niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Does English use the word thou in situations nowadays? For example, to humiliate an opponent by being overly familiar?.
Output: The Only thing I can think of is if a suitor were being extremely formal in a proposal of marriage: Wouldst thou do me the honor.... It might also be used in a light teasing manner, pretending to be formal. For instance, asking someone to dance. Pretty much all personal instances I can think of using thou have been teasing or joking. Example, shouting 'Thou hast brought dishonor upon this family!' at your brother for spilling the orange juice.
Often, I encounter situations (particularly with software or electronics, though occasionally with people) where bugs or strange events happen that cause me to lose trust in said software maintaining the integrity of my data, or said technology being reliable 'in the clutch' (or even scenarios where a person or business entity change a predictable, relied-on pattern of behavior, belief or expectation). Sometimes I feel so strongly about the broken trust, that I feel forced to stop trusting (even if such events leading to the distrust were unintentional). I may still use said software, but I continue to do so very cautiously at that point. The word I believe I'm looking for is similar to 'ized' words, in that it describes a state of 'forced distrust' assigned to myself, not the state or act of the object/person breaking the trust (e.g. 'I've been/become xxxxxxxized by such-and-such...'). I often want to use the word 'disenfranchised' to describe such a state, but I'm not sure that's 100% suitable to the various contexts or the concept of lost trust (even though whatever trust I had was likely unfounded anyway, simply because, at least in the context of software, that trust is simply the lack of distrust due to having not yet experienced any bugs/issues that have built up a negative rapport with said software and what I expect it to do without fail). So what's the word I'm looking for, if such a single word exists?.
Output: You're disillusioned. disillusioned adj having lost one's ideals, illusions, or false ideas about someone or something; disenchanted {Collins English Dictionary} disillusioned (adjective) disenchanted, disappointed, enlightened, indifferent, disabused, sadder and wiser ... {Collins Thesaurus of the English Language}
I want to tell my uncle that I am 'f***ing around' but I certainly can't use the F word. I googled it but I didn't find the phrase/word I am looking for. I am wasting my time doing silly things and I want a phrase or word for that. Can anyone give any formal or polite phrase for that?.
Output: I want to tell my uncle that I am 'f***ing around' but I certainly can't use the F (f*ck) word. If you don't want to say 'f*ck' then say fiddle instead. Both 'fck' and 'fiddle' start with F, so 'fck' can easily be replaced by 'fiddle'. Fiddle around: To spend time doing small things that are not important or necessary Cambridge English dictionary You could substitute 'fiddle' for 'f*ck'. Example: Uncle, I'm fiddling around. (It does not sound vulgar). Single word for that would be loafing. Loaf (verb): Spend one's time in an aimless, idle way. Lexico Example: Uncle, I'm loafing. Or footle. But as others have said, it's unlikely to be understood. Footle (verb): Engage in fruitless activity; mess about. Lexico
Possible Duplicate: How to use 'tens of' and 'hundreds of'? Take this example: Hundreds of pieces were used to create it. What if the amount were something like 20 or 30? What would the equivalent sentence be that would sound natural?.
Output: I confess, my first thought was 'dozens'. While 'tens' is probably more accurate, it doesn't feel as comfortable to say (to me, anyway).
This question comes from a quiz but I could not find the correct answer.
Output: This image comes from a Quiz 'Which English?' which people were invited to take as part of a study into language acquisition. While the Quiz purports to be able to identify which local variant of English you speak from your answers, it actually serves dual purpose and forms part of a study into how language acquisition varies with age. According to the supplementary materials (see p.58) of the paper for which the Quiz was conducted, the correct answer varies by English region so there is no universally correct answer to this question.
I am looking for the term describing when your hair grows kind of in a circular direction (defined by the direction of your hair root). Many people have something like this on the back of their heads or even on their foreheads. I found the term hair crown on dict.cc but I feel like this is either not the correct term for it or it is not very widely used. There is a German article on human hair including a section about these things but I could not find the English equivalent. In German, these are called Haarwirbel meaning something like hair whirl.
Output: You probably want to use hair whorl. You'll notice that it's virtually the same as the German term, except with the alternate spelling of whorl/whirl. In English, whirl is the verb form, whorl is the noun.
When one buys a house with a fully done basement, is it known as a furnished basement or a finished basement? I've heard both used, but I was always under the impression that the right usage is a furnished basement. I thought, being that the words sound similar, the two terms became confused and eventually interchangeable, but perhaps both are correct. Regardless, any logical, coherent answer to this question would be appreciated!.
Output: Both expressions are used, they just refer to different contexts: Finished basement: a basement that has floors, ceilings, and walls like the rooms in the main part of the house. (M-W) Furnished basement: A basement equipped with furniture so that you can comfortably live in it. From fullhomeliving.com Please compare with a partially finished basement: From Tim Wohforth Blog
I am looking for a generalized term for 'the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority.' Fundamentalism fits to some degree, but has a religious connotation whereas people can hold the above belief without also believing in a deity or god. Also, people who identify as fundamentalist have a much different usage for the word. Any suggestions for a term that captures the belief without referring specificity to the religious? ETA: Very good suggestions. To clarify a bit more, what I am looking for is a word or short phrase that emphasizes a reliance on an unquestionable authority. Many words that have that connotation also seem to to be used to mean a steadfast belief.
