there is a word to describe a person who likes chaos. By this I mean a few specific things: The person is pleased to hear when chaos is created, or confusion emerges The person will take opportunities to create chaos or confusion The person enjoys taking part in chaotic or disorganized situations. I can't seem to think of a word to describe the type of person who would act in this way. I hope this question is clear. EDIT: Below gbutters sums up nicely: What I wonder is if there is a word for a generally good-natured person who just likes some good old-fashioned chaos. It seems like any person that thrives on chaos would have to have some extra baggage.
A callithumpian 1836, U.S. colloquial, probably a fanciful construction at one time designating a society of social reformers, then in reference to "noisy disturbers of elections and meetings," and most commonly "a band of discordant instruments." Actually paired adjectivally with chaos in stanza 84 of David Van Alstyne's 296-versed mouthful of a poem: buccaneerishly galumphing into grievous garboils of chthonian uproar and terpsicoresan bedlam, and for gallivanting in great gyres of callithumpian chaos in a three-ring circus of near-simian agitation
I think the ironic use of either wrecker or saboteur would be appropriate to describe the kind of person you have in mind.
What is a word to describe the standards that people in the business community just know? For instance, tonight I was trying to calculate my gross salary for unemployment and I got the calculation wrong because I didn't know if the start and end date of the pay period was inclusive or not (on both ends). Business people just know this stuff, and I don't know what it is called.
Business acumen. The term is ususally applied to more general concepts, but skill in arithmetic is important. When negotiating a complex agreement, small changes in rates, calculation periods, and payment schedules can add up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_acumen
Business acumen. The term is ususally applied to more general concepts, but skill in arithmetic is important. When negotiating a complex agreement, small changes in rates, calculation periods, and payment schedules can add up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_acumen
Is "we had better continue her piano lessons" awkward? We had better continue her piano lessons. I know that the sentence "We had better let her continue her piano lessons" is better, but is the first sentence awkward or ungrammatical?
This is an allowed sense of continue: continue 4. to draw out or be drawn out; prolong or be prolonged: continue the chord until it meets the tangent. [Collins] In fact, there is another possible meaning: continue v.intr. / v.tr. 4. To carry on after an interruption; resume. [AHD] The meaning of the suggested rewrite is different again, indicating the learner's preference here. Probably, We had better keep on with her piano lessons. would be used more often in the UK, probably because this sense of 'continue' is somewhat rarer, as you imply. Another more idiomatic version is: We had better continue with her piano lessons.
I vote for awkward. Since it is missing words that clarify what the sentence is about in the first place. Is she the teacher or student? It looks like it's about the student but it is very ambiguous and therefore awkward. Since I am compelled to ask more questions in order to resolve this awkwardness.
Subjunctive with "and" clause (This is very similar to how to conjugate verb in dependent clause inside subjunctive mood — but that question has no accepted answer and this question is about independent, not dependent clauses.) The sentence in question (referring to a virtual machine, a computer program that simulates an actual hardware device): It acted exactly as if it were a hardware machine and its power was/were[?] cut. While the "as if" forces the first verb into the imperfect subjunctive "were", I think both "was" and "were" are syntactically acceptable for the second verb but have different semantics: It acted exactly as if it were a hardware machine and its power were cut. expresses the idea of both clauses implicitly being introduced by "as if" — in other words, it acted exactly like a hardware machine, and acted exactly like its power was cut. Obviously there would be no argument (except with the wordiness) in making this explicit: It acted exactly as if it were a hardware machine and as if its power were cut. —the second "as if" demands the subjunctive just as the first does. But It acted exactly as if it were a hardware machine and its power was cut. expresses the idea that only its being a hardware machine is counterfactual; having imagined such a machine, the possibility of the imagined machine's power being cut is not counterfactual. Thus my intuition is that using "was" for the second verb more correctly expresses the sentiment. Going back to sentence #3 with two "as if" clauses: while grammatical, that sentence seems slightly nonsensical, since cutting power is something that is impossible to do to a virtual machine, which lacks a power supply. "[The virtual machine] acted as if its power were cut" standing alone would be a sentence without any sensible meaning. Only in imagining the counterfactual hardware machine can the power being cut have meaning, and that meaning is not a counterfactual, but an eventuality. This is my intuition from the old minimal pair, If my boss calls, tell me immediately. vs. If the President were to call, tell me immediately. My boss calling is an eventuality; the President calling is unlikely to the point of being a near-counterfactual. And similarly, power failing to a hardware device is an eventuality, so I'm inclined towards the indicative, not the subjunctive. I haven't yet entertained the possibility of: It acted exactly as if it were a hardware machine and its power were to be cut. because this seems needlessly wordy, even though it is technically a different conjugation — the "as if" isn't distributive here — and it sounds grammatical to my ears. If, for some reason, I needed to make explicit the conditional sequencing of the imagined machine and its power being cut, this sentence's wordiness might be acceptable. To restate the question explicitly: is either "was" or "were" obligatory in the second clause, or are both acceptable? And, if they are both acceptable, do they express slightly different ideas, and if so, in what way? (To restate implicitly: am I right?) — p.s. One digression: Am I correct that the second clause is an independent clause? I asserted that from the outset, but I'm not so confident. The "its" makes it possible it is a relative clause—it could be rewritten as "...machine whose power was cut", but "its" could be entirely dropped, resulting in an unequivocal independent clause "...machine and power was/were cut", so I think it's an independent clause even though it contains a referring pronominal.
Change and its to whose. It acted exactly as if it were a hardware machine whose power were cut will do what to mustard, please? Since It acted exactly as if it were a hardware machine whose power was cut does work, change whose back and look again at It acted exactly as if it were a hardware machine and its power was cut. The President calling is… near-counterfactual only through prior knowledge, as if you don’t happen to work in the White House; nothing to do with language. If the President… is not grammatically different from If my boss… If the President were to call, I would want you to tell me immediately works well. If the President were to call, you would tell me immediately works If the President were to call, you would tell me immediately, wouldn't you? works better.
Change and its to whose. It acted exactly as if it were a hardware machine whose power were cut will do what to mustard, please? Since It acted exactly as if it were a hardware machine whose power was cut does work, change whose back and look again at It acted exactly as if it were a hardware machine and its power was cut. The President calling is… near-counterfactual only through prior knowledge, as if you don’t happen to work in the White House; nothing to do with language. If the President… is not grammatically different from If my boss… If the President were to call, I would want you to tell me immediately works well. If the President were to call, you would tell me immediately works If the President were to call, you would tell me immediately, wouldn't you? works better.
Is there a mutual or positive way to say "Give me an inch and I'll take a mile"? I have been given a little bit of something which has allowed me to accomplish a lot now. The accomplishments mutually benefit both parties. I don't want to say "Give me an inch, and I'll take a mile," because that implies that I have gained, while the giver has lost. Also, I don't think "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" is quite what I'm after either. I think this is focused around self-sufficiency; I'm not so much thinking of autonomy as I have in mind mutually beneficial accomplishments.
I don't think it's an idiom per se, but something like "You gave me the push that got me rolling" might be a suitable metaphor.
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." –Isaac Newton standing on the shoulders of giants [...] expresses the meaning of "discovering truth by building on previous discoveries"
A word that describes a core feature involved? I have made an application which is mostly programmed in PHP, but have also used some other languages. Now I want to describe that I have made a program that is "corely" programmed in PHP, but still remember that my application have mostly made on PHP. Corely is not in dictionary. What should be a word for that?
You could use predominantly, primarily or principally to say either the largest or most important portion is written in PHP, while quantity alone can be stressed with words like chiefly, mainly, mostly, or largely. If you want to say the main or most important part of the code is in PHP and peripheral functionality in other languages, you could reword along the lines of The core of the code is written in PHP.
Strictly from an experienced programmer's advice, I'll suggest that you go with something like : My program majorly uses PHP You should also describe further, for eg: My program is majorly based on PHP and it makes use of HTML for front-end.
Grammarly website: "You can upload a document which size is under 4 MB." Is this grammatically correct? On the Grammarly website, they have the following sentence: You can upload a document which size is under 4 MB As a fan of irony and grammar, I'm curious as to whether the bolded portion is grammatically correct. It sounds really awkward, and I've honestly never seen anyone use that phrasing. I would've opted for one of the following: You can upload a document whose size is under 4 MB You can upload a document which has a size of less than 4 MB You can upload a document with a size under 4 MB You can upload a document smaller than 4 MB Is their version acceptable?
As Janus Bahs Jacquet observes in a comment beneath the poster's question, Your instinct is correct. Their version is not. Tacitly (and belatedly), Grammarly seems to have recognized the ungrammarliness of its originally posted wording. The wording that now appears on the cited support page is You can upload a document of 4 MB or less.
You are correct. Even though "you" is the subject of the sentence, and "can upload" is the predicate, which size indicates a question, and since there is none, rather, there is a statement, the sentence is grammaticaly incorrect. However, the english reader should be able to figure out what they mean, so it gets the point across and works, but is technically incorrect and should be avoided.
What was the original sound of rh? The subject more or less says it all. I would like to know how rh (as in rhythm) was originally pronounced. It is listed as being something which was originally present in Latin, but, in Latin, "h" is used to harden a vowel. I can't think of a soft pronunciation for "r" in Latin or any potential intermediate steps.
In English, as far as I know, "rh" was never pronounced any differently from plain "r". This spelling, as @third-idiot wrote, is basically how the Ancient Greek "ῥ" was transliterated in Latin characters. In Old Greek using polytonic orthography, an initial "ρ" was always written with a rough breathing, indicating the Greek /r/ (whatever its actual phonetic value) was probably aspirated or voiceless at the start of a word. Greek lost its aspirates quite early on though, and by the 4th century AD this rough breathing didn't mark anything anymore. Still, it kept on being written until the 1982 reform, which abolished the polytonic orthography along with the Puristic language and introduced the monotonic system and the Demotic language as official Modern Greek language (though it is still used by, for instance, the Greek Orthodox Church, which refused to acknowledge the reform). People who made learned borrowings from Old Greek, like "hymn", "hypnosis" or "helium", transliterated the rough breathing on vowels as "h", and did that also for words where the rough breathing was on "ῥ", like "rhythm" or "rhapsody", even though they probably didn't pronounce that initial "r" as voiceless or aspirated themselves. It was just an orthographic convention.
An instance of soft pronunciation of 'r' in Latin could be "purgatio". "Rh" as in "rhetoricus" was pronounced pretty much the way it is now. "Rh" actually came from the Greek letter "rho" or "ρ", and is pronounced the way it is today. Words having this 'rh" also include "rhombus".
Can I start a declarative sentence with "What"? I would like to write something like, "What makes you happy will make you insane." I know that I can rewrite this as, "The thing that makes you happy will make you insane," but I like the balance of the sentence's structure, and "the thing" comes across awkwardly in this case. I have reviewed other posts on the Stack Exchange website to see if there is any specific rule against beginning with "what"--looking specifically at posts related to interrogatives--but I have been unable to find a rule against it. I'm familiar with famous quotes that use declarative statements and that begin with "what," but I didn't want to rely on these as proof of grammatical correctness. So, is it grammatically permissible to begin a declarative sentence with the word "what" or should I only use it in a question? If it is permissible, is there a rule that demonstrates this is okay?
A famous example from Twilight of the Idols, by Friedrich Nietzsche, and the translations by Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale: Out of life's school of war: What does not destroy me, makes me stronger. Some not-too-famous examples from In the Midst of Life: Tales of Soldiers and Civilians, by Ambrose Bierce What he heard was the ticking of his watch. What you call dying is simply the last pain—there is really no such thing as dying. What he saw, in the shadow under his bed, was two small points of light, apparently about an inch apart...
Yes, definitely you can use it this way. And here's another type of example: in an exclamatory way. "What a fool I was to believe I could eat that third pizza!" or "What a blessing, to be born in Virginia!"
How to say my curiosity regarding why ABC has not been done has led me to study XYZ Is there a better way to say the following? My curiosity regarding why one of the world's largest democracies has not been able to resolve these issues has led me to study economics.
This sentence is in passive voice. It would be better in active voice. Also, "studying economics" is the key part of the sentence and so would be better at the beginning of the sentence. Personally, I think "about" would be a better word that "regarding". These three changes lead to: I was lead to study economics because of my curiosity about why one of the world's largest democracies has not been able to resolve these issues.
This sentence is in passive voice. It would be better in active voice. Also, "studying economics" is the key part of the sentence and so would be better at the beginning of the sentence. Personally, I think "about" would be a better word that "regarding". These three changes lead to: I was lead to study economics because of my curiosity about why one of the world's largest democracies has not been able to resolve these issues.
What does "off the top" mean in this context? I was reading a Design Patterns in Java programming book and came across a new phrase. I'm wondering what does off the top mean in this particular context. Excerpt from the book: Keep Learning Somehow, you had the opportunity, drive, and ambition to acquire and read this book. All we can say is, "Keep it up!" Decide how many hours a week you want to spend on your career. Take 5 hours off the top and pay yourself first. Spend that time away from the office, reading books and magazines or writing software related to any topic that interests you. Make this practice as regular as your office hours. ..... I've heard of the idiom - off the top of your head. But what does off the top exactly mean in this context?
