instruction stringlengths 15 150 | question stringlengths 18 12.1k | answer stringlengths 8 26k |
|---|---|---|
How can I negate or confirm a question tersely using negation? | From a logical point of view, the answer no negates the negation, and yes confirms it. But how would a native speaker react when s/he asked "Don't you love me any more?" and got yes or no as answer? German has a special word, doch, which is used only for negating a negation in a question. But without this word it's difficult to respond tersely, and in a way that would be understood. | Yes, that's true. It can be difficult in English to be both brief and understood. In English usage, when we ask a question in a negative form, we usually anticipate a negative answer, so any brief answer will probably be construed that way. In fact, this is so true that the opposing answer, "Yes," to that same question, would often be simply confusing. To be perfectly clear that that one still loves the one asking this question, you would really need to expound more: Yes, I still love you or Of course, I still love you or something like that. A positive question, You still love me? or Do you still love me? does not necessarily carry this negative expectation. A simple yes or no will not likely be misunderstood. |
Is there any difference between being ill and sick? | I can say I'm ill or I'm sick. But what is the difference between the usage of these terms? I've heard that one can use sick for longer-term and ill for shorter-term, but is that really correct? How are these terms different for native speakers? | While those might mean the same for the laymen, from a medical point of view, there is a difference between illness and sickness. Medical sociology has long made the distinction between illness and sickness. Illness is the objective diagnosis that an external impartial observer is able to make based on the constellation of symptoms which the patient presents. Sickness is the social role that the patient adopts as the patient and other concerned stakeholders, in relationship with the patient, interpret the meaning of the illness. From what I get of it, someone might see themselves as sick (with the social/role aspect of it) but not actually be ill (in a medical sense). Also, this paper might provide some useful reading. |
Is there any difference between “which” and “that”? | What is the difference between the words which and that? For example I have the following sentences: “I have a car which is blue.” “I have a car that is blue.” Are there any rules specifying usage of which and that? | There is no difference in meaning. There is a difference in use. Relative clauses—the sort of clause you use, “which is blue” / “that is blue”, which tells us something more about the noun referred to by which or that—are of two sorts: restrictive and nonrestrictive. A restrictive clause restricts the noun it modifies to what’s defined in the clause. The clause identifies the noun and is essential to your meaning. For instance: I looked at the books which he sent me last week. … The books I’m talking about are the ones which he sent me last week. A nonrestrictive clause adds information about the noun it modifies. The clause is almost parenthetical, it could be left out without changing your meaning: I looked at the books, which he sent me last week. … The books have already been identified in our discourse, I’m just throwing in a by-the-way comment about when I got them. Note the comma in that sentence: it sets the clause off and ‘marks’ it as something added. Now Which/That … That may only be used at the head of a restrictive clause. It is not used, in any register, with a nonrestrictive clause. Which may be used at the head of either sort of clause. You may encounter another rule, which is loudly disputed. About a century ago the Fowler brothers suggested a “division of labour”—using that only at the head of restrictive clauses and which only at the head of nonrestrictive clauses. This proposal made sense to many people, it was picked up by several prestigious grammarians and style guides, and in consequence it’s often cited as a “rule”. But the fact is, this division has never been generally adopted, and there’s no reason to follow it. I myself don’t follow it; quite the opposite, I employ “which” wherever I can, because I believe that that has entirely too much work to do already and a multiplicity of thats is likely to confuse the reader. But that’s my choice. You’re free to follow your own rule, as long as you don’t put that at the head of a non-restrictive clause. |