Output: Those who want to return to the 'foundations' of their particular ideology or concept or system practice fundamentalism; those who return to the roots or radices (radix is Latin for 'root', cf. English radish, eradicate) practice radicalism. There often isn't much of a difference between the two. As you say, fundamentalism is more often used to describe religious movements, but this is by no means exclusively so. Either word will do.
Let's imagine a hypothetical business: Mistake Corp. Mistake Corp makes a lot of mistakes, and as it turns out, the reason they make these mistakes is typically the same. 90% of the time Mistake Corp makes a mistake, it's because of misinformation. I suppose misinformation is the opposite of a linchpin for Mistake Corp. I'd like to be able to use the word like so: 'Misinformation is the [anti-linchpin] of Mistake Corp' What non-ambiguous word, other than 'anti-linchpin', can I use to describe something that is a frequent cause for mistakes to those who aren't as English-savvy?.
Output: I'd say that misinformation is the pitfall for Mistake Corp. A hidden or unsuspected danger or difficulty: 'There are obvious pitfalls of such behavior, if it ever developed into a habit.' They indeed seem to fall in time and again; check the box for unsuspected...
I've been reading Michael Innes books again (in this case 'From London Far'), and I came across the word gratricidal, in the a passage about a Scottish castle... Castle Moila was famous alike in legend, history, and fiction. To these courts Magnus Barelegs has brought fire; Donald, Lord of the Isles, a traitor's promise; Macleod of Lewis a gratricidal knife. Here had come Prince Charles Edward, thwarted of a throne, and daughters of a hereditary captain had offered him manchets and wine. So what is gratricide? Attempts to find this online are stymied by the spelling being corrected to fratricide.
Output: Magnus Barelegs, named in the question, was Magnus Olafsen who ruled in the 11th century. Therefore the 'MacLeod of Lewis' mentioned must be contemporary, or perhaps somewhat later. The Lewis branch of the clan MacLeod, descended from Leod, a son of Olaf the Black, was a notoriously bloodthirsty family, particularly among themselves : The traditional progenitor of the Macleods was Leod, whom tradition made a son of Olaf the Black, King of Mann and the Isles. Tradition gave Leod two sons, Tormod - progenitor of the Macleods of Harris and Dunvegan (Siol Tormoid); and Torquil - progenitor of the Macleods of Lewis (Siol Torcaill). In the 16th and early seventeenth centuries the chiefly line of the Clan Macleod of The Lewes was extinguished due to family infighting. This feuding directly led to the fall of the clan, and loss of its lands to the Clan Mackenzie. The modern line of chiefs of Clan Macleod of The Lewes are represented by the leading family of a cadet branch of the clan - the Macleods of Raasay. ScotWeb Thus the reference is almost certainly a misprint for 'fratricide'. Note : As one of the Johnstones of Annan (Numquam non Paratus - 'never unprepared') whose ancestors were prone to sneak over the border and raid the English, one can make no criticism of other Scottish clans.
What should be your response when your boss thanks you for using his own resource allotted to you and you respect your boss and cannot respond him like It's ok or you're welcome.
Output: Some appropriate responses would be: 'My pleasure.' 'Don't mention it.' 'You're [most] welcome.' 'I'm glad I could help/be of help.' 'Oh [no], thank you! Always at your service.' 'It was not a problem at all. [I'm] glad I could be of assistance.' And, of course, you could use 'sir' or 'ma'am' to make your response even more polite.
For example, we agreed with a friend to meet in a week, and the day before the meeting I want to make sure nothing has changed about the agreement. So I'd come up with something like Are we still meeting tomorrow? Is there a better (shorter) way to say/ask this?.
Output: Your phrase is perfectly expectable. The only obvious shortening would be: Are we still on? You could shorten it further to: We still on? But at some point you aren't really gaining anything. Other alternatives: Are we still on for tomorrow? You still up for lunch tomorrow? We still good for lunch? Is tomorrow still good? And so on. Most of these, by the way, are extremely informal and are primarily heard in purely conversational English.
Which one is correct in a sentence? He don't He doesn't I guess 'he doesn't' should be correct because he is third person singular but I've seen some people using do with he. Which one is correct?.
Output: He doesn't is correct, because it is the contraction of He does not. He don't is incorrect, because it it the contraction of He do not. Subject-Verb agreement requires that he goes with does. He don't, however, is slang and certainly used in many places, but you would never see it in professional writing, because of Subject-Verb agreement.
I've never understood the term 'humor me'. Is it meant sarcastically? Please explain.
Output: Humor, as a verb, means literally to indulge or tolerate someone's humor (noun), where the noun intends not the modern sense of joking or a transient mood but the now archaic sense of temperament or idiosyncracy or eccentricity. Humor me thus means indulge mein the sense of gimme some slack or gimme a break, but less aggressive than these. It is used most often as an appeal, at once gentle and ironic, to an interlocutor who interrupts one's discourse; it means, approximately, Let's treat what I'm saying (or doing) and you're objecting to as mere personal whimon that basis, allow me to finish, and then you can have your say.
The past tense of run is ran. However, you couldn't say something was being 'ran' poorly i.e. the business was ran poorly. However, saying 'runned' would be wrong as well. What would be the word to use in this instance: The government will be prevented from being ____ properly.
Output: The passive voice in English uses the past participle, not the simple past. Sing-sang-sung. Song being sung. Ring-rang-rung. Bell being rung. Do-did-done. Deeds being done. Speak-spoke-spoken. Word being spoken. Break-broke-broken. Rules being broken. Run-ran-run. Government being run. (Your confusion probably stems from the fact that for many verbs, the past participle and the simple past are identical, as in make-made-made, play-played-played, etc.)
Is there a single word in English to describe someone who is too worried about their health and even thinks they are sick, thus, taking frequent clinical tests or taking too much predictive medication,etc.
Output: The word is hypochondriac and they suffer from hypochondria. noun A person who is abnormally anxious about their health. [ODO] ODO also gives the explanation of using hypo- ('under') rather than hyper- ('over') which one might expect if someone is overly anxious about something: late Middle English: via late Latin from Greek hupokhondria, denoting the soft body area below the ribs, from hupo 'under' + khondros 'sternal cartilage'. Melancholy was originally thought to arise from the liver, gall bladder, spleen, etc..
As in 'the timeslot given to completing the task'. Would also be interested to hear if there's different usages for different scenarios.
Output: According to dictionary.com, it should be two separate words 'time slot'. This useful article on compound words offers the following advice: Many of them are found in the dictionary and are not subject to our interpretation, our judgment, or our whim. Start with your dictionary before applying any other guidelines. I would be inclined to follow that advice, and use the dictionary version: time slot.
This is something I always get confuse with (native language German). As far as I know 'did + verb' is something done and finished in the past. But isn't it the same with 'verb + ed'?.
Output: The normal way of talking about something in the past tense is to use 'verb + ed'. For example, 'I finished the project on time'. You might use 'did + verb' if you wanted to emphasise the point. In the previous example, if someone claimed that you completed the project late, you might say 'I did finish the project on time, and here's the evidence'. Using 'did + verb' where there is no doubt about the truth sounds strange to native English speakers. Saying something like 'I did go shopping for food yesterday' will probably lead to the response 'Well nobody said you didn't!'
Invaluable intuitively seems to imply a higher degree of importance. Please explain the difference between valuable and invaluable and in what context you'd use one or the other.
Output: Technically, invaluable works like priceless. They mean that something is of a value which cannot be expressed in numbers. For example great memories, happiness, health, or whatever else you prefer. They are invaluable, because they cannot be sold or bought. They have no price. On the other hand, valuable means something is of a high value, which can be expressed in numbers. Like a golden ring. It's valuable, because it costs $1000.
What is the difference between oath, pledge & vow and where should each word be used? An example should suffice.
Output: To me, the nouns pledge and vow are closer in meaning, to the point of being synonyms. They mean 'a solemn promise' (this is NOAD's main definition for both). Oath, while close in meaning, typically has an additional sense of invoking the divine (e.g., an oath taken on the bible). A verb with close meaning to all three is to swear. In addition to this meaning of 'solemn promise', each of these three nouns has specific additional meanings. an oath maybe refer to a profanity or a swear word vows maybe have specific meaning of commiting oneself to a given life, e.g. marriage or monastic vows pledge has an additional legal meaning, synonymous to surety, bond or guarantee
Coming from a technical background I'm slightly confused. What is the difference between simultaneously and concurrently? How do we use these words?.
Output: I just looked these up in an online dictionary; this is what I found: concurrently: overlapping in duration simultaneously: at the same instant Both of them mean 'at the same time,' and are almost interchangeable. That said, if I had to point out a slight difference, I'd say that concurrently occurs over a longer time, and is a bit less synchronized than simultaneously. For example: The two processors were running concurrently, then they crashed simultaneously. In that example, I wouldn't swap the two words in question.
I was wondering why we say 'something is missing' instead of 'something is missed'? If missed is an adjective then why we use it that way? E.g.: 'The sword is missing'.
Output: Imagine you have a collection of objects including a sword, one day you can't see the sword and you don't know where it's gone, then you can say 'The sword is missing', meaning it's absent. Now imagine you had a sword and you gave it to someone, or you got rid of it, the point being you know where it's gone and you don't have it. You see a snake in your lounge and you wish you had your sword to cut its head, you miss the sword and you think 'the sword is missed' (passive).
Possible Duplicate: 'Unregister' vs 'Deregister' I'm just wondering what the consensus would be on the antonym of register. The intended use of the word is for a website. Users can register for the site, and should they desire, they can also 'unregister'. Can you list a set of words that would fit the problem domain?.
Output: There are several words including 'cancel', 'eradicate', 'rescind', but I think the most relevant word is: Deregister Taken from here
Possible Duplicate: 'Nikki's and Alice's X' vs. 'Nikki and Alice's X' Consider describing the wedding of X and Y. If I want to avoid the overly-formal and poor-flowing 'wedding of', it is more correct to say 'X and Y's wedding' or 'X's and Y's wedding'? I acknowledge a very similar question has already been asked: What possessive forms are used for mutual 1st person ownership? But unfortunately the example given is able to be easily phrased a different way and so respondents have been able to get away with avoiding the direct question. Let's face it, we come across the need to get across the concept of mutual possession all the time and we don't always want to have to resort to the more tortured 'Z of X and Y' as with the French language. NB: In some cases, people get around this problem by dropping the apostrophes altogether and 'adjectivising' the owners, especially if the owners are actually plural entities themselves. Eg. The 'Mazda and Mitsubishi combined outputs' instead of the 'Mazda's and Mitsubishi's combined outputs'. Let's not let this muddy the waters though.
Output: This site states it very well: A less-often faced decision involves the use of apostrophes where multiple owners are named. Where two or more people own one item together, place an apostrophe before an 's' only after the second-named person. For example: Incorrect: Bill's and Mary's car was a lemon, leading them to seek rescission of their contract under the state's lemon law. Correct: Bill and Mary's car was a lemon, leading them to seek rescission of their contract under the state's lemon law. However, when two or more people own two or more items separately, each individual's name should take the possessive form. For example: Incorrect: Joanne and Todd's cars were bought from the same dealer; both proved useless, even though Joanne's car was an import and Todd's was a domestic model. Correct: Joanne's and Todd's cars were bought from the same dealer; both proved useless, even though Joanne's car was an import and Todd's was a domestic model. ('The Legal Writing Teaching Assistant: The Law Student's Guide to Good Writing', by Marc A. Grinker) So, saying 'X's and Y's weddings' (note that it's weddings not wedding) has a different meaning from 'X and Y's wedding'. The first one is denoting two separate weddings, and the two subjects named are not getting married to one another, but the second one is the one you are probably trying to say.
Possible Duplicate: Is using the possessive 's correct in 'the car's antenna'? If someone owns something I would say: Mom's car. But if the owner is not a person, does it actually own it according to English rules or common usage? Which phrase is right? The house windows. The house's windows. The windows of the house. (Or something like that.) (Feel free to modify this question so it would be clear for other people.).
Output: The second and third phrases are correct: The house's windows The windows of the house There is no requirement in the English language that possessors be people, and it's extremely common for inanimate objects to be used with the possessive 's. There is very little difference between the version that uses 's and the version that uses of. Related: Is using the possessive ''s' correct in 'the car's antenna'?
Possible Duplicate: Pertaining to the Senses Hello. If I want to say my project has great graphics, I say it is visually stunning. Now, what would I say, following a similar format to that, if my project had great 'audio/sounds/'?.
Output: Technically probably 'aurally', perhaps 'audibly' would be better or just 'stunning audio'.
If someone is asked to do something important, they might say 'I'll prioritize that'. But if someone is asked to put something aside to work on something else more important, what could they say? In the past I've used 'de-prioritize', but I'm not sure if that's actually a word. Is it a word? Is there some other way to get this point across?.
Output: Deprioritize is a word so feel free to use it :)
What's the difference between the two? Later the doctors found out that my case was a bit different. Later on the doctors found out that my case was a bit different. Is one more common than the other?.
Output: 'later' and 'later on' have the same meaning. Sometimes 'later on' is preferred because it has another, smoother rhythmical flow. You can consider 'later on' as just a variant for 'later'.
What is the proper way to write this term when writing product documentation? Hyphenated or not? drop down list or drop-down list?.
Output: If it's just the compound adjective, use drop-down list. Note, however, that there are classes of components in various frameworks that are called DropDown or DropDownList or various alternatives of the same thing. In such cases use the framework name as is.
Wikipedia says: A postscript may be a sentence, a paragraph, or occasionally many paragraphs added to, often hastily and incidentally, after the signature of a letter or (sometimes) the main body of an essay or book. When all letters were handwritten, and adding a new thought to the letter would have likely involved rewriting the entire letter, a postscript had obvious practicality. Now, however, one can just as easily add the thought to the main text.
Output: I use a P.S. rather often in my emails, when the content of the P.S. is unrelated to the rest of the body of the message. For example, if I was writing two or three paragraphs about a database problem to a colleague, but I knew his wife had been recently released from the hospital, I might end the message with something like: P.S. I hope your wife is doing better. That's an easy way to make an abrupt transition to something unrelated to the rest of the message. Such modern usage isn't driven by an inability to conveniently insert the text (which is easily done electronically) it's more a matter of how much that closing thought is related to the rest of the message. P.S. You know you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia, right?
I know that 'ad hoc' is a Latin phrase and I've typically seen it used without a hyphen. However, many technical articles use a hyphen. For example: Ad-hoc mode is useful for establishing a network where wireless infrastructure does not exist or where services are not required. Is 'ad hoc' always the correct usage? If it can be 'ad-hoc', is the usage of the hyphen specific to certain circumstances?.
Output: The rule-of-thumb I've found in researching this issue, (though no reference to a specific style guide was referenced one site linked here) is if Latin and other foreign phrases are not hyphenated in their original language, then they are not hyphenated in English.
I have to write this on a website, which one is better? Are you looking for [...](description of our service)? You've come / You came to the right place!.
Output: When you mention something that happened in the past, its timing isn't mentioned and is perhaps no significance to your mention, and you're mentioning it because of its significance in relation to something happening in the present then the present perfect is suitable. In this case, 'You came to the right place' isn't grammatically incorrect, but it doesn't express as explicitly what 'You've come to the right place' does: That, because of your having come here, you are now, in the present, in the right place (to receive good service, to eat a delicious meal, etc.). This use of the present perfect is summarized here.
Often when making websites, I will create an HTML form object that I will use in two places: once on a page that allows a user to add a new object, and once on a page that allows a user to edit existing objects. What is a word that describes such a form? It isn't so much a management form, since managing implies that the object is already created. It isn't a creation form, since that implies we are only making new ones. More generally, it's common to have a workflow capable of adding new data and editing existing data. Is there a common English word or phrase to describe such workflows clearly?.
Output: In webdev, this is called an upsert form-- a portmanteau of insert and update.
Is there a word that describes a person who spreads others' secrets without their permission?.
Output: 'gossiper' fits perfectly. (not specific for secrets, though) a person given to gossiping and divulging personal information about others - TFD 'yenta' is a slang word for a person, especially a woman, who is considered to be meddlesome or gossipy. a person who habitually reveals personal or sensational facts about others. e.g. 'the couple's loud quarrel had the building's yentas yapping for a week.' MW related words: blab, gossip, gossipmonger, newsmonger, rumormonger, scandalmonger, tabby, talebearer, taleteller, tattle, tattler, tattletale, telltale, whisperer.
What's the verb for 'to drink small amounts of drink' (especially to enjoy it as slowly and long as possibly)? What's the drinking equivalent of 'nibble'?.
Output: sip is the common word, but it does not denote 'to enjoy it as slowly and long as possibly'. For that, I suggest savor (UK: savour) Taste (good food or drink) and enjoy it to the full He has dinner and actually savors the wine, rather than drinking to get drunk. 1.1 Enjoy or appreciate (something pleasant) to the full, especially by lingering over it (Oxford Dictionaries) sip Drink (something) by taking small mouthfuls. 'I sat sipping coffee' 'she sipped at her tea' (Oxford Dictionaries) You can definitely savor a good cup of coffee. A difference is this: if your coffee is hot, you can use she sipped her coffee because it was hot but you wouldn't really say she savored her coffee because it was hot. You'd say she savored her coffee because it was delicious. sip is also a occurs as a noun, meaning A small mouthful of liquid (Oxford) And we say stuff like take a sip (very common) and have a sip. She took a sip of wine is equal to she sipped her wine (one time). Thesaurus.com lists these synonyms for sip (verb): drink in, extract, imbibe, partake, quaff, sample, savor, sup, swallow, taste, toss Only savor includes the notion of enjoy as part of its definition. Quaff means to 'drink (alcoholic beverages) heartily' but does not include the sense of slow enjoyment. In fact, it can be more of an antonym, since 'drink heartedly' can entail drinking quickly.
It's a sudden random question I have but I distinctly remember there being another phrase, probably of another language, which means exactly the same as 'word for word'. What is it?.
Output: Verbatim: (from TFD) using exactly the same words; corresponding word for word: a verbatim report of the conversation. or literally: in a literal manner; word for word: translated the Greek passage literally.
Is there a single word that means 'Being merry at Christmas' but excludes being merry or happy at New Year?.
Output: One might propose yulegaiety or yuleglee, although whether that implies anniennui I am uncertain.
If you look at this gif of a drone replacing a lightbulb, you'll understand what concept I'm trying to find a word for. Using dynamite for fishing would be another example. I'm looking for a word that describes the use of high-tech equipment, for a purpose that is normally filled by low-tech equipment, usually done out of laziness or amusement. This is specifically relating to technology (overengineering is very close).
Output: 'Bringing a gun to a knife fight' or 'Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut' or 'Killing a mosquito with a bazooka' are idioms that convey the sense of overkill, but perhaps not the overly-complex nature of the technology. 'If you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail' is another close-but-maybe-not-quite-right idiom. It might also be a 'Rube Goldberg solution' or a 'Heath Robinson' way of getting something done, or the solution might simply 'overengineered'. Sources and related questions that might give you some ideas: 'To shoot out of cannon into sparrows' Phrase for overusing just-learned skills? A word that means 'a solution in search of a problem' Saying that refers to not going overboard in solving a problem when a simple solution exists What's the word for Unnecessary Complexity
Suppose there is a long sentence like: This London hit show took America by storm, full of charm, humour and delightful songs that make it a perfect theatrical event for the entire family. And you want to cut it off after an arbitrary specified amount of characters like so: This London hit show took America by storm, full of charm, humour and delightful songs that make... What is the name for the missing text indicated by the three-dot ellipsis?.
Output: an omission or to omit a part of the sentence use an ellipsis Ellipsis (plural ellipses; from the Ancient Greek: , elleipsis, 'omission' or 'falling short') is a series of dots that usually indicates an intentional omission of a word, sentence, or whole section from a text without altering its original meaning. From the Wiki for Ellipsis
Were Shakespeare books translated to contemporary English? Which version is more common? Is there a rule to choose which books will have its language updated? Are poems updated too? From which year I should expect that books have a 'translation'?.
Output: Shakespeare is considered Modern English, and is almost never rendered in contemporary English. It is usually edited for spelling and other reasons, however, depending on your edition. There is no 'freshness date' that triggers a translation, though. It depends in large part on which version of English is being cited. Much of Middle English (e.g., Chaucer) is updated to be readable by high-school students, but left intact in scholarly works and upper-level college texts. Old English texts (Beowulf, 'The Dream of the Rood', The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the like) are almost always translated, except for students of Old English (or Linguistics) who are studying the language.
How should you reply to 'what's up?'.
Output: 'What's up' means 'What's happening.' I usually just reply 'nothing.' because nothing is happening to me. But, there are alternatives, such as the usual reply to a greeting: Not much Nothing. Yourself? I'm good, yourself? Good. How are you? However, if there is something that you would like to tell the other person e.g. You've sold your car, it might go like this: A: What's up? B: I've sold my car. A: Good on you mate!
I was laying in bed or lying in bed?.
Output: According to Google NGrams, 'lying in bed' is much more common. 'To lay' is a transitive verb. It can be reflexive - 'I lay myself', 'I am laying myself', 'I was laying myself' - but it requires an object noun. 'To lie' by contrast is intransitive. It is an indicator of state, not action. Thus, your statement, which indicates your state in the past perfect, should use this verb and not 'lay'. If 'I was laying in bed', the connotation is that I was in the act of laying something in that bed, and the sentence is not proper unless that object is either stated explicitly or inferred by context; it can range from the innocent reflexive ('I was laying myself in bed') to the innocent transitive ('I was laying my infant daughter in bed') to the sexual ('I was laying my girlfriend in bed') to the absurd ('I was laying eggs in bed').
Possible Duplicate: When someone asks, 'How are you?' Every time when my colleges from USA ask me 'How are you?' I don't know what should I answer. I think that answer like 'Fine, thanks. What about you?' is not perfect. Could you provide patterns for such situation?.
Output: Fine, thanks. What about you? There's nothing wrong with your answer, although it might get tiresome if you word it exactly the same way, every time you're asked. But the solution for that is to merely use a few simple variations: I'm doing great today - and you? Doing well, thanks. How about you? Not bad, yourself? Thanks for asking, I'm doing fine. I think it's usually best to avoid clever responses to such a standard question, particularly when you're with new acquaintences. Sure, you could reply with something like, 'I'm happy as a clam,' but that's not very professional, and it would probably undermine your credibility rather than enhance it. Such jocular ways of answering are best left said among close acquaintences when everyone is kidding around.
There is a person in my current daily life who never admits his wrongs. He is always quick to blame others first and always believes that he is not wrong. Even when he is proven wrong, he still believes he shouldn't be sorry and isn't wrong. Is there a single-word adjective to describe this behavior? If not, a better way to describe this person would also make do. While stubborn and irresponsible fit, I feel like they don't tell the whole story. By this, I mean if I were to say to others that he is very stubborn and irresponsible, it is not implicitly implied that he blames others and never acknowledges his own fault. Edit: I believe my question is different because the person will also never acknowledge their wrongdoing. On top of blaming others, even after it has been proven to be their fault, they will not admit wrong doing. So aside from blaming others, they refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they have committed a mistake.
Output: Sounds like a remorseless/unrepentant person. ODO: remorseless ADJECTIVE 1 Without regret or guilt. 'We're given to understand that because Charlie is tormented by guilt that he somehow occupies a higher rung on the moral ladder than his unrepentant, remorseless elder brother.' unrepentant ADJECTIVE Showing no regret for one's wrongdoings. 'he was unrepentant and said that his comments were completely accurate'
Is it improper to say 'me and Person X'? I always hear it said as 'Person X and I', but have personally learned to say 'me and Person X'. Is there a difference between the two versions and is one of them incorrect? 'Person and I' just sounds more formal to me.
Output: You would use 'X and I' if you and X are the subject of the verb. You would use 'X and me' if you and X are the object of the verb. For example: 'Smith and I are going to the store.' 'She gave the apples to Jones and me.'
Is the following correct, or is there more to it? 'I forgot his name' I knew his name, but I forgot it. 'I forget his name' I keep forgetting his name. Where using 'forget' basically means that you tried to remember this information before as well, but you couldn't then either.
Output: I forgot his name means that at some time past, I no longer remembered his name, but leaves open whether I can currently remember it. I forget his name can be construed in a couple of different ways: I forgot his name and I still can't remember it (but I hope you know who I'm talking about even so). I keep on forgetting his name. Both are valid; the context might disambiguate between the two.
I just noticed that the word in the movie title The Pursuit of Happyness is spelled with a y instead of an i. But my spell checker highlights 'happyness' as a mistake. Why is it spelled differently here? Shouldn't it be happiness?.
Output: From the article on Chris Gardner on ABC's site: The word 'happiness' in the title is deliberately misspelled, just as it was on the wall of a day care center where Gardner once sought care for his young son, Chris Jr., during some of his worst days.' Chris (Will Smith) even points out the misspelling to the Chinese care-giver that the mural decorating his son's daycare is spelled incorrectly. Chris wanted to make sure that his son was taught things the correct way, so that he could grow up to be an educated man and make something great of himself. Chris 'took offense' to the fact that the world happiness was spelled wrong on the wall and became irritated by it. But the word comes to signify Chris' own pursuit of happiness. To quote from the movie: It was right then that I started thinking about Thomas Jefferson on the Declaration of Independence and the part about our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I remember thinking how did he know to put the pursuit part in there? That maybe happiness is something that we can only pursue and maybe we can actually never have it. No matter what.
Possible Duplicate: Person, Persons, People, Peoples Correct usage of 'persons' (vs. 'people') What's the correct plural of person? Persons or people?.
Output: Both are correct and both are required in English language, you just have to know how to use them. People denotes a group, an unspecified number of people, for example: The people in the area have been warned about the possible risks. Persons refers to persons individually and denotes an exact number which can be, or should be able to, expressed in numbers, for example: Which persons are responsible for this fire? Remember that persons is usually used in law and legal documents, like: Lessor shall not be responsible for damage to Lessee's vehicle, whether or not such damage is caused by other vehicles or persons in the parking lot and surrounding area. Only such persons who are nominated in accordance with the procedures set forth in this section ...
It seems that exemption and exception have the same meaning. However, they seem to be used differently. When should we use one and not the other?.
Output: They do have similar meanings. They both refer to leaving out an item from a set. The difference is how they are left out. an exemption is left out of the set by an authority or man-made rule. For example, a tax exemption, is money you received but does not have to be counted as part of our income because the tax laws explicitly say it's OK to ignore (presumably with the law created for some economic incentive purpose). an exception has no such man-made connotations (i.e. an exemption might be considered a kind of exception, but might be totally arbitrary). The number 2 is an exception to the idea that all prime numbers are odd (one would never use exemption in that context).
Possible Duplicate: When is it correct to use 'yourself' and 'myself' (versus 'you' and 'me')? In a conversation, how is is correct to say: You can contact John, Jane or me for more information ... or You can contact John, Jane or myself for more information ...
Output: Me. Myself is reflexive: it denotes that the person (me) is doing something to that person (myself) and no other. It's not correct to use a reflexive pronoun unless the recipient of the action is the person doing that action. You can't mix you with myself. You can talk to me. I can talk to myself.
The synonym of trope is defined as metaphor, but there seem to be some other implications when using the word trope that metaphor does not have. Can anyone explain this simply and sensibly?.
Output: The word trope has shot to prominence in the last couple of decades... And as this article points out, 'Trope is the New Meme', which I read in two ways. Use of the word itself has become a meme (pattern of behavior that spreads throughout a culture). But also, the meaning of the word has shifted for many people. To quote from that article... trope has to do with an agreed-upon narrative, an archetypal reading of a story or situation according to the simplest and most widely-held beliefs, a kind of narrative stereotype. Or, as the excellent site tvtropes puts it... tropes are devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members' minds and expectations. I actually studied literature over 40 years ago, but I can't say I remember us using the word in the 'typical' dictionary sense as given by OED... A figure of speech which consists in the use of a word or phrase in a sense other than that which is proper to it; also, in casual use, a figure of speech; figurative language. So far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to use it like that, I'm not going to argue with them or their dictionaries. But most current usages are more in line with my first two definitions above. Here's how tvtropes knits the two definitions together... Merriam-Webster gives a definition of 'trope' as a 'figure of speech.' In storytelling, a trope is just that a conceptual figure of speech, a storytelling shorthand for a concept that the audience will recognize and understand instantly.
Possible Duplicate: How and why have some words changed to a complete opposite? I have noticed that: horrible means bad terrible means bad horrific means bad So why does terrific mean good?.
Output: The meaning of terrific has actually changed over time. According to EtymOnline: 1660s, 'frightening,' from L. terrificus 'causing terror or fear,' from terrere 'fill with fear' (see terrible) + root of facere 'to make' (see factitious). Weakened sensed of 'very great, severe' (e.g. terrific headache) appeared 1809; colloquial sense of 'excellent' began 1888. So terrific started out on the same lines as horrific, but then gained a positive colloquial sense in the late 1800s. The phenomenon in which a previously bad word takes on a good connotation is discussed here, in which it is called amelioration. Amelioration (which has occurred for terrific, wicked, luxury) is a type of semantic change. While it is unclear what precisely happened to terrific, there are a few ways in which this change can occur: Linguistic forces Psychological forces Sociocultural forces Cultural/encyclopedic forces You can read more about it here. It has been suggested (though there is little proof) that terrific became 'good' because of an association with the popular media via King Kong. Other than this theory, though, it is clear that terrific underwent some kind of semantic change between the late 1800s and early 1900s. In 1930 Popular Science was still using the term to mean something 'frightening', and by the 1940s it was used mostly to mean 'good'.
I have recently heard in a Tv show that some guy said: He is stable-ish for now! What does this term mean exactly? couldn't find anything, what's the occasion to use? can we use the -ish suffix for any adjective?.
Output: -ish 1) A suffix that makes any word or phrase more vague. 2) It can be used with any word and it's applied at the end to make the word into meaning 'kind of'. For eg. me = 'how are you feeling today?' you = 'i am feeling okay-ish' More 3) A suffix used to guesstimate a number or time. When referring to time '-ish' means within plus or minus 15 minutes. When referring to a number '-ish' means within 5. For eg. Guy1: What time is the party? Guy2: 7:30-ish Other definition: 4) suffix. used to describe an approximation, or likeness of the subject. (can be used alone as an adjective) So, here the meaning of the stable-ish to he is okay-okay or not good not bad.. Update reference by the request of @trevorD The term = ish
Consider the following sentences: The last few years has seen the building of the new church. and The last few years have seen the building of the new church. As a native speaker, both of these sentences 'sound' correct to me. Is only one of them correct, are they both correct or is each one only correct in specific circumstances. This was a question one of my students asked me, so if there is a relevant grammar rule, that would be great.
Output: Years, being plural, takes the plural form have. But the last few years, being a single span of time, takes the singular form, has. That's why they both sound okay to you. The first option is generally preferred in formal writing.
When telling a story about myself from the past, I have found myself in an internal debate over whether the correct way to segue into the present is: That was me twelve years ago. Or: That was I twelve years ago. My instincts tell me the first is correct (object pronoun after a verb and it sounds better to my ears). But, I'm not sure if pronouns after linking verbs should be object pronouns. Which is correct?.
Output: Professor Geoffrey Pullum has this to say: Myth: Expressions like 'It was me' and 'She was taller than him' are incorrect; the correct forms are 'It was I' and 'She was taller than he.' Pullum responds: The forms with nominative pronouns sound ridiculously stuffy today. In present-day English, the copular verb takes accusative pronoun complements and so does 'than.' My advice would be this: If someone knocks at your door, and you say 'Who's there?' and what you hear in response is 'It is I,' don't let them in. It's no one you want to know. 'People have been living in fear of grammar rules that don't exist,' said Pullum, who wrote The Cambridge Grammar with Rodney Huddleston of the University of Queensland, Australia. 'We're going into the 21st century carrying grammar books from the 20th century that haven't shaken off grammar myths from the 19th century,' said Pullum.
Possible Duplicate: What rules make 'Remember me, who am your friend' grammatical? This is a line spoken by the Emperor to Luke in Star Wars. I always wondered if this is grammatically correct. Luke says something like 'You are mistaken ...' which the Emperor answers with No, it is you who are mistaken! Why wouldn't he say No, it is you who is mistaken! instead? I don't know what rules apply here but my stomach tells me the latter is (at least also) correct, although you would say 'you are mistaken'. It feels as if he should be referring to 'you' in the third person. Could you please shed some light? Are both correct or if not which one is correct? And why?.
Output: The sentence It is you who are mistaken is a Cleft sentence, derived from the base sentence (shown here with focussed subject You) You are mistaken by the Clefting process, which extracts the focussed NP (you) to be the predicate of a dummy clause with It subject and some form of be as verb (generating It is you in this case), and then making the non-focussed rest of the original sentence into a relative clause modifying the focus NP (generating who are mistaken in this case). Verb agreement is invariant under clefting, so if the predicate is are mistaken in the original, it will still be are mistaken in the clefted variant.