"off the top" in general and here means the first 5 hours In "off the top of my head" it means the first idea that came into my mind. Similar principle
It means "without giving it too much thought or without precise knowledge". Mary: How much do you think this car would be worth on a trade? Fred: Well, right off the top of my head, I'd say about a thousand. Tom: What time does the morning train come in? Bill: Off the top of my head, I don't know.
1 day and 1-day, which is the right one in this case? From another question I understand that "1-day offer" is the way to go, but if I rephrase it a little bit: The offer will last for 1 day The offer will last for 2 days Which one needs to be hyphenated if at all?
No hyphenation is needed in these cases; this is just 'normal' use of a cardinal number. You can compare this with something like "I see two apples." Note that I have replaced "2" with "two". As noted in the comments, in most cases, it's customary to write out small numbers in full.
No hyphenation is needed in these cases; this is just 'normal' use of a cardinal number. You can compare this with something like "I see two apples." Note that I have replaced "2" with "two". As noted in the comments, in most cases, it's customary to write out small numbers in full.
Is “the girls are want to gossip” correct? Is this the correct use and placement of want? The girls in the office are want to gossip. Does anyone have a reference citing this use?
It should be "are wont to gossip", which means they are likely or inclined to gossip. Oxford Dictionaries Online gives (Of a person) in the habit of doing something; accustomed: he was wont to arise at 5.30 every morning
The problem is not with want, but with are. If you replace are with all the sentence is correct: The girls in the office all want to gossip. As to your question whether anyone has a reference citing this use — well, this is a common office thing to gossip and rarely is it limited to just girls.
Should “Hell” be capitalized? I am of the belief that Hell should be capitalized because real or not, it is the name of a place, and thus a proper noun. It should be capitalized correct? I have seen it written without capitalization plenty of times, but I suspect that most of those were just due to laziness or illiteracy (it tends to be written with a lower-case ‘h’ mostly on the Internet–sigh). Other uses, including expletives seem to use it as a place name as well: What [in] the Hell‽ Go to Hell! Google gives mixed results and checking the WikiPedia entry for Hell to get a proper definition does indicate that it is a location, but even on that same page, there are plenty of instances with a lower-case ‘h’. Is there a situation in which it would not be capitalized? What about uses as an adjective: that job was Hell?
"Hell" is capitalized when it is used as a proper noun. That is, you capitalize it when you are referring to it as a specific place. However, it can be perfectly legitimate to leave it uncapitalized if you are not referring to a specific place. "That job was hell" does not refer to a specific location, but rather a nebulous concept of torture. Thus, it is not capitalized in this sentence.
If you believe it's a real place, then make it capitalized. Hypothetical locations, on the other hand, can go without capitalization - no one would capitalize "la-la land", for example.
It's embarrassing the extremes he'll go to in order to impress his boss oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com: It's embarrassing the extremes he'll go to in order to impress his boss. Why is this sentence correct without any punctuation after "it's embarrassing", e.g. a dash? Thanks!
There isn't any needed break in the sentence; an equivalent sentence might be : It's embarrassing how far he goes in order to impress his boss. Which won't use any dash or comma either.
As in: Vocabulary.com adj. usage of embarrassing It's really embarrassing how many people misspell embarrassing. As in this usage from the citation, punctuation is not necessary in your particular question. In general, nonessential information is set off with commas. Essential information does not require commas.
A code or some code? When talking about the source code of a program, my Computer Science teacher sometimes refers to single pieces of code as 'a code'. For example: For today's task, you need to write a code which outputs "Hello World". I feel that this is terribly wrong as I would say 'some code' or 'a piece of code'. E.g.: For today's task, you need to write some code which outputs "Hello World". Who is right, me, my teacher or both of us?
"Code" as usually used in the field of IT refers to source code of computer programs. My own intuition is that this is clearly uncountable, so you can speak of "some code" but not "a code". You can also speak of "the source code of a program", which means "the [representation of the program] as source code". However, "code" alone remains uncountable. You could speak of "a code" when used in a different meaning, such as: "he gave me a code with which I could open the locked door" (here "code" is a "hard-to-guess combination of letters/digits"). While Merriam Webster doesn't state anything about the countability of "code" used as shorthand for "source code", Wiktionary gives one of the meanings as synonymous with source code, machine code or bytecode, and these are described as uncountable. Bytecode is described as countable and uncountable, and while it is not explicitly stated, it seems logical for bytecode (the byte representing a single instruction) to be countable and bytecode (a series of instructions represented as bytecodes) to be uncountable. I wouldn't object to using "a bytecode" in context such as: "this function consistes of a single bytecode", but "bytecode" in the latter meaning would behave like "source code" or "machine code" and be uncountable.
"code" is short for "source code" Your version is correct. The teacher is wrong. In this particular usage, however, using "source code" is not really ideal at all. The right expression is, For today's task, you need to write a program which outputs "Hello World". You write programs, you compile source code. In proper usage the term "source code" should only be used in the context of compiling. In other words, you have "source code" which compiles into "object code" which is linked into an "executable". Talking about "writing" source code is not really a correct usage, even though many laypersons who are trying to sound technical say it.
A confusing sentence structure that uses "by example" Here is a sentence from an article by The Economist that talks about the Saudi revolution that has recently allowed women to drive: A more normal Saudi Arabia should moderate the Islamic world, by example and because the flow of petrodollars to zealots would slow. The sentence structure bothers me, especially the "by example" part and the comma that precedes it. At first, I thought "by example" is some sort of a bizarre phrase that somehow makes the sentence grammatical; after googling, I am inclined to say the sentence is a mistake. Or is it not? How should I interpret the sentence? Thank you.
I seems like it might have been translated. “More normal” seems redundant. I believe it should read: “Islamic world by example, and cause the flow of petrodollars to zealots to slow.”
I seems like it might have been translated. “More normal” seems redundant. I believe it should read: “Islamic world by example, and cause the flow of petrodollars to zealots to slow.”
What is the difference between "attribute" and "property"? Could you please clear up the meaning of these two words for me? I don't understand this sentence: Attributes introduced by RDFA have names. For example, property is one such attribute.
Generally, attribute means a particular characteristic or ability which something or someone has, like curly hair or a short temper, or the ability to make really good coffee. So an applicant for a job might be asked in an interview what attributes they have which would make them suitable. Property would be used similarly, but usually in discussions of more abstract concepts, like an idea, a branch of mathematics or an economic policy. E.g. What property of certain regular polygons allows them to be faces of the Platonic Solids? But for the phrase you mention (the phrase comes from this PDF, a technical document explaining RDF technologies), attribute has a precise technical meaning. If you wanted to express in XML the idea of a kid with a short temper, you might write something like this: <Kid temper="short"/> Here the attribute is named "temper", and the value of that attribute is "short". It's unfortunate that the example you quote suggests an attribute named property, because "attribute" and "property" are used interchangeably in discussions about XML. So when the paragraph you quoted continues with: Obviously, when we make reference to this attribute, we say attribute property. it starts to look confusing. All I can add to clarify it here is to point out that in the code representation (an object in some programming language) we would call "temper" a property, but the corresponding thing in the XML is referred to as an attribute). I think any further discussion of this really belongs on Stack Overflow.
Look at the fact that attribute has a verb form (from which the noun derives) which would seem to indicate that a thing's attributes come about by virtue of their having been (as it were) bestowed...tending more to descriptive as opposed to strictly innate; and many if not most observed examples of the word's use, even still, bear that out. A property (noun form only), on the other hand, is some quality which is intrinsic, so is more or less invariable--the invariability resting (for those who would pounce...) on the fact that variablity, itself, would also be a property. (Attributes can change [as if] by whim; properties only in strict accord with innate processes.) Attribute, like many words, has, itself, the attributed quality of being in "vogue," owing to its greatly expanded "exposure," correctly or not, on the Web. Accordingly, it has grown largely to be deemed, for good or ill, an all-purpose synonym of property.
How is the English Subjunctive Composed? Yesterday, I read about the English subjunctive mood. I tried to, but couldn't, discern a concise conception of it. What do you regard as a useful and concise conception of the subjunctive mood?
In response to the originally posed question, John Lawler wrote a somewhat amusing, (pedantically) accurate, but highly confusing comment, one which I feel deserves translation and further elaboration into something more resembling an actual answer. John said: A useful and concise conception of the English subjunctive mood is that it is a mythical beast, like the fairies at the bottom of the garden in summer. English has no subjunctive mood, though Latin did and many European languages (Spanish, German, French, etc) do have a subjunctive mood. But English teachers talk about it all the time, and often have faith that it exists; just like fairies. In fact, though, as you’ve discovered, there is no simple description; there is only a name and a lot of vague hand-waving about “conditional” and “hypothetical”, like they were detectable. What I believe John meant (and he is free to correct me) is that English no longer uses a special inflection for subjunctive situations which viewed in perfect isolation is clearly distinct from a bare unmarked infinitive, or uniquely with were-hypotheticals from an otherwise normal (albeit plural-looking) indicative inflection. This stands in contrast to the situation in Latin and its descendants, and often in other Indo-European languages as well, where one can always distinguish an indicative from a subjunctive because of those respective tongues’ rich inflectional morphologies. For example: Latin example: Starting with amare, compare 3sg present indicative amat with 3sg present subjunctive amet. Spanish example: Starting with amar, compare 3sg present indicative ama with 3sg present subjunctive subjunctive ame. French example: We can’t here use the obvious cognate aimer for our demo, because French no longer has a 3sg present ind/subj distinction there. Instead we will start with venir, where we can compare a 3sg present indicative vient with 3sg present subjunctive vienne. The French aimer (and indeed, most regular French verbs) presents us with an interesting situation: a special subjunctive inflection is seen only in the 1st and 2nd person plurals (for which it “borrows” the corresponding imperfect indicative form, rather quite oddly enough), not in singulars or in the 3pl. Does that mean that French no longer has a subjunctive for verbs like aimer where all forms of the French present subjunctive look just like either present indicatives or else just like imperfects. In John’s framework, I suspect that it indeed may not. I also suspect he’d never get a native French speaker to agree with him on this point. I bring up the French case because there are some parallels with what has happened with English. But while French has lost a few of its distinctions and inflections, English has lost almost all of its original inflectional morphology all across the board, including the entire subjunctive set sauf for one unique situation alone. So in the restricted sense that other languages have these specially inflected verb forms for the subjunctive that look nothing like their corresponding indicatives, no, English does not have that. John is 100% correct in this. But it is in a specific domain and not the one that most people coming here looking for answers are used to operating in. Nonetheless, English has maintained a distinction between a normal indicative and an unmarked form in the 3sg case (the only place we ever make a present indicative inflection change), a distinction it makes for many of the same situations that in other languages have a mandatory inflection change. This is easily demonstrated with the minimal semantic pair: I insist that she is here. (Meaning: she is really here, and I am affirming that) I insist that she be here. (Meaning: she is not here, and I am demanding her attendance, or to subjunctivize it, I am demanding that she attend) So English does, in certain particular situations, make a distinction between the form used for subordinate clauses in a simple indicative statement of fact on the one hand, and the form used in counter-factual situations on the other. This is what people are talking about when they talk about “the subjunctive” in English. But it is a wholly invariant distinction that looks exactly like the unmarked infinitive such as one would use with a modal auxiliary. And that’s why John says it is not a subjunctive. Note how this is more change than French experiences for the majority of its 3sg cases in a clause requiring the subjunctive — after all, they use the very same word as in the indicative while we do not — and they would never stop calling it a subjunctive construction. The odd man out in all this is were for hypotheticals. This is where the other languages I’ve mentioned (sometimes) use a special inflection that there they refer to as something like a “past subjunctive”. For example, those are “l’imparfait du subjonctif” in French (now almost exclusively a “literary” inflection, not a spoken one) and “el (pretérito) imperfecto del subjuntivo” in Spanish. The thing is, in most of these other languages, they automatically backshift a present subjunctive to a past one when relating past events. But in English we never do that. That’s not what our were form is for. This special form is not a simple shift from present to past, since in English going from the main clause being in the present indicative I demand that she be here. to being in the past indicative I demanded that she be here. sees no change in the subordinate clause’s verb, only in the main one’s. In the other languages, it doesn’t typically work that way. So be and were do not oppose each other in the way many other languages’ subjunctive forms typically do. Only in the most archaically stilted of examples, or ancient ones, can one ever find a tense shift from present to past in an English subjunctive clause. And even there it may be a learnèd import from other languages. English has never had a tense shift in the subjunctive in quite the same way as Latin and its descendants do. However, we in English do use — as a unique and isolated case — the special form were for hypotheticals. This is another place besides back-shifting where neighboring languages also use a past subjunctive: they used it for hypotheticals. So when people speak of a past subjunctive in English, they are talking solely about an “If only it were so!” or an “If I were you” type of hypothetical, never a back-shifted present subjunctive. It’s easy to see why some people continue to call this a “past subjunctive” in English: that’s what the Old English past subjunctive form indeed was: Or at least, that’s where our use of were comes from. Notice the past subjunctive wǣre for singular and wǣren for plural. If one concedes that Old English wǣre turned into Modern English were, and I rather think one must, then it becomes clear that we use were now just as we ever did. It is the same verb, and the same inflection, and for the most part, the same rules, as we have always used for these situations. Considering how were inarguably started out as a past subjunctive back in its wǣre days, it should be no surprise that some people still call it that same thing today — even if that term may seem misleading to certain other folks. It really all depends on where you’re coming from. Additionally, if you look closely at the Old English inflection table above, you can all see where we came from for using be as a present subjunctive, and in the plural it was indeed identical to the infinitive. The situations where we use special forms haven’t changed as much as people would have one believe. It is just this sort of diachronic analysis that can lead a person to speak of “English subjunctive forms”: the forms we still (sometimes) use today are historically linked directly back to the original, richer inflectional morphology in the Old English. However, when examined under the light of synchronic analysis (which I presume is what John is doing here), the subjunctive picture blurs into something unrecognizable at best, and arguably even disappears altogether. Children of English-speaking parents do not learn a table of special inflections of subjunctive forms the way children of Romance speakers eventually do. That’s because English has no such thing. So even though English once upon a time had special subjunctive inflections for certain situations (although it no longer does), and just because some speakers and writers maintain some of those same distinctions today unconsciously, it is imperative that one never attempt to mindlessly apply Latinate rules of where to use a present or past subjunctive into any form of English, not even in Old English. That’s because English has never precisely followed those same rules. If you take some time to read through the copious textual examples regarding all this in the second volume of F.T. Visser’s monumental An Historical Syntax of the English Language, where the author gives OE, MidE, and ModE examples of what he calls a “modally marked form”, you will see that even a thousand years ago English marched to the beat of its own drum, not Rome’s, and that there was even then variation in writers’ choices. I’ve answered a lot of subjunctive questions here. I might also recommend these other answers of mine for further, somewhat lighter reading: “If I were him, I would doubt if she (is/was/were?) serious about this relationship” “Be them” or “be they”?, which somewhat colorfully shows fossil uses. Past Conditional Statements Why is American English so wedded to the subjunctive?
Regardless if a language supports it, the subjunctive exists. The ambiguous, vague and imprecise view of phrase-structure linguistics (vs the more precise dependency structure linguistics) calls the subjunctive a "mood". Unfortunately, prevalent English grammatical analysis is still driven by the obsolete phrase-structure grammar. Therefore, we would find the subjunctive concept ill-defined under this outmoded grammatical analysis framework. In Mathematics, we have a concept known as imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers are just as concrete in existence and equally useful as "real" numbers. Where, square root of "−1" is the base factor of imaginary numbers. The subjunctive exists in imaginary time. Using computer science lingo, the subjunctive is an encapsulated object. What is an object? Let's look at the Seawolf class of submarines. Seawolf class is just a design. It may stay just as a design without having any submarines built. So that we could merrily refer to the Seawolf without any actual submarines built. But when we refer to the USS-Connecticut, we would be referring to an actual object built to the specs of the Seawolf design. What is a module? When we design integrated circuits, we have blocks of design templates stored in our library of structures. Each template encompasses not just the circuitry but also constraints of their administrative and manufacturing processes. And then we could start picking those templates from the toolbar and lay them out to arrange into an actual IC design. Time capsule grammar? What if we could create a descriptive template of events, where all the past, present, future are related to each other in an independent encapsulation box, as though time other than within that box does not exist? And then we could use this template and drop it into any actual time past, present or future. Such a grammatical template is what we would call the subjunctive "mood". Notice that I condescendingly and subjunctively refer to "mood", in disdain of its vagueness. A subjunctive encapsulation would have the full set of past, present, future tenses, progressive, perfected, infinite elements, participles, etc. Subjunctive in English: However, in English, we do not have a separate set of tenses for the subjunctive encapsulation. We use the past to denote subjunctive encapsulation. Using the past does make some sense, as it fulfills the functionality of yanking a module off from being grounded to any actual time, to allow us to freely deploy the module at any point in time. Why do we need temporally (aka time-based) ungrounded modular grammar? Because we want to be able to move a set of encapsulated events freely across time, while keeping the relativity within the encapsulation intact: We want to talk about fantasies, which we know will never happen at any time. We want to talk about actual events that happen all the time, but we just wish to talk about one exemplary instance without restricting when in history they would happen — regardless now, in the past or in the future. We want to talk about actual events that either happened in the past, are happening now, or will happen in the future, but which happen regularly across a restricted range of time. But, we wish to describe an exemplary point in time without restricting at which actual point in time. We want to talk about actual events that either have happened or will happen, but we wish to hypothetically shift those events to another point in time. We want to propose bringing into existence events which are possible, but which have not happened before. We want to propose bringing into existence events which have happened to someone, some other place, in a story or in a movie — specifying where and when we wish to have them happen. We want to bring into existence a set of events A, if and only if another set of events B happens. We don't know when set B would happen, or if would ever happen. And we wish to say that set A's happening is dependent on set B's happening, stating either, A before B, A with B, A after B, or A just happens at an indefinite time as long as B happens. etc, etc. So I gave 8 examples of why we need the subjunctive time module and the most important example is example #8. Why? You see, the need for encapsulated time module is a continuum. All the space on the planet would not be adequate to document all the reasons and situations you would need to use it. Traditional grammar would try to quantize that continuum into buckets like optative, cohortative, conditional, jussive, blah, blah — where frequently we would find a situation that would be inadequately contained by these quantization, or that a situation is either a composite of or in between of such quantization. It is said that Taichi, when mastered, is a very potent and deadly set of skills. People describe it as unrestricted in time and space, or fluent as water. They compare it to Shaolin which is also said to be potent and deadly, but restricted and grounded in time and space. Imagine you could modularise your actions and responses, to fluently shift to deploy each module in time and space. So, people hyperbolically say when you master Taichi that way, you would become invincible. So, similarly I urge y'all not to restrict your understanding of subjunctive modularity to those "moods" pigeon-holed by traditional constituency grammar. Free your mind, and just think about floating your subjunctive description in terms of either You wish to continue your event module ungrounded. You wish to ground the module to actual time, but without defining when. You wish to ground your module at a particular point in time. Subjunctive language is very important in statistics, especially when Bayesian statistics is involved. Analysing the subjunctivity and event-relativity of each statistic is important. Whether a statistic describes events that happened, will happen, might happen, conditionally happens, etc. Unfortunately, most statisticians simply use the future tense, at least those whom I have interacted with. Having freed your mind, you could then indulge in subjunctive Kabbalah: A subjunctive of another subjunctive. A subjunctive of another subjunctive, which is a subjunctive of another subjunctive. A cascade of subjunctives. Bayesian dependency of subjunctives. Cyclically dependent set of subjunctives. Subjunctive recursion. and most importantly of all: etc, etc. The length thus far of this thesis gives me no space to give examples quantized to traditional constituency grammar — sorry. It is unfortunate that the English language does not have a separate set of tenses for the subjunctive. And therefore we have to skillfully use existing tenses and common-sense to describe subjunctive situations, on a case by case basis. I am certain there isn't a natural language on the planet that provides adequate means to treating subjunctive situations. ~ May the subjunctive modular karma be with you.
American refusal of the IPA: why? Are there any historical or political reasons for the rather consistent refusal of the International Phonetic Alphabet on the part of American academics? Did Mark Twain's home-made-English-spelling-centred phonetic rendering of regional pronunciations set a trend?
I don't know, but here's an interesting quote from Abercrombie's book Fifty years in Phonetics. In America phonetic notation has had a curious history. Bloomfield used IPA notation in his early book An Introduction to the Study of Language, 1914, and in the English edition of his more famous Language, 1935. But since then, a strange hostility has been shown by many American linguists to IPA notation, especially to certain of its symbols. An interesting and significant story was once told by Carl Voegelin during a symposium held in New York in 1952 on the present state of anthropology. He told how, at the beginning of the 1930s, he was being taught phonetics by, as he put it, a "pleasant Dane", who made him use the IPA symbol for sh in ship, among others. Some while later he used those symbols in some work on an American Indian language he had done for Sapir. When Sapir saw the work he "simply blew up", Voegelin said, and demanded that in future Voegelin should use 's wedge' (as š was called), instead of the IPA symbol. When I used this quote in my dissertation, I got the following interesting response from a committee member: Sapir probably knew how hard it is to see the difference between esh and s-wedge in handwriting. This is the main reason Howie Aronson cited in a class ... relating it to the tradition of doing fieldwork versus creating nice printed books. Like other IPA propagandists, Abercrombie seems to want to link this to American exceptionalism, infelicitously conflating "Americanist" with "American". Fortunately, you don't use "esh" but, rather, curly-tailed c...
Likely because IPA is a joke. In a standard non translation dictionary (i.e. not french to english) the native english speaker is using the book to conferm spelling and look up meaning. Accent is not a consideration. While written english is non phonetic compared with alphabets that use visual accents, IPA is in itself a separate language that would require lessons to decipher. Basically, IPA is in no way, shape, or form helpful to people looking for phonetic pronunciation. It's more helpful to break down words into segments and liken the sections to generally understood words or sounds. Best example of this is the Wikipedia entry on "Roosevelt". The IPA would be unhelpful to 99% of people looking it up. Far easier would be "rose-a-velt".
What is the synonym/antonym for "feminist"/"feminism"? I am looking for a word or phrase that are to men's rights as the words feminist/feminism are to women rights. And will the word or phrase be called a synonym or antonym?
Etymologically "Feminism" is derived from "female" and historically it has referred to women's rights. But the term — as a sociological term as well as a social movement — has evolved in many ways, so while for some "feminism" is the struggle for women's rights in society, others will explain that feminism is the struggle to remove gender-biases from society, and as such applies to men's rights as well as women's. So when you're looking for the complementary term to feminism, you need to know exactly which meaning of feminism you're going for, because in many contexts "feminism" might be enough for you. Also, it should be noted that even if we find a term that says "mens' rights" to complement feminism as womens' rights, they will never be entirely parallel in tone and connotation, because mens' rights and women's rights aren't symmetrical. If (some versions of) feminism describes itself as the struggle to achieve equal rights in a male-dominated world, a totally equivalent term would have to imply a similar male struggle, which is, well, a bit of a stretch.
From Mexican Spanish, you have machismo. Machismo A strong or exaggerated sense of masculinity stressing attributes such as physical courage, virility, domination of women, and aggressiveness. This question would have no sense in Spanish. Even a child would tell you that the opposite of feminismo is machismo.
When is the plural 'es' pronounced "ess/ez/izz" vs. "eez"? I was just thinking about this when I typed out "processes" and realized that I've heard it pronounced both "process-izz" and "process-eez". Is one incorrect, or is it considered an accent thing, or are they both completely acceptable? I also thought of words like "parentheses" and "menses" as being strictly -eez but can see how those may be special exceptions. Are there any other questionable words like this?
Process may be a verb or a noun. In early texts on computers the workings of the machine was sometimes described as the workings between a processor and a processee, (the thing that processes, and the thing being processed). A common way to describe it was The processor is called a CPU (short for Central Processing Unit), and the processee is called a process "Processor" was absorbed as a noun in the dictionary to mean a CPU (Central Processing Unit), "processee", however, was not absorbed. Perhaps because it was thought to be sufficiently close to "process"? Whatever the reason, suddenly there were two words in circulation that meant the same, process (singular), processes (plural, pronounced with a short last e), and processee (singular), processees (plural, pronounced with a long ee); but only 'process' was in the dictionary. In time the auto-correct revolution won, or whatever the cause was. The fact of the matter is that, except for a few books that still talk of the processor and processees, in writing only 'process' and 'processes' have survived. In speech, however, 'processees' to this day lives a happy and merry life in disguise as 'processes', and both pronunciations are considered perfectly valid ways of pronouncing 'processes'.
Process may be a verb or a noun. In early texts on computers the workings of the machine was sometimes described as the workings between a processor and a processee, (the thing that processes, and the thing being processed). A common way to describe it was The processor is called a CPU (short for Central Processing Unit), and the processee is called a process "Processor" was absorbed as a noun in the dictionary to mean a CPU (Central Processing Unit), "processee", however, was not absorbed. Perhaps because it was thought to be sufficiently close to "process"? Whatever the reason, suddenly there were two words in circulation that meant the same, process (singular), processes (plural, pronounced with a short last e), and processee (singular), processees (plural, pronounced with a long ee); but only 'process' was in the dictionary. In time the auto-correct revolution won, or whatever the cause was. The fact of the matter is that, except for a few books that still talk of the processor and processees, in writing only 'process' and 'processes' have survived. In speech, however, 'processees' to this day lives a happy and merry life in disguise as 'processes', and both pronunciations are considered perfectly valid ways of pronouncing 'processes'.
Which does the 'who' in the sentence refer to? They are two of the rare people who believe in ancient myths. Someone told me that the "who" here describes "they", but in my view the "who" describes the people. Which is right? What about "Jasper White is one of those rare people who believes in ancient", What is the function of 'who' here?
Delete the "of the" They are two rare people, who believe in ... and it references both "rare people" and "they", which have been equated by "is" and thus are referenced equivalently. Inserting "of the" does not change much about that. Whereas the prediction, that "who ..." were not referencing "people", would be atypical and leave the kind of "rare people" underspecified. Placement matters and the immediate situation of "people" and "who" next to each other invariably determines the scope of the surface form. However, the subordinating "of the" is merely supposed to disambiguate that it's the kind of people, not the two persons per se, what is rare.
Delete the "of the" They are two rare people, who believe in ... and it references both "rare people" and "they", which have been equated by "is" and thus are referenced equivalently. Inserting "of the" does not change much about that. Whereas the prediction, that "who ..." were not referencing "people", would be atypical and leave the kind of "rare people" underspecified. Placement matters and the immediate situation of "people" and "who" next to each other invariably determines the scope of the surface form. However, the subordinating "of the" is merely supposed to disambiguate that it's the kind of people, not the two persons per se, what is rare.
How to express 'unneed' of something? For example, method 1 of doing something (say A) requires something else (say B). And I invented method 2 to do A but without the prerequisite of B. I can say: The disadvantage of method 1 is its requirement/need of B. Now I want to introduce my method by saying the advantage of my method 2 is its (the phrase). What should I put in there to represent the meaning of "no requirement/need of B"? I don't choose to say "the advantage of my method 2 is that it doesn't require B" because I want to also introduce other advantages, like "the advantage of my method 2 is its speed, efficiency, and … ". What should I put here?
The word "obviate" may sound a bit out of place, but you could try this. "The advantage of my method 2 is it obviates B." or "The advantage of my method 2 is its speed, efficiency, and obviation of B." You also have the option of this semi-quick-and-dirty line: "The advantage of my method 2 is its speed, efficiency, and lack of B as a requirement."
Method 2 removes the requirement for B and has the advantage of ....
elevation vs altitude There is a question already dealing with the difference between elevation and altitude: Which to use: "altitude" or "elevation" in regards to height above sea level? The difference between the terms is clear, from the first answer I quote: "Altitude is typically only used to describe the height of an aircraft in flight. It is a barometric measurement expressed relative to the height of a runway or mean sea level in a given location or region (taking into account current local atmospheric conditions), or to an arbitrary standard datum (to eliminate the effect of localised variations in air pressure). Elevation is usually used to describe the height of the ground, or a feature fixed to the ground. It is a geometric measurement expressed relative to the mean sea level datum established for the region by the national mapping agency." So a church somewhere in the landscape has a certain elevation and when I fly with my balloon to New Mexico I would use the term altitude. Also atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude. The situation however, is less clear cut when I talk about the weather up in the mountains. Should I say "it is -12 °C at 2000 meters of elevation" or should I rather use the term altitude here? Temperature is measured by a weather station with a sensor positioned on a post above the ground level. I tend to think that I should refer to temperature as being related to elevation as here, the atmosphere is so close to the land surface. But what is correct?
Temperature is measured with a sensor on a pole, perhaps two metres above the ground, which is not a particularly significant amount at 2000m above sea level. You could just as well call the height of the sensor 2000m above sea level, treating the height of the ground and the sensor fixed to the ground as more-or-less coincident. Elevation is usually used to describe the height of the ground, or a feature fixed to the ground. Use elevation.
The use of barometric pressure is ambiguous, since it falls with increasing altitude and elevation. An unambiguous definition would be more technical: Altitude: vertical distance between an object and the local surface of the Earth. Elevation: vertical distance between the local surface of the Earth and global sea level. The local surface of the Earth will be either land or water surface.
Can you end a list with "e.g."? Can you use "e.g." after you have listed something? I've been busy trying to figure out training, WHMIS e.g.
Exempli gratia is Latin for 'for example,' in English I have seen after a list people write for example; but, I have never seen e.g. placed at the end of a list; I guess e.g. is far too august of an abbreviation to ride on the caboose.
I think you are looking for "etc.", which you do put at the end of your list. It means "and other things", "and so on". Informally, you could say it means "and stuff like that". E.g. means "for example" and is put before your example or list of examples. It is good form to use e.g. in cases where space and text is limited. E.g., in these online forums.
Is this sentence correct? (had/did) What I should use? Note that MOPSO and NSGA-II are two different methodologies. Although MOPSO had not been applied to P300-BCI systems studies, NSGA-II did. or Although MOPSO had not been applied to P300-BCI systems studies, NSGA-II had.
In the first part of your sentence, we are dealing with a pluperfect passive. The positive form is "had been [past participle]" and the negative form is "had not been [past participle]". The auxiliary verb here is "had". Therefore, the correct answer should be "had": Although MOPSO had not been applied to P300-BCI systems studies, NSGA-II had. Here is the sentence with the implied part included: Although MOPSO had not been applied to P300-BCI systems studies, NSGA-II had been applied to the P300-BCI systems studies.
In the first part of your sentence, we are dealing with a pluperfect passive. The positive form is "had been [past participle]" and the negative form is "had not been [past participle]". The auxiliary verb here is "had". Therefore, the correct answer should be "had": Although MOPSO had not been applied to P300-BCI systems studies, NSGA-II had. Here is the sentence with the implied part included: Although MOPSO had not been applied to P300-BCI systems studies, NSGA-II had been applied to the P300-BCI systems studies.
A thousand / one hundred AND one? Are the numbers in the title written correctly? I always thought it was one thousand and not a thousand or one hundred one instead of one hundred and one. So which is correct? One thousand or A thousand One hundred one or One hundred and one
Both "a thousand" and "one thousand" are correct and very rarely, either one of them apply to a situation and the other might sound just a little odd. "One hundred and one" is the correct one but I guess "one hundred one" might also do.
Brits tend to use "a thousand" and "hundred and one" (and "a half"). Americans tend to use "one thousand" and "hundred one" (and "one half"). So depends on your culture.
'Preternatural' vs 'supernatural' I am wondering what the precise differences between preternatural and supernatural are. I know praeter is Latin for beyond so that preternatural literally means beyond natural. But how exactly does that compare to supernatural? Isn't supernatural just the same thing? I also have the vague idea that on the "scale of unnatural-ness" we should have unnatural < preternatural < supernatural = most unnatural. Is that the only distinction?
Preternatural is a wonderful word, one that's been saved from being overused only by the fact that no one seems to know what it means. It means "apparently inexplicable by natural means". You might say, "Yo Yo Ma is a praeternaturally skillful cellist" (bonus points for the olde-timey spelling), meaning only that he is really, really ridiculously good. You aren't claiming that he's actually, non-metaphorically magical or ghostly. Yo Yo Ma does exist. (I know for sure: I saw him once, at a CostCo of all places. I was going to talk to him, but all I could think of to say was "Hey, is it true you once left a Stradivarius on the plane? FAIL!") Supernatural is pretty much a dumb word. People use it for ghoulies and ghosties and long-legged beasties and things that go bump in the night — i.e., things that, unlike Yo Yo Ma, do not exist. Why people feel the need to divide non-existent entities into subcategories I don't know. To use one of James Randi's old examples: if in fact Uri Geller's claimed ability to bend spoons with his mind actually existed, that would be supernatural; in reality, his ability to bullshit people is preternatural.
I think preternatural means beyond nature:I mean far from nature or above nature. While supernatural means excellently natural:I mean perfectly natural
Does "good" weigh a little bit more than "nice"? I came across the descriptions of badges in this Q&A site, and was curious about which word weighs more, "good" or "nice"? Here are the two descriptions that interested me: "Good Answer": Question score of 25 or more. "Nice Answer": Question score of 10 or more. Seems like "good" weighs more than "nice", will that always be the case? "a good person" will be a little better than "a nice person"?
I think it depends on the context. In those examples, there's not much to go on. I agree that it's not very clear which is supposed to be better. I personally would think that IF one weighs more than the other (which I don't think there's a clear cut answer for), "nice" would generally be on top slightly. Example of nice sounding "better" than good: That's a nice car. That's a good car. "Nice" gives me the impression that the car is exceptional, while "good" gives the impression that the car is simply solid or reliable, or maybe just acceptable. However, sometimes nice means "quaint" while good means "excellent". That was a good movie. That was a nice movie. To me, "good" now has more weight — it's almost the exact opposite. "Good" means the movie was very enjoyable (would watch again), while "nice" means it was only fairly enjoyable (might not watch again). This is of course just my personal interpretation. Conclusion: Good question. Of course, the meaning is quite different when we talk about people (Good may mean "does good deeds", while nice may mean "pleasant"). You can be evil and nice at the same time. However, I think in the context you put it the meaning is quite ambiguous. "Good Answer" and "Great Answer" would be much clearer.
In my point of view both are used interchangeably in speech rather than in writing. Good refers to moral, personality, virtue (inside qualities) and Nice refers to impressions (outside qualities). That why when we meet someone for the first time we normally say: nice to meet you, and when one does or provides an acceptable service we normally say: he/she is good at..., e.g: he is good at drawing he does very nice drawings
Using 'had been' as opposed to 'was' I cannot figure out which version of this sentence sounds better. After Cortés’s army had been surrounded by Montezuma’s soldiers, this alliance turned out to be critical to Cortés’ victory. Or After Cortés’s army was surrounded by Montezuma’s soldiers, this alliance turned out to be critical to Cortés’ victory I understand that 'had been surrounded' is pluperfect so it happens further in the past. This seems to create a nice contrast between 'surrounded' and 'turned out to be.' However, I'm not really sure which version of the sentence sounds better.
The second sentence is grammatically correct because of two reasons: 1. The conjunction 'after' gives the idea of precedence of the first event. 2. The chronology of two events is not broken. So two verb forms /Past Simple/ in the second sentence are correct.
The second sentence is grammatically correct because of two reasons: 1. The conjunction 'after' gives the idea of precedence of the first event. 2. The chronology of two events is not broken. So two verb forms /Past Simple/ in the second sentence are correct.
"of different" or just "different"? Is it "Even if our trips are of different lengths" or "Even if our trips are different lengths"? Why? More specifically, the construct would be [verb] [subject] [preposision?] [adjective] [object]. Is there a definitive answer for this specific construct?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst138159_Linking-verb-followed-with-a-prepositional-phrase.aspx&ved=2ahUKEwjT1pGY1-niAhWCNY8KHbesAW8QFjAKegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw07ksBWn3-fVyAth0L8np1t&cshid=1560539966344 "Be" verb normally take a noun, a pronoun or an adjective; it is in a sense renaming the subject. When it is not renaming we use "prepositional phrase"; it may be adjectival or adverbial. If adjectival it is used after the noun or in the predicate portion of a sentence of subject noun or pronoun, If adverbial any where in a sentence. In the given example it is in no way renaming the subject. A prepositional phrase may be used as an adverb telling how, when, where, how much, and why and modifying the verb and sometimes an adjective. Adverb prepositional phrases can come anywhere in the sentence and can be moved within the sentence without changing the meaning. Even if our trips are '' of different lengths '' Here the prepositional phrase is an adverbial and not being a subjective complement can never be able to forego "Of".
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst138159_Linking-verb-followed-with-a-prepositional-phrase.aspx&ved=2ahUKEwjT1pGY1-niAhWCNY8KHbesAW8QFjAKegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw07ksBWn3-fVyAth0L8np1t&cshid=1560539966344 "Be" verb normally take a noun, a pronoun or an adjective; it is in a sense renaming the subject. When it is not renaming we use "prepositional phrase"; it may be adjectival or adverbial. If adjectival it is used after the noun or in the predicate portion of a sentence of subject noun or pronoun, If adverbial any where in a sentence. In the given example it is in no way renaming the subject. A prepositional phrase may be used as an adverb telling how, when, where, how much, and why and modifying the verb and sometimes an adjective. Adverb prepositional phrases can come anywhere in the sentence and can be moved within the sentence without changing the meaning. Even if our trips are '' of different lengths '' Here the prepositional phrase is an adverbial and not being a subjective complement can never be able to forego "Of".
How to say "I was among the top ten percent of students" in my résumé? Could you please tell me how I should mention this in my résumé (my personal website indeed) that I have graduated from the university, while I was ranked among the top ten percent of students? For instance, is it OK to say: I was graduated from this university while I was among the top ten percent of the students"
You were in (or above) the 90th percentile. Alternatively, you were in the 10th, or top decile of your class or year.
You you want to say "I was among the top ten percent of students," write it like this: “I was among the top ten percent of students.” Regarding your other sentence, I wouldn't bother with the past tense. Also: never, ever for any reason use long sentences. Always chop every sentence, in to two short sentences. So simply write: "I graduated from Oxford University. I was among the top ten percent of students."
Is it improper to use a colon and then another colon in the same sentence? Can you use more than one colon in a row? Examples: He follows one moral maxim: the Golden Rule: treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. Jane lives in an one-story house: a bungalow: a California craftsman. Robert remembered one thing from being a Boy Scout: the Scout Motto: Be prepared. This is the problem your arrogance creates: you think you are never wrong, which creates another problem: you never grow from your mistakes.
Many grammarians are quite clear that more than one colon in a single sentence is to be avoided. See for example http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/commas/how-to-punctuate-between-sentences-using-commas-semicolons-and-colons/ in which it is explained that a colon "is used to introduce a second sentence that clarifies the first sentence" or "to introduce a list when no introductory words like namely, for instance, i.e., and e.g., precede the list." Standard copy-editing also discourages more than one colon. Theodore Bernstein does not address the issue of two colons in one sentence specifically, but does maintain that they follow full sentences. This would preclude anything resembling "He follows one moral maxim: the Golden Rule: treat others ..." But more important, using two colons makes for more difficult reading. In a short example like that you offer, the meaning is quickly discerned. But as the clauses become longer, the reader becomes distracted from the content and bogged down with following the implications of this particular punctuation--specifically, how the material following the second colon relates to that preceding the first. I am a copy editor by profession, and while there are almost certainly some poetic uses that double colons can be put to, I can tell you that publishers of today's standard prose material avoid double colons religiously.
I am certainly no expert, but it does not seem to make sense to include multiple colons necessarily. It is almost always possible to re-word you sentence so that it does not require multiple colons, while retaining the flow and rhythm of the original sentence. Consider for instance, "Robert remembered one thing from being a boy scout - the Scout Motto: Be prepared". If this does not answer your question, please refer to the following A trail of colons
What should I call classwork at the start of a period? So as far as I can remember, whenever a teacher gives you work at the beginning of a class period, they are called "Drills" or "Warm-ups"; however, friends that I have talked to from other schools around the U.S. hear them called "Bell Ringers" or "Do Nows". Do certain parts of the U.S. call them differently then others? Or is it entirely dependent on the school?
So it seems that there are different terms for different education boards around the U.S.
So it seems that there are different terms for different education boards around the U.S.
Is a possessive noun a contraction? I was told not to use contractions in an essay. My classmate wrote "the argument of Emily" but I preferred "Emily's argument". He disagreed and claimed "Emily's" is a contraction.
"Emily's" can be a contraction – like when you're saying: Emily's going with us tomorrow. However, you've used a possessive, which is not the same thing as a contraction. Remember, if you've used a contraction, you should be able to split the word back into two: Emily is going with us tomorrow. But you can't do that with "Emily's argument." So, I could say: Your friend's wrong. or, I could say: Your friend's argument is wrong. but I'd only be using a contraction in the first case.
I was taught that adding 's to create the possessive of a proper noun is a contraction of adding the word his. Before this creation of the possessive contraction, "Bob's hat" was expressed "Bob, his hat." The 's possessive is only properly used with a third person proper noun. This is why instead of it's we have its; instead of I's, my; them's, their; you's, your. This is also why we don't use the 's possessive with inanimate objects; a proper noun is a person, place or organization, not a thing. That's why it can seem awkward to show the possessive-like relationship between things. We should not say "the car's door," but say "the car door," or construct a seemingly stilted phrase like, "the door of the car."
Participial phrase or not Struggling with a simple sentence: He had spent the morning investigating a burglary at the City Deli, a small shop … Is investigating a burglary a participial phrase here? Seems so. That would imply placing a comma in front of it, which sounds a bit strange. Any help will be appreciated.
Yes, that is an participial clause. However, commas do not have always to precede or follow such clauses, esp in final position. I see He had spent the morning investigating a burglary at the City Deli. as equivalent to: All his time went into investigating a burglary at the City Deli. You wouldn't use a comma before "investigating" here, would you? __ However, in the following one can readily identify two distinct actions: John hangs out with his buddies, leaving me alone at home. the 2nd one parenthetical (as Kris says), and the comma emphasizes that.
Yes, that is an participial clause. However, commas do not have always to precede or follow such clauses, esp in final position. I see He had spent the morning investigating a burglary at the City Deli. as equivalent to: All his time went into investigating a burglary at the City Deli. You wouldn't use a comma before "investigating" here, would you? __ However, in the following one can readily identify two distinct actions: John hangs out with his buddies, leaving me alone at home. the 2nd one parenthetical (as Kris says), and the comma emphasizes that.
What part of speech is "mountain" in the sentence "Avalanches are dangerous to mountain climbers."? I'm trying to understand the grammar of this sentence: Avalanches are dangerous to mountain climbers. What part of speech is the word mountain?
It is part of the noun phrase "mountain climbers", which is itself the complement of the sentence. Specifically "mountain" is a noun modifier (also called an 'attributive noun' or a 'noun adjunct'), modifying "climbers". A noun modifier is a kind of noun.
In the context of this sentence, "mountain" is an adjective because it modifies (or describes) the noun, "climbers." It tells what kind of climbers they are. Are they tree climbers? No, they are mountain climbers!
What is a plausible etymology of "dosh", a British slang word for money? Neither Wiktionary nor The Online Etymology Dictionary seem to know anything. UPDATED (October 25 2015) dosh ‎(uncountable) (Britain, slang) Money Etymology Unknown. Possibly a combination of dough and cash Wiktionary
Chambers Dictionary 11th Ed.: ORIGIN: Poss *do*llars and ca*sh* Partridge Dictionary of Slang: Possibly a combination of dollars and cash; there are also suggestions that the etymology leads back to doss (temporary accommodation), hence, it has been claimed, the money required to doss, or Scottish dialect doss (tobacco pouch, a purse containing something of value) – note, too, that tobacco is related to money via quid. US dosh didn’t survive but in mid-C20 UK and Australia the word was resurrected, or coincidentally recoined US, 1854 Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 8th Ed.: 1950s: of unknown origin Oxford English Dictionary: Origin unknown. 1953 H. Clevely Public Enemy xviii. 114 He hadn't enough dosh on him.
DOSH = bangla for TEN that's where it comes from. It was picked up during the time when the The British East India Company was running the show out there, just like CHA was picked up for tea.
Can a comma be put before but if it starts a dependent clause? If the dependent clause is nonessential, of course. For example: There were other conspicuously terrifying moments during the ride but not any more terrifying than that one. or There were other conspicuously terrifying moments during the ride, but not any more terrifying than that one.
I believe that what you're dealing with is a compound predicate; i.e. you have one subject with more than one predicate. It might help to explain this first, because (a) it might not be obvious and (b) it informs the answer. To start with, there is a dummy subject. Your real subject is the noun phrase other conspicuously terrifying moments. The two clauses contributing to your sentence, rearranged to remove the dummy subject, are Other conspicuously terrifying moments were during the ride. [I.e. other terrifying moments occurred/existed during the ride.] Other conspicuously terrifying moments were not any more terrifying than that one. (In this analysis, the two instances of were are different verbs, coming from different contributory clauses, even if repetitive of a single verb form.) You can also perform a similar breakdown while leaving the dummy subject intact, if that seems easier to grasp: There were other conspicuously terrifying moments during the ride. There were other conspicuously terrifying moments not any more terrifying than that one. Combining these two sentences with but as a coordinating conjunction, you get an awkward compound sentence: There were other conspicuously terrifying moments during the ride, but there were other conspicuously terrifying moments during the ride not any more terrifying than that one. Getting rid of the second instance of both the subject and were through ellipsis, you get your compound predicate: There were other conspicuously terrifying moments during the ride but not any more terrifying than that one. This is different from many compound predicates in that many have two explicitly different verbs, so the second verb is not elided. Here, instead, you're faced with the same verb form in the second instance, which can be elided although the two instances differ in their sense. And the answer is... Regarding compound predicates, the fourteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style says Preferably, the comma should not be used between the parts of a compound predicate. ... A comma may be added, however, if misapprehension or difficult reading is considered likely without such punctuation. (5.33) So the answer seems to be that it might be considered better style not to put a comma before but in your sentence (in fact this advice is all over the internet, for example here and here), but there's no hard and fast grammar rule against it, and for such a sentence, if a comma were to aid in apprehension, you should probably put it in. Commas are often largely a matter of style and clarity rather than of grammar per se.
Perhaps I am misreading your intention, but I would write, "There were other conspicuously frightening moments during the ride, but none more terrifying to me." "Terrifying" is a subjective observation (not capable of being proved objectively), and so is therefore personal to you, the traveller. Someone who slept through the ride, for instance, might not have the same feelings about the experience as you.
Is there a term for the phenomenon of not being able to pass the car in front of you? During my commute to work, I primarily drive on a two lane road in a rural area. Every day, without fail, I get stuck behind someone driving at or below the speed limit and it frustrates me. I would simply pass them, but it seems EVERY time there is a passing zone, there is oncoming traffic preventing me from passing. Is there a term for this phenomenon?
Murphy's driving law As soon as you change lanes to a faster lane, it becomes the slowest lane. If you try to change lanes to get off the ramp, the guy in the lane to your right will always speed up. On a two lane road, no cars will come from the opposite direction where the lanes are divided by a white line. However, as soon as it's allowed to bypass, the opposite lane is jammed. source Barrett's Laws of Driving: The vehicle in front of you is traveling slower than you are.
I would say you got bogged down or squeezed. Stuck works too. ▸ verb: get stuck while doing something ▸ verb: cause to slow down or get stuck ▸ verb: cause to get stuck as if in a mire ▸ verb: be unable to move further
Does "I like my new car" express a permanent or temporary state? We all know that Simple Present is normally used for "more permanent state" & Present Continuous for "more temporary state" (Source) She lives with her parents. We use the present simple to talk about permanent facts and general truths. In this example we don’t expect the situation to change. She’s living with her parents. We use the present continuous to talk about something temporary. In this example we do expect the situation to change. Now, some verbs such as "like, love, need, want..." are not used in "continuous form" (Source) But this page says some natives say I’m liking my new car. I’m missing you. This sentence expresses the idea that it’s something happening around now and it’s not a permanent state. The excitement might soon wear off and I might stop enjoying the experience soon. Similarly, when we say ‘I’m missing you.’, it shows how intense this emotion is right now. It is considered "Informal" or "Wrong" So, if I said it grammatically correctly "I like my new car", would people think that that sentence expressed a permanent or temporary state? Should we add "now" to make it more temporary as in "I am in New York now" is more temporary "I am in New York" is more permanent So, "I like my new car now", but it sounds a bit awkward
So, if I said it grammatically correctly "I like my new car", would people think that that sentence expressed a permanent or temporary state? For stative verbs such as like, the simple present is a neutral form, not implying anything about permanence or temporariness. If you want to emphasize that your feeling is likely to be temporary, you can preface your statement with "right now". If you want to emphasize that your feeling is likely to be permanent, I think your best bet is to add something that ties your feeling to something about it: "I like my new car much better than my old one", or "I like my new car; its all-wheel drive is exactly what I need on snowy days", or . . . you get the idea.
The difference between present continuous and simple present is a matter of degree rather than of absolute permanence: "I like my new car" is a more permanent condition than "I am liking my new car" which expresses the idea that it’s something happening around now, as you pointed out yourself, so the usage "I like" is appropriate in this case: I expect you will continue to like your new car for quite a while which is what is expressed by 'more permanent' here. Whereas 'I am liking' gives a subtly different impression although it is idiomatically sound and even informally typical usage, especially for some native speakers. The famous slogan for McDonald's says, "I'm loving it!" This is the subject of an earlier question here at English.SE: How normal-sounding is the slogan "I'm lovin' it" to native ears? Grammar Girl discusses whether it is 'proper grammar' here http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/is-im-loving-it-proper-grammar and gives this notable ruling: Idiomatic Uses of Stative Verbs According to the rule, “I’m loving it” is not grammatically correct because it uses a stative verb—in this case, one that conveys emotion, love—in a progressive tense. But, now we come to some idiomatic uses of stative verbs. You can conjugate certain stative verbs in a progressive tense in the right context [...] The Verdict “I’m loving it” does sound slightly off, and that draws attention. Perhaps that’s why McDonald’s chose it for their slogan [...] We all know that advertisements, song lyrics, and fashion headlines aren't the places to turn for examples of good grammar, but we also know that native speakers of English can get creative with traditional grammar, and that sometimes grammatically iffy phrases catch on. Language is constantly changing. Enough people seem to be using stative verbs in progressive tenses that we can probably say it’s becoming more accepted in popular culture to use them that way. In your case 'I'm liking it (my new car)' would imply a more transient, living-in-the-moment feeling, with very much a McDonald's vibe, giving a sense of how you are really enjoying the newness and the whole feeling of having a 'new' car. However, if by 'permanent' you are implying that you may possibly no longer like your new car once it becomes older, may I suggest the original sentence would have 'semantically expired' by then -- as in, your new car would have become your 'no longer new' car by that point and the statement about liking it would therefore no longer be applicable IMHO.
Should there be an apostrophe in "Ladies' Coats" on the sign in a shop selling ladies' coats? I work in a charity shop and we sell coats for ladies. Should the sign read "Ladies' Coats" or "Ladies Coats"? I argue for the apostrophe but some of my friends argue that as the coats do not belong to the ladies yet that there shouldn't be an apostrophe.
Your friend is correct, before they are purchased the coats belong to the business, and not to the ladies who will be purchasing them to add to their wardrobe. So the sign should read Ladies Coats For example: See this wording from a high street retailer: Ladies Coats
Your friend is correct, before they are purchased the coats belong to the business, and not to the ladies who will be purchasing them to add to their wardrobe. So the sign should read Ladies Coats For example: See this wording from a high street retailer: Ladies Coats
Verb for doing something unknowingly I cannot think of an effective verb that would suggest someone is doing something unknowingly yet doing it nonetheless - almost like acquiescing. I have thought of 'sleepwalking' however there must be something better. For example, VERB into a materialistic society.
They are drifting into a materialistic society. They are sliding into a materialistic society.
To submit? or perhaps to resign?
Is the use of "Them" right here? On StackOverFlow, the users who do not put anything in the profile have this displayed. "Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them.". Should it not be him/her? Clarifying before hand that English is not my strong point.
Yes, it's correct. English literature is full of examples of them used as a gender-neutral pronoun, even when referring to one person. It's also a great way to refer to someone when you don't know their gender, or when you don't want to favour one or the other, e.g.: "When our next customer walks in, please greet them."
Yes, it's correct. English literature is full of examples of them used as a gender-neutral pronoun, even when referring to one person. It's also a great way to refer to someone when you don't know their gender, or when you don't want to favour one or the other, e.g.: "When our next customer walks in, please greet them."
Describing the fall of objects into water I am trying to build a vocabulary describing things falling in water. There are three aspects to it: a) the act of dropping or throwing the object; b) the movement of the object in the water, which could sink or float; c) the movement of water because of the object's impact. The objects could be anything ranging from a piece of cork to an asteroid for all I care. I have already used some terms: drop/throw, sink/float. I made a little search in thesaurus but, here, I would like to leverage the sensitivity of the community fellows to nuances between similar terms. For example: subtle differences, if any, re a between falling, dropping and suchlike; re b, between plunging, diving and suchlike; re c, between splashing, surging, and so forth. Word suggestions accompanied by such explanations and caveats will be most appreciated. Note I am not interested in scientific rigour, rather in the descriptive/evocative meaning for a lay readership/audience. Note The post topic branches off in many possible answers. I do not expect answers with full coverage, for sure. Anyone interested please pick up the aspects that resonate the most.
"Rippling." Perhaps "cannonballing" such as when someone jumps in a pool with knees drawn to chest; "belly-flop" or "belly smacker" when someone lands flat on their belly and face jumping into water; "churning" self explanatory; "eddying" which is more the counter current movement of water beyond fixed objects such as rocks; "geyser" as I suppose water can do when a large object is dropped; "spray"; "plop" as with small objects entering water; "splatter" though usually one thinks of thicker fluids than water; "pelt" as one could throw multiple small objects into the water; "skip" as with a flat rock skimming the surface more than once when thrown nearly parallel with the water surface; "pour" - I suppose you could pour sand, salt, or a collection of pebbles etc. into water; "dissolve" in addition to the sink or float options you mentioned; "buoyant"; "suspended" if describing an object hovering just below the surface; "founder" - to fill with water and sink, usually a ship, but could happen to a dropped concave object I suppose; "calving" when speaking of a chunk of glacier falling into the water; "tumbling" for sizable falling object(s); "crumbling"; "sliding"; "toppling"; "rolling"; "avalanche"; "plunk" which I would consider a sharper sound than a plop, "plunk" could also be used as a verb to throw something into the water. Didn't really address nuances much but maybe there is one tidbit in this.
Well, it seems you already did some homework. My take, coming from a fluid mechanics background: adhere to prevalent terminology, this way people understand quicker what you are talking about, and it makes your document resurface (nice fluid mechanics term) in search engines with the correct phrases. E.g: falling drop, breaking dam, driven cavity are common scenario's for fluid simulations. Calling them otherwise may impede reader understanding.
Ambiguous usage of "too" at the end of a sentence 'I heard Avengers is awesome too.' Does this mean that I heard Avengers is also an awesome movie, or I also heard that Avengers is awesome? Basically I want to convey that I also heard from others that Avengers is awesome. Is the first sentence correct?
No, what you want to say is I too heard Avengers is awesome. So you use 'too' in the same way and position you would use 'also' in 'I also heard that this movie is awesome'. The phrase you gave instead conveys that Avengers is awesome like something else that is awesome too.
No, what you want to say is I too heard Avengers is awesome. So you use 'too' in the same way and position you would use 'also' in 'I also heard that this movie is awesome'. The phrase you gave instead conveys that Avengers is awesome like something else that is awesome too.
What does “Seeing right through them” exactly mean? I was drawn to the phrase, “Seeing right through them“appearing in the New York Times (October 5) article written by Daniel Goleman under the title, “Rich people just care less.” It begins with the following sentence: “Turning a blind eye. Giving someone the cold shoulder. Looking down on people. Seeing right through them. These metaphors for condescending or dismissive behavior are more than just descriptive. They suggest -- the social distance between those with greater power and those with less — a distance that goes beyond the realm of interpersonal interactions and may exacerbate the soaring inequality in the United States. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/rich-people-just-care-less/?hp When we were listening to teacher’ words in class, or a boss's instructions in office, didn’t we see right through him or her in order to be attentive? Is “to see right through people” perceived as a condescending / dismissive or rude behavior? I happened to find the same “See right through them” phrase in the English version of the teaching of Morihei Ueshiba (1883-1969), the founder of Aikido – martial art for self defense derived from Jujutsu. He says: “If your heart is large enough to envelope your adversaries, you can see right through them and avoid their attacks. And once you envelope them, you will be able to guide them along the path indicated to you by heaven and earth.” It appears to me Goleman uses “Seeing right through people” in “condescending and dismissive” manner, and Ueshiba uses it in different, rather positive way. What implications does the expression “Seeing right through them” have?
There is a common view that a people can be read by looking at their faces and determining the sincerity of their presentation. However, people are often described as putting on a mask or a false face to hide their true intentions. The idiom seeing through them refers to seeing through that mask or false face, and being able to discern the other's true position or intention. While the phrase is not inherently condescending or dismissive, it does suggest that you are not accepting someone's presentation or position at face value. However, it could be used in a positive and supportive manner: He tried to mask his pain with a brave front, but she saw right through him. As Jim notes in his comment, the phrase seeing right through him is used in the first instance cited by the OP to suggest ignoring someone. The more common phrase for this sense is looking right through him (as if the person were transparent, effectively not there).
Understanding a trick and then turning the tables on the person instead of allowing the person to continue on with the trick.
Idiom for trying and failing, falling short and being disapproved In one of my native tongues, there's an idiomatic expression, the semi-literal translation of which is "the 'being close' of yours won't shoot the hare". In another, there's something along the lines of "one can't strike down a bird with an 'almost'". Both expressions are used to comment on someone's failure followed by a presentation of an excuse aiming to explain said failure as being so close to a success that it might as well be regarded as the such. Expressing disapproval by the observers can then be carried out by pointing out that being close to success or almost succeeding isn't actually being successful. I.e. one doesn't get the hare by shooting close to it and one doesn't get the bird by almost striking it down. The animals will most likely take off and the only thing one sees is their butts decreasing in size. Correspondingly, getting a score of 499, when the number required to pass is 500 or more, can be seen as being close to a success but still, strictly regarded, admitting the examinee to the same group as other failures. If such person tries to point out that they were really, really close to passing, a disapproving recipient could point out that they'll still have to retake the exam, independently of how close to a success they were (c.f. by how little they have failed). What is the idiomatic way to express that in English, if such exists?
As far as idioms or colloquial expressions go, here are some to consider: Close, but no cigar. Described in Phrase Finder as to fall just short of a successful outcome and receiving nothing for your efforts. Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. This expression, which should be self-explanatory, is used in response to someone who claims credit for their effort in almost attaining a goal, but falling short and missing. Second place is the first loser. (Or second place is first place for losers.) This seems to have come into use more recently, and is associated with Tiger Moms who insist that their children must win any competition and they actually will browbeat their children for anything less.
close is only good in horseshoes and handgrenades
Insight into the pronunciation of the word algae? Can anyone provide some insight into the pronunciation of the word algae? Various dictionaries give either the /g/ version as in gear or the /dʒ/ version as in jeep. For example: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/algae https://www.macmillandictionary.com/pronunciation/british/algae Is there an American or British convention for pronouncing this word? Are these conventions the same on both sides of the Atlantic? Is one pronunciation more common in biology circles or technical circles that the other one?
I (American English) have only ever heard /ˈældʒi/, to the extent that this question surprised me—I hadn't really considered the possibility of pronouncing the word any other way, although I am well aware of the variation in the pronunciation of g in other words such as fungi. I listened to the first 20 pronunciations of algae on Youglish. The 4 speakers who used [g] all sounded like they had an accent other than American English. When I listened to the first 18 British English pronunciations, 14 of them used /giː/, 1 used /geɪ/, and 3 used /dʒiː/. A WordReference Forums thread from 2009 seems to provide further anecdotal support for the idea of a UK/US split. Based on this, it does seem to me that the ratio of /dʒ/ to /g/ is higher in the US than in other areas (the Oxford English Dictionary also seems to indicate this with the order in which it gives the pronunciations for British English and American English, as tchrist says in a comment below GEdgar's answer). I don't know of any tendency for the word to be pronounced differently by biologists and non-biologists. There is no uniform, unanimously agreed-upon system of pronouncing biological terms in English—in general, there is similar variation among biologists as among other speakers in the pronunciation of words taken from Latin.
IMHO, alga should be pronounced close to /al-guh/, but algae should be pronounced /al-jie/, or rather like Algy, short for Algernon, would be pronounced. After all, as the poet said, "Algy met a bear, / A bear met Algy. / The bear was bulgy, / The bulge was Algy." As for fungus/fungi, the singular would be /fun-gus/ or /fung-us/; the latter would be /fun-ji/, but /fun-ghi/ is acceptable. I would be tempted to use "focuses" and "locuses" for almost all but the most technical mathematical uses--which are usually read and not spoken aloud.
Most common synonym of liturgy? I'm not a native speaker. So when you go to the church, what it's the most common word to describe the liturgy? Complete the phrase: I'm going to the _______ (the event of prayer that takes place in a church)
Often you would use the name of the particular service. E.g. As an ex-Anglican I could refer to going ______: Morning Prayer Communion Evensong Compline In my sojourn in Mormon country I heard references to going to "Sacrament" "Priesthood meeting" "Bible Study" "Mutual Improvement Association" It wasn't clear as a gentile, which of these were religious forms of worship, and which were efforts at building a local community. So for your question I would answer it either: "I'm going to church" -- Implying a generic religious observance. Used when talking to someone who is not religious, or not of your faith, or unaccustomed to your faith. "I'm going to {name of service} -- speaking to someone who is at least somewhat familiar with your pattern of religious observances. This help? Liturgy is more abstract. liturgy (ˈlɪtədʒɪ) n, pl -gies 1. (Ecclesiastical Terms) the forms of public services officially prescribed by a Church 2. (Ecclesiastical Terms) (often capital) chiefly Eastern Churches Also called: Divine Liturgy the Eucharistic celebration 3. (Ecclesiastical Terms) a particular order or form of public service laid down by a Church [C16: via Medieval Latin, from Greek leitourgia, from leitourgos minister, from leit- people + ergon work] Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 lit•ur•gy (ˈlɪt ər dʒi) n., pl. -gies. 1. a form of public worship; ritual. 2. a collection of formularies for public worship. 3. a particular arrangement of services. 4. a particular form or type of the Eucharistic service. 5. the service of the Eucharist, esp. this service (Divine Liturgy) in the Eastern Church.
The event that takes place is "Worship". The style of the way worship is presented is "Liturgy".
Origin of the phrases “third time’s the charm” and “third time lucky”? What would the origin of the saying “Third time’s the charm”? I’ve also heard “third time lucky” used as well. Are these two expressions related to each other?
I think the origin of these phrases is from Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor, 1602: As for which came first, lucky or charm, I found the charm variation earlier and not of American origin as The Phrase Finder has, but British. This is from The Cabinet Album, 1830 (date check): And the lucky version I found three years later in The Port Admiral, by William Johnstoun N. Neale, 1833 (date check): Since these two variations can be traced back to the same time period and the same country, I think it's safe to say they are related and that they both echo Shakespeare. Edit: Heck, why not throw a pretty Ngram in for good measure:
On no evidence whatsoever, I had always thought it was older than Shakespeare.
Should I say "more exact"/"more precise"? My understanding with the words exact, precise and accurate is that they are absolute. Meaning, there cannot be less accurate or more accurate. Is my understanding correct? If it's exactly 1 meter, then there cannot be more exact than 1 meter. Also, are these words (exact, precise and accurate) exact synonyms? I have read their meanings in the dictionary and they are, well, the same. I am writing a blog that has a title "Love and Lust". I want to point out that it is more accurate/precise to say that the title should be "Romantic Love and Lust", as there are three kinds of love.
Both "precision" and "accuracy" are measured along a gradient of success. This is usually refereed to as the "degree of accuracy" or "degree of precision." When referring to a specific instrument, the measurement should be contextually obvious: This ruler is accurate within one millimeter. This cannon is so precise I can hit a target from one thousand yards. "Precision" and "accuracy" are also contrasted with the word "error": The margin of error for this thermometer is 0.001 degrees. This means that neither word necessarily imply absolutes. When supplied without a specific qualification the details are either assumed via context or are not relevant for in this particular context. This bow and arrow is precise. You can easily add subjective qualifiers to this usage or even add an absolute qualifier: This bow and arrow is [extremely/very] precise. This bow and arrow is perfectly precise. The word "exact" is different in that it implies an absolute. What were their exact words? I need these measurements to be exact. But the concept of a "margin of error" is still implied because the real world doesn't appreciate absolutes. If you want exact measurements you still need to stop at a certain level of precision. The following conversation still makes sense: I need these measurements to be exact. How precise? Within one millimeter. Amusingly, this also means the question, "How exact?" has an immediately understandable meaning given the appropriate context. In the end, neither "accurate" nor "precise" necessarily imply an absolute. "Exact" does imply an absolute but only in a philosophical sense. If you are using the word "exact" to describe reality then it is perfectly acceptable to ask for an acceptable degree of accuracy or margin of error (unless it actually is feasible to achieve a perfect result.) As for your second question, there is a subtle difference between "accuracy" and "precision" when used within a scientific context. Wikipedia has an entire article on the topic. Here is their quick overview of the distinction: Accuracy is the proximity of measurement results to the true value; precision, the repeatability, or reproducibility of the measurement. In other words, "accuracy" refers to how well you did and "precision" refers to how differently each of your attempts were. A specific example: If you threw three darts at a dartboard and they all landed next to each other then your throwing arm was precise. If they landed near the bullseye then your throwing arm was accurate. Colloquially, there is no distinction between the two.
Let's define these words so we can figure out if they are absolute or not. exact - not approximated in any way. As we can see, it is an absolute. accurate - correct in all details; exact. Also absolute. precise - marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail. Also absolute. Hmm... People say more precise/accurate/exact in informal communication. Either we have to invent a new word that isn't absolute but measures "accuracy" or define those words as non-absolutes. TL;DR: They are absolutes, but we use more and less in informal discussion.
Meaning of "dress style" Does dress style mean attire, or is it specifically a style of dress worn by women? For example: "What is the proper dress style for the interview?"
The confusion here arises from two meanings of the noun "dress". 1 : apparel, clothing 2 : an outer garment (as for a woman or girl) usually consisting of a one-piece bodice and skirt In this particular use of the phrase "dress style", they are using the first definition -- a general purpose word for your choice of clothing. "A dress" always refers to the women's item of clothing. You are not being asked to wear a dress to the interview!
It is rarely appropriate to dress down for an interview, regardless of company dress code policy. You should wear a suit to interviews. “Suit” means the works: a matching jacket and pants, dress shirt, tie, coordinating socks and dress shoes. A dark-colored suit with light colored shirt is your best option.
When to use a comma before "and" I often see people on the Internet using a comma before and in many cases (not adversative cases). Is it ok? In my language it is stricly prohibited to use a comma before an and except for adversative cases or when an apposition is in the front of that and. Examples (which I consider not ok): He is a great player, and he prefers to play Counter-Strike. John joined the Army, and George joined the Marines. What I consider exceptions: Yes, and what is the problem? I called John, my brother, and now I’m speaking with him.
From the Oxford Guide to Style 2nd ed section 5.3: Use the comma to join main clauses that are semantically related, grammatically similar, and linked by one of the coordinating conjunctions and, but, nor, or, and yet. Such clauses are joined by a comma if they are too long, and too distinct in meaning, to do without any punctuation at all, but not separate enough to warrant a semi-colon: Truth ennobles man, and learning adorns him. Cars will turn here, but coaches will go straight on. I will not try now, yet it is possible I may try again in future. It may be omitted when the clauses are short and closely linked: Do as I tell you and you'll never regret it. Dan left but Jill remained. I will not try now yet I may in future.
A programming manual describing the logical operator 'AND' would have a comma before that word and be grammatically correct. I know it's a cheeky answer, but it's an answer :). Digital Logic operators include OR, AND, XOR, and others.
Word for small informal business in third world country I am looking for a word that describes individual economic activity in third world countries that supports a person and his family's livelihood. Imagine a fisherman who sells his catches on the streets of Dar es Salaam, someone who sells bracelets to tourists on Cape Town beaches or a barber who cuts people's hair on sidewalks in Hanoi. Is there a term for this type of informal business? Such a business is typically: very small in terms of income and expenses not registered or regulated often not in a permanent location run by poorer parts of society in third world countries The word 'sole proprietorship' is not precise enough, because it does not convey the informalness of the business. I did not choose 'informal business' either, because that just means that income is generated off the books and would include large illegal gambling or drug business.
How about peddler one who offers merchandise (such as fresh produce) for sale along the street or from door to door (Websters) A peddler is someone who goes from place to place in order to sell something. (Collins) If that's too formal for you, then perhaps huckster a retailer of small articles, esp. a peddler of fruits and vegetables; hawker a person who employs showy methods to effect a sale, win votes, etc the crass methods of political hucksters a cheaply mercenary person (Collins)
I am looking for a word that describes individual economic activity in third world countries that supports a person and his family's livelihood. This is usually described as "subsistence-level employment" MW subsistence level (noun) : a level of income that provides only enough money for basic needs living below (the) subsistence level See also, Cambridge dictionary: subsistence noun [ U ] formal the state of having what you need in order to stay alive, but no more: The money is intended to provide a basic subsistence and should not be paid to someone who receives other income. The family was living at subsistence level.
idiomatic phrases for *the threat to go to the police* Let's imagine a situation. One dog's master set his pit bull on his neighbour. This dog bared teeth and did not allow the neighbour to get into his car. The dog frightened this man to death. The man threatened that he would go to the police and write a complaint [letter] about this event or that he would fill in a specific blank in the police station. What are idiomatic phrases that you would use, speaking about police? What would you say to this abuser who trains his dog in such a way? Note, the situation is not so serious that you want call police immediately. You threaten that you'll make a complaint about this event in the police station when you'll get off work, say, tonight.
The phrase drop a dime is commonly used in the US To inform; give information, esp. to the police; dime, rat Dictionary.com I believe the origin is in the long standing amount charged for a payphone in the mid to late 20th century. As indicated in the definition, dime by itself is also used. While Dictionary.com also suggests rat, perhaps more common are the verbal phrases rat on or rat out (informal) Inform on (someone) to a person in a position of authority: I never thought Stash would rat on me men will literally choose death over ratting out another prisoner Oxford Dictionaries Online All of these terms refer to the act of informing the police, not the threat of such informing. If the threat is being used to export money or action from a guilty party (I will drop a dime on you unless you do X), the terms for threat would be conventional terms, such as blackmail or extortion. An idiomatic term might be put the squeeze on. informal Coerce or pressure (someone). Oxford Dictionaries Online
An expression for the threat itself is writing on the wall from the Old Testament Story of the writing on the wall that predicted the end of King Belshazzar's reign. or connected to "Lay all the cards out on the table.": layout 1.3 A thing arranged or set out in a particular way:
"professions' and "occupations" what's the differnce? "professions' and "occupations" difference "Transborder activities and the general dynamics that they produce can be performed by socioeconomic categories, such as professions, occupations, or classes,"
occupation --> to occupy ones time i.e. seamstress or blacksmith profession --> publicly declared and certified occupation i.e. master blacksmith or master seamstress References from the OSX dictionary profession |prəˈfeSHən| noun 1 a paid occupation, esp. one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification: - occupation |ˌäkyəˈpāSHən| noun 1 a job or profession: 2 the action, state, or period of occupying or being occupied by military force: Goolge Search Link to Etymology of profession
The sentence isn't very well written, but since it isn't yours (I presume), you can't revise it. To answer your question, the difference is largely one of education. "Professions" are followed by people with academic qualifications: doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, etc. "Occupations" are done by unqualified or semi-qualified people, such as traders, manual labourers, factory workers, drivers.
Why is "a 100% increase" the same amount as "a two-fold increase"? and is such interpretation the norm? When something went from 4 units to 8 units, most authoritative sources seem to agree with the use of "a two-fold increase", even though what was actually increased is more like "one-fold", i.e. the original quantity. But if the "two-fold increase" is the correct usage, why most people seem to interpret "a 100% increase" the same thing?
Yes, the correct usage is that 100% increase is the same as a two-fold increase. The reason is that when using percentages we are referring to the difference between the final amount and the initial amount as a fraction (or percent) of the original amount. So, if something gets multiplied by two, it experiences a positive increase equal to 100% of the original amount. The confusion arises because the word "increase" is used differently in each case. In the first case we mean the change between initial and final value; while in the second situation we interpret the change as a multiple of the original quantity.
A layer of paper, folded once yields two layers, folded twice yields four layers and so on. A one fold increase on a ten dollar investment yields twenty dollars and a two fold increase on the same ten dollars yields forty dollars. I distinctly remember this lesson in math class, My teacher, the infallible Mr Smith, has long passed on so we can't change it now.
Is it ever correct to omit periods at the ends of paragraphs? I encountered this claim from a user on cooking who seems to consistently remove periods at the ends of paragraphs: Never use them. They have no place on electronic media, they are a legacy device? And later: End of paragraph periods were for bad typing/handwriting spacing. Computers format very cleanly, so no purpose, and they look weird on sentences that end in URL's or emoticons etc Is there any broad or authoritative or "real" support for that idea?
I don't think any authority supports it. The idea has been discussed before; here's a Language Log post that talks about the issue: Aggressive periods and the popularity of linguistics. It links to this New Republic article: The Period Is Pissed, by Ben Crair, from which I took the following extracts: In my text messages and online chats [...] people use the period not simply to conclude a sentence, but to announce “I am not happy about the sentence I just concluded.” Near the end: And these newfangled, emotional uses of terminal punctuation haven't crossed over into more traditional, thoughtful writing. I think Stack Exchange posts are more like online newspaper articles or blog posts, and not so much like text or chat messages. (Another Language Log article with some comments and links: Anticipatory confirmation) (The practice of omitting a period specifically in paragraph-final position has also been discussed on the WordReference forums.)
Periods get lost in text (are hard to read on-screen at small fonts) -- so I have begun using two dashes to separate thoughts regardless whether it is correct punctuation or not -- clarity trumps correctness every time in my book.
All this time or All these time? My sentence flow is something like this. "So you were lying to me all these time?" I dont know if I should use this or these.
"All this time" is appropriate for a current situation. If the actions were in the past, then the statement should be "all that time" or "all those/these times." The variants are dependent upon your personal view or understanding of time itself.
All that time - during that period. All these times - on each of those occasions.
Is "geometry" plural or singular? Which one of the following sentences is correct? The geometry of the objects are known. The geometry of the objects is known. Both cases are common in the literature and have been used interchangebly!
Geometry is singular and should be followed by a singular verb ("is", "has") geometry - noun, pl. geometries. The mathematics of the properties, measurement, and relationships of points, lines, angles, surfaces, and solids. The Free Dictionary. geometries - pl. "Three geometries were used to show this effect." "These geometries were chosen because they maximize detection capability."
From your sentences the second The geometry of the objects is known. is definetely a valid one to use. This is, because "geometry" is singular (according to Google, and a lot of other dictionaries and stuff), and we are probably not talking about different kinds of geometries (Euclidian, Hyperbolic, Elliptic, ...). But the first sentence The geometry of the objects are known. does not have a valid usage. It's because if you're talking about different kinds of geomerties, you have to put it in plural, like this: The geometries of the objects are known.
Does this sentence remain grammatically correct? If I change this sentence We could not communicate through the phone. to Through the phone, we could not communicate. Does it still remain grammatically correct? Is it OK like that? What's the difference?
Both of these are acceptable, though the focus in each is different. By placing different parts of sentence at the front, you make them more important. In the first sentence, the focus is on communication and the inability to do it. You could extend this as follows: We could not communicate through the phone, though we could use it to (do something else). In the second, the focus is on the phone and its uselessness in the situation. It could be extended thus: Through the phone, we could not communicate but through the (something else), we could. This works when written. However, in spoken language, stress and intonation could alter the focus regardless of word order. As a matter of preference, I would tend toward the first example, simply because it is the natural order of the sentence without clauses being juggled and extra punctuation being added. I would only choose the second if I specifically wanted to alter the focus, as explained above. Hope that helps.
Actually, I get the feeling that you are strugging with the arrangement of this sentence because of the preposition "through." Communication is what takes place between two or more people, and it does not take place "through" a phone. Perhaps something like "While speaking on the phone, we could not communicate well," would suffice (or "we could not communicate while speaking on the phone."
Pronunciation difference between "collar" and "color" What is the pronunciation difference between collar and color? Can a native speaker tell them apart?
The difference is quite clear in British pronunciation. Colour is /ˈkʌlə/, rhyming with duller. Collar is /ˈkɒlə(r)/, rhyming with dollar. (I realize those rhymes may not be much help if duller and dollar sound the same in American pronunciation.)
Color is pronounced much shorter than collar. Pronouncing collar you spend a bit more time on the first coll- part.
A word for an entity that gives rise to something else I'm looking for a word that describes an entity that is the reason for another entity to exist. If that original entity stopped to exist, the other entity wouldn't exist because its right to exist would vanish with it. for example: citizens to government. without the citizens, government wouldn't make much sense. Its right to exist comes from the fact there are citizens. The pattern: A would be meaningless if B didn't exist. B is the word_i'm_looking_for of A. Any ideas?
It may not be exactly "English", but most people use the term raison d'être. True English alternatives include basis, justification for existing, rationale, reason for existing, reason why, and my preferred one for OP's context (if I couldn't use raison d'être) - precondition.
How about progenitor? That seems to fit the bill.
Adjective for withstanding the passage of time Is there an adjective meaning that an idea or object has longevity, or will still be relevant in the future? (I believe I've heard such a word, but I can't think of it at the moment.) Usage example: While this textbook is interesting, it does not seem particularly [?]; five years from now, it will be useless.
There are a number of possible synonyms: eternal, lasting, permanent, enduring, abiding, immortal, everlasting, ceaseless, immutable, indestructible, undying, ageless, imperishable, changeless. The word required in your example, however, might be definitive, which carries the sense of being authoritative.
I was looking for a word like that too, and finally figured out that the word I was trying to think of was long-standing.
Should this be excel or excels? Mike is one of those rare individuals who excel in all aspects of his life. Is it excel or excels?
"Excels" - if you're going to use his life, the verb needs to reference Mike. If you want to use "excel", then it should be "their lives" to reference individuals.   EDIT: As @FumbleFingers stated in the comments, "excels" references one of and not Mike.
Excels. If you shorten the sentence to its minimum you have "Mike excels in all aspects of his life." Though I might use "excels at" rather than "excels in." I might also be wrong.
End of preview (truncated to 100 rows)

Dataset Card Creation Guide

Dataset Summary

We automatically extracted question and answer (Q&A) pairs from Stack Exchange network. Stack Exchange gather many Q&A communities across 50 online plateform, including the well known Stack Overflow and other technical sites. 100 millon developpers consult Stack Exchange every month. The dataset is a parallel corpus with each question mapped to the top rated answer. The dataset is split given communities which cover a variety of domains from 3d printing, economics, raspberry pi or emacs. An exhaustive list of all communities is available here.

Languages

Stack Exchange mainly consist of english language (en).

Dataset Structure

Data Instances

Each data samples is presented as follow:

{'title_body': "Is there a Stack Exchange icon available? StackAuth /sites route provides all the site's icons except for the one of the Stack Exchange master site.\nCould you please provide it in some way (a static SVG would be good)?",
 'upvoted_answer': 'Here it is!\n\nDead link: SVG version here\nNote: the same restrictions on this trademarked icon that apply here, also apply to the icon above.',
 'downvoted_answer': 'No, the /sites route is not the right place for that.\n\n/sites enumerates all websites that expose API end-points. StackExchange.com does not expose such an endpoint, so it does not (and will not) appear in the results.'}

This particular exampe corresponds to the following page

Data Fields

The fields present in the dataset contain the following informations:

  • title_body: This is the concatenation of the title and body from the question
  • upvoted_answer: This is the body from the most upvoted answer
  • downvoted_answer: This is the body from the most downvoted answer

Data Splits

We provide multiple splits for this dataset, which each refers to a given community channel. We detail the number of pail for each split below:

Number of pairs
english 13,003
academia 2,465
christianity 1,502
apple 6,696
electronics 4,014
gaming 7,321
askubuntu 9,975
ell 4,438
hermeneutics 1,719
judaism 2,216
diy 2,037
law 1,297
history 1,099
islam 2,037
dba 2,502
cooking 2,064
gamedev 1,598
drupal 1,714
chemistry 1,523
android 2,830
mathoverflow 1,109
magento 1,849
buddhism 770
gis 1,843
graphicdesign 1,565
codereview 666
aviation 903
bicycles 984
japanese 1,124
cs 936
german 1,047
interpersonal 469
biology 832
bitcoin 1,068
blender 1,312
crypto 595
anime 802
boardgames 691
hinduism 343
french 632
fitness 567
economics 441
chinese 611
codegolf 333
linguistics 442
astronomy 371
arduino 595
chess 402
cstheory 314
ja 328
martialarts 254
mathematica 262
dsp 387
ethereum 479
health 299
cogsci 221
earthscience 229
gardening 210
datascience 325
literature 191
matheducators 177
lifehacks 316
engineering 227
ham 158
3dprinting 109
italian 181
emacs 188
homebrew 176
ai 130
avp 152
expatriates 132
elementaryos 224
cseducators 67
hsm 70
expressionengine 91
joomla 124
freelancing 70
crafts 72
genealogy 86
latin 55
hardwarerecs 58
devops 53
coffee 47
beer 57
languagelearning 42
ebooks 54
bricks 79
civicrm 85
bioinformatics 39
esperanto 56
computergraphics 30
conlang 8
korean 28
iota 31
eosio 44
craftcms 26
iot 10
drones 6
cardano 7
materials 1
ru 6,305
softwareengineering 4,238
scifi 5,176
workplace 4,317
serverfault 7,969
rpg 4,212
physics 8,362
superuser 17,425
worldbuilding 2,087
security 3,069
pt 3,718
unix 6,173
meta 61
politics 1,468
stats 2,238
movies 1,577
photo 1,432
wordpress 3,046
music 1,228
philosophy 1,184
skeptics 670
money 1,905
salesforce 1,781
parenting 624
raspberrypi 1,011
travel 1,317
mechanics 842
tex 1,095
ux 1,107
sharepoint 1,691
webapps 1,906
puzzling 784
networkengineering 476
webmasters 854
sports 455
rus 514
space 405
writers 407
pets 322
pm 241
russian 353
spanish 366
sound 365
quant 340
sqa 353
outdoors 221
softwarerecs 348
retrocomputing 135
mythology 103
portuguese 144
opensource 123
scicomp 127
ukrainian 87
patents 137
sustainability 152
poker 115
robotics 110
woodworking 93
reverseengineering 97
sitecore 122
tor 137
vi 95
windowsphone 153
vegetarianism 35
moderators 23
quantumcomputing 46
musicfans 78
tridion 68
opendata 45
tezos 11
stellar 3
or 13
monero 26
stackapps 15
total 210,748

Dataset Creation

Curation Rationale

We primary designed this dataset for sentence embeddings training. Indeed sentence embeddings may be trained using a contrastive learning setup for which the model is trained to associate each sentence with its corresponding pair out of multiple proposition. Such models require many examples to be efficient and thus the dataset creation may be tedious. Community networks such as Stack Exchange allow us to build many examples semi-automatically.

Source Data

The source data are dumps from Stack Exchange

Initial Data Collection and Normalization

We collected the data from the math community.

We filtered out questions which title or body length is bellow 20 characters and questions for which body length is above 4096 characters. When extracting most upvoted answer, we filtered to pairs for which their is at least 100 votes gap between most upvoted and downvoted answers.

Who are the source language producers?

Questions and answers are written by the community developpers of Stack Exchange.

Additional Information

Licensing Information

Please see the license information at: https://archive.org/details/stackexchange

Citation Information

@misc{StackExchangeDataset,
  author = {Flax Sentence Embeddings Team},
  title = {Stack Exchange question pairs},
  year = {2021},
  howpublished = {https://huggingface.co/datasets/flax-sentence-embeddings/},
}

Contributions

Thanks to the Flax Sentence Embeddings team for adding this dataset.

Edit dataset card
Evaluate models HF Leaderboard