How would a native speaker understand "Time flies like an arrow"? | “Time flies like an arrow” is often cited to illustrate problems with computer aided language processing. It is also an example of how ambiguous English can be. But is it really so ambiguous? How would it be understood by a native speaker? | The sentence 'Time flies like an arrow', with or without context, is very unambiguous to the native speaker. 'Time' is the subject, it metaphorically 'flies' as fast and without stopping 'like an arrow. But the phrase is often accompanied, either before or after, by Fruit flies like a banana. which is word-for-word parallel, but not exactly by part of speech. The parallelism is both strange and funny on its own (it makes banana seem to fly, as a fruit, in the manner of the arrow), but also reflects on the pair 'time flies' (which are presumably a strange kind of fly). Time flies like an arrow Time (Subject) flies (verb) like an arrow (prepositional phrase modifying 'flies') Fruit flies like a banana Fruit flies (subject) like (verb) a banana (object). But with respect to the other sentence one could say Fruit (subject) flies (verb) like a banana (prepositional phrase). It is this sentence that is the most ambiguous. not the 'time flies' sentence. The latter parsing is not at all expected and so would not be understood naturally by a native speaker. |
Large, huge or big communities? | When I talk about many people, like community, what should I use? A large community A huge community A big community In my native language (German), we use just one word for that: groß. What is the difference in English? | I think all of the examples sound like good English, although the quantity expressed is slightly different. A large community [of people] and a big community [of people] both seem to reflect a good sized quantity, while a huge community seems to imply that it is much larger when compared to other sizes. |
Is there a general rule how to create feminine words? | Is there a general rule how to create feminine words? For example feminine from waiter is waitress, from actor – actress, etc. So, generally the ending -ess means the feminine form. But I’ve never heard feminine forms for writer, programmer, designer etc. Is there a rule by which a native speaker would create feminine forms? Or is creating feminine forms simply not so important for native speakers? | As with most things in English, no, there isn't a general rule. Some words in -er have feminine counterparts in -ress.1 And most words that end with -man can be feminized by changing it to -woman. But for any given word, the only way to tell whether such a feminized version exists is to look it up in the dictionary. In other words, you can't really go about creating feminine equivalents of random occupational words; you can merely use feminine equivalents, if they exist. Note also that there is a tendency towards using one word for all genders. Sometimes, this involves using a genderless equivalent: police officer instead of policeman/policewoman, or flight attendant instead of stewardess, for example. Other times, it involves using the traditionally-male word for all genders: for example, actor for both male and female, instead of actor for male and actress for female. 1 Some -er occupations (used to) become -ster, e.g. baxter = female baker, and brewster = female brewer (of ale). These terms went obsolete so long ago that most people these days don't even know that baker once had a feminine version. |
Dates and times: "on", "in", "at"? | I’m often confused when I speak about times and dates. What is the rule for using on, in, and at in the following sentences? I will do it ___ Tuesday. We married ___ March. He returned ___ the same day. Every day ___ the same time, I walk the dog. | Times usually get at. Everyday at the same time I take a walk. At 3 PM, I will be having a late lunch. Days usually get on. I will do it on Tuesday. He returned on the same day. Months usually get in. We married in March. |
Between two options, which does "former" refer to and which does "latter"? | For example: James was talking to Karl, the former being much smarter than the latter. Is James the former or the latter? What is the rule? | The mnemonic I learned in school was (F)ormer is (F)irst and (L)atter is (L)ast, so James is the former and Karl is the latter. |
Is there a general rule for Verb + Preposition/Particle idioms, such as "come across"? | Composite verbs are giving me a lot of trouble. In German the syntax is simple; if the composite verb has the moving part, it goes to the end. But in English I've found many forms and I'm not sure which to use. For example, which of those would be correct and why? I've come across him yesterday. I've come him across yesterday. I've come him yesterday across. | NOTE: ✲ at the head of an utterance marks it as unaccceptable in Standard English. There are, broadly, three types of these “multi-word verbs”, also called “phrasal verbs” or “compound verbs”. In what follows I’m only going to address the ones which are likely to give you trouble, transitive verb+preposition compounds which take a direct object The first type consists of a lexical verb + a ‘preposition’: I asked for chips with my beer. Prof. Sartorius went over my paper, point by point. In this type, the preposition must come before the object. ✲ I asked chips for with my beer. ✲ Prof. Sartorious went my paper over. Because the preposition here behaves just like an ordinary preposition, these compounds are often called prepositional verbs. Of note is that in constructions in which a relative or interrogative WH- form is substituted for the object, the preposition may (and in formal writing should) be “pied-piped” to the head of the clause along with the WH- form: For what did you ask? The paper over which Prof. Sartorius went ... The second type also consists of a lexical verb + something which looks like a preposition but doesn’t always behave like one: We’re putting on a show in May. I handed in my paper. This ‘preposition’ may be moved after its object—and in fact must be moved after the object if the object is a pronoun: We’re putting a show on in May … We’re putting it on in May. I handed my paper in … I handed it in. Because the preposition here doesn’t act like an ordinary preposition, it’s often called a particle, and these compounds are called particle verbs.The particle is not pied-piped in WH- constructions: ✲On what are you putting in May? ✲The paper in which I handed … The third type consists of a lexical verb + a particle + a preposition: Bob dropped in on us last night. I think I’m coming down with leprosy. These are tricky. In indicative sentences, the three components stick together—you don’t move either the particle or the preposition after the object: ✲Bob dropped in the Joneses on last night. ✲I think I’m coming leprosy down with. However, the preposition may be, and in older formal writing often is, pied-piped in WH- constructions: It was the Joneses on whom Bob dropped in last night. With what are you coming down? Such usage is not quite deprecated now; but it should be avoided by rewriting. It is purely a joke to pied-pipe both the particle and the preposition, as in Winston Churchill’s alleged rejoinder to the hapless grammarian who ventured to correct his placement of prepositions: That is an insolence up with which I will not put. There's an enormous body of linguistic study trying to define what compounds behave which way. In practical terms, however, I'm afraid you're just going to have to learn them idiom by idiom. |
How can I remember the difference between "loose" and "lose"? | Although both words can be found in dictionaries, I'm constantly forgetting which one is which. Are there any mnemonic rules that would help me remembering them? | Lose has lost one of its o's. Loose has an extra o, like an extra hole in a loose knot. (Honestly, though, remembering just the first one should be enough to get you through everyday life). |
How can I remember the difference between "lay" and "laid"? | I often confuse lay and laid. For instance, in selecting the appropriate word in these contexts: She lay/laid a hand on his arm. He lay/laid across the bench lazily. We lay/laid down our heavy load. Is there a common mnemonic for remembering which to use, and when? | The key here is recognizing that there are two verbs you are confusing yourself with. The first verb has a present tense form of lie. This is an active verb on the person performing it. For example: I lie on the couch after work every day. The past tense version of the verb is lay. Example: I lay in bed all day yesterday. The other verb has a present tense form of lay. This is a verb describing the action of placing something on a surface. For example: Please lay the book on the table. The past tense version of this verb is laid. Example: He laid the towel on the bench. In short, first make sure you know which verb you're looking for, and then use the correct tense. |
Which pronunciation of 'either' is preferred? | I pronounce 'ei' in 'either' like in German (so, like 'I' in English: /aɪ/). This is natural for me. But I've heard people pronouncing it as 'eee' (/iː/), so which version is correct? Or maybe both are correct? | Both are correct. Ee-ther /ˈiːð.ə(ɹ)/ tends to be more common in the United States, but it would not be wrong to use aye-ther /ˈaɪð.ə(ɹ)/. Whichever way you choose to pronounce it, you should not have trouble being understood. |
What is the difference between “nope” and “no”? | What is the difference caused by using “nope” instead of ”no”? Is it used because “nope” sounds better and not straight like “no”? In some situations, it feels like nope is better to use than no even though it adds 2 more characters. What is the reason why many use it? | From here, they have no difference in meaning; but nope is more informal, only used in a sense of opposite to yes (or yup). Also, nope is not used often in writing. You wouldn't say "there were nope errors", for example. |
How should I refer to a friend who is a girl but not a girlfriend? | When I'm talking about my friend, who is a girl, but not a girlfriend, what word or phrase should I use? If the gender was unimportant, it would not be a problem. But if I want to note that the friend is female, not male, how should I say that, to avoid ambiguity? | There's nothing in the language that requires you to characterize with a noun. You can frame your discourse much less awkwardly with constructions like: My friend Sidney? she'll be there, too ... I have a friend, Sidney, her command of English is amazing ... There's this girl, Sidney, friend of mine from school ... You know my friend Sidney, Ed's little sister ... My friend Sidney's pregnant ... Talk about the person, not the role, and Great Mother English will take care of you. |
What are the connotations of the word 'disorder' for a native speaker? | What connotations does the word disorder have for a native speaker? Does it sound very negative or rather neutral? It's still better to describe phenomena such as ADHD as mental illness, but it still sounds too negative to me. | It depends significantly on the context. In terms of ADD and ADHD, the fact that they are abbreviations generally removes any connotation that disorder may hold because ADD and ADHD are very common terms that people have tended to directly associate with the condition in question. If, however, disorder were to be spelled out in terms of a clinical diagnosis, there might be a small negative connotation, but generally speaking, I do not think it would be very significant. On the other hand, if you were to say he has a mental disorder, that is very negative and might well be considered to be bordering on rude. |
A brief response to salespeople's leading questions? | How to respond shortly to suggestive questions such as: Do you want to buy this one or this one? Those are very popular among tradesman and are of manipulative nature. I don't want to explain each time that I don't think such questions are proper, and that none of this option is to be chosen by me, and I don't wish to be asked such questions. I need a short phrase for such questions, as short as possible, and not too offensive. | As short as possible and as accurate as possible, you could say Neither, thank you. or "No, thank you" or "None, thank you." You could ignore the question, shake your head, or even just say I don't want any. |
Is there any other neutral word for homosexual male than gay? | Is there any other neutral word for a homosexual male? The word gay is, I think, quite neutral, but it sounds very funny to me because in German it's the imperative from 'go'. So, you say 'geh' (spoken as 'gay') if you want someone to go out. | I think the most neutral word is indeed gay, which can be used for both sexes (even though gay woman is not widely used, in favour of lesbian). From Wikipedia: The most common terms are Gay (both men and women) and Lesbian (women only). [...] Some organizations (e.g. Safe Schools Coalition) discourage the usage of homosexual in everyday usage, as it might sound too clinical: Homosexual: Avoid this term; it is clinical, distancing and archaic. Sometimes appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adj.). When referring to people, as opposed to behavior, homosexual is considered derogatory and the terms gay and lesbian are preferred, at least in the Northwest. |
Is "thru" for "through" acceptable? "Tho" for "though"? | I've been told that in American English, sometimes words ending in -ough are written -u: for example thru instead of through. Is this correct English, or is it simply a common error? If it is correct, what are the rules for this spelling? | As a speaker of American English, I would understand what was meant by thru for through, but I would find it very informal. The Oxford Dictionary entry supports this, saying that it is: chiefly North American; informal spelling of through. The rule, however, isn't that words ending in -ough are shortened to -u, but instead in very informal writing the last vowel sound of a word is used instead of the proper ending. This gives through → thru because of the final "oo" sound, but also abbreviated forms though → tho or although → altho because they end in "oh" (as in "cold"). |
Is "indices" or "indexes" the plural of "index"? | I've heard both plural forms of index, indices and indexes. I usually use indices when referring to the computer science term for database index, but I'm not sure if it is correct in that context. Are both indices and indexes correct? If only one of them is correct, which one? | Both are correct, though there are some specific usages as pointed in another answer; Google Ngrams suggests that indices is slightly more used than indexes. For American English we have (in both charts, indices is blue and indexes is red): For British English we have: |
Under what circumstances does an adverb not get -ly? | I learned in school that it's correct to say really good. On the internet I've also seen real good. Is this grammatically incorrect, or are there particular circumstances under which this is correct? Perhaps only in American English? | Real is an adjective and really is an adverb. It is not grammatically correct to use these terms interchangeably. However the adverbial -ly is often dropped in speech, especially for words such as really and badly. For example: Tom was in a car crash yesterday, he was hurt real bad. Will often be heard in speech, or seen in informal writing. But to be grammatically correct you would say: Tom was in a car crash yesterday, he was hurt really badly. There are also some adverbs which do not sound "right" in speech either and the -ly should be kept. For example: She carefully walked over the bridge. As opposed to: She careful walked over the bridge. |
How does the grammar work in "here be dragons"? | Why is the phrase here be dragons not here are dragons? Is this a special grammatical form? If so, what is it? I found a related ELU question on the topic. | I thought I'd add this as well, just for those who are inferring that "Here Be Dragons" is an inference on the illiteracy of the scholars during the middle ages. I've separated it out from the other answer because it's not a direct answer to the question. Anyway, "Here Be Dragons" is actually just an example of Old English (it is invalid modern English)- in particular it's just an inversion of a sentence in the Old English sentence ordering. In particular Here Be Dragons Is an inversion of [if] here, there Dragons are In much the same way that in Jack and the Beanstalk the sentence Be he alive or be he dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread is an inversion of the sentence [if he is] alive or dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread Now "If here, there dragons are" is a word ordering that is no longer valid (although the word order should be familiar to German speakers which has the same sentence structure as Old English), and that is why the sentence "Here Be Dragons" is no longer valid. Note that the subjunctive form in English is still there, so we can construct our own sentences to show that this is still valid English so long as we shuffle the word order around: I must insist that you be here by 9 am tomorrow for a debrief. I agree with the recommendation that komodo dragons be here in the public part of the zoo where visitors can see them. So anyway, long story short is that "Here Be Dragons" used to be valid English, but no longer is. Its use idiomatically is used to insinuate "oldness" rather than "illiteracy". |
How would a native speaker understand buying 2 socks? | How would a native speaker understand this sentence: I have bought 2 socks. A pair of socks is quite obvious, 2 pairs of socks also, but what with 2 socks? 2 socks are a pair, but since you can't buy single socks, this 2 in the sentence could be interpreted as carrying the information that 2 pairs of socks were bought. | A sock is an individual item of clothing. To buy two of them would thus indicate that you had bought, well, two socks—but these socks might not pair with each other; instead, they might be halves of different pairs. Thus, unless there was context that might suggest otherwise, I (and presumably most native speakers of English) would conclude that you had bought two individual items of clothing. And yes, you can buy individual socks if you want. |
Which is the plural of "forum": "fora" or "forums"? | I'm active on many discussion fora, but I see that people more often use the form forums. Are both forms correct and adequate? If so, why are there two forms for the plural of such a short word? | Although the proper Latin plural would be fora, forum has been adopted into the English language--and in most cases follows the rules of English pluralization. Similar changes can be seen with the adoption of other words like octupus (the proper plural would be more like octopedes, but in English we usually say either octopi or octopuses). The current entry from the Oxford Dictionary says: The plural of forum is usually spelled forums; the plural fora (as in the original Latin) is chiefly used when talking about a public square in an ancient Roman city. Since you're talking about online discussion boards, I would use forums instead of fora when you are talking about more than one. An English speaker might understand fora, but it wouldn't come as naturally. |
If twins are always plural, how do I refer to a single twin, or how do we count twins? | I've learned that twins in English are always plural, e.g. there are the twins. Then how do we count twins? If there are four people coming, those are two twins? There are two twins? What if there are two people coming, who are twins. There are one twins? Or still There is one twin? My misunderstanding stems from the fact that the Dutch word "tweeling" (singular) refers to a single pair of twins (two people), and "tweelingen" (plural) would imply at least two sets of twins. | You say there is one twin. Twins, when referred to as a set, require an s, just like most other groups of objects. There are the twins. There is a twin. There are the cats. There is a cat. And so on. In the case of the four twins, you could say this: Here come the four twins. If you wanted to be more precise, you could say this: Here come [the] two sets of twins. Saying there are the twins does not imply any specific number, although many people would assume that there are two, since twins come in sets of two. |
What's the shortest phrase to describe Q&A sites like Stack Exchange? | What's the shortest phrase to describe sites like Stack Exchange? It's not a forum, it's Questions-and-Answers site, which is quite a long phrase, and not very precise (because it's the site with questions with answers). Is there any short phrase that I can use to describe Stack Exchange? For example: I'm active participant of the [phrase] called English Language Learners. | You pretty much answered it yourself. At the top of the page, in fact, you can find Stack Exchange's way of describing themselves: Stack Exchange is a network of free, community-driven Q&A sites. |
How would a native speaker understand "district"? | When using address databases, I've met the term district used in 2 separate meanings. The first one, which I prefer to use, is to describe the administration part of the city. The second one, however, was to call the administration entity between the 'land' or 'state' and the community. The only alternative name for that entity that I've found was county. Which of those meanings is more intuitive to native speaker? | District has many meanings besides those you mention. Just where I live there are a Fire Prevention District, a Sewer District, a Solid Waste Management District,, a School District (with Football and Basketball Districts), a Special School District, a County Council District, a Municipal District, a Missouri House District, a Missouri Senatorial District, a Federal Congressional District, a County Library District, both State and Federal Judicial Districts, a Federal Reserve District, several distinct Licensing Districts, and lord-knows-how-many more defined by other State, Federal and local regulatory agencies and departments. Most cities have one or more shopping districts and business districts and entertainment districts and other "districts" of a purely commercial or architectural or other non-administrative character, some quite famous: the Design District in San Francisco, the Garden District in New Orleans, the Clothing and Financial Districts in New York. And churches, unions, and other associations organize themselves into districts: my son spent eight years as a Cub/Boy Scout in the Pathfinder District. And the seat of our national government is the District of Columbia. So I'm afraid the question is essentially meaningless. A "native speaker" (or a non-native speaker, for that matter) is not except in very artificial circumstances called upon to exercise her "intuition" about a word's meaning outside a context. Tell me what we're talking about, and I can tell you what pops into my mind when you say district; without a context, it just means an area bigger than the block I live on. |
What size is a division? | At my university, located in Sweden, the division of X is a sub-part of the department of Y. My colleague, a native speaker, claims that this is entirely wrong; he says divisions should be the largest unit. Is a division normally a smaller unit than a department, a larger unit, or can it be either way? | As far I know, division does not necessarily need to be directly below the largest unit. It's really up to the person who designed the system. |
What is the American street naming convention? | What sets apart a street, an avenue, a road (rd.), an alley - a way, and whatever forms of communication tracts I missed - that appear as part of street names on city maps in the US? | Way and road are the least specialized of the words you presented, and they both mean a path leading from one place to another, esp. for use by vehicles. Streets and avenues are rather ambiguously used—in some places, avenues run east-west and streets run north-south. In other places, they are simply part of the name of the road in question. Sometimes, avenue is used for wider roads. Sometimes it isn't. Alleys are easily defined, however; they refer to a narrow passageway behind or between buildings. Other words, such as boulevard, are just as ambiguously used as avenue and street. Technically, a boulevard is a bit wider than your average street or avenue, though. It's all a mess, really, and in the end they're all just roads, save for alley, perhaps. |
Would a native speaker append "or" to a statement to turn it into a question? | I hear it all the time from my colleagues: But that's correct, or? However, my colleagues are all German, and in German, one can turn a statement into a question by adding oder (which means or). Does this sound natural to a native speakers ears? | Or can be used to extend questions where there are other options not being mentioned that the respondent can fill in. Generally speaking, it cannot turn a declarative statement into a question. Examples of where it would be properly used are: Do you want to go to the movies, or ...? [the mall] Would tuna for lunch be ok, or ...? [no, I'll have salmon instead] It is important to note that typically, or would only be used followed by a trailing ellipses. More common are yes and no, which can be used to turn declarative statements into questions, such as: She found $20 at the beach, no? ["didn't she" is another acceptable alternative to "no" here] He had lunch yesterday at McDonald's, yes? Either way, whether you use yes or or or no, such usage is generally accepted in speech and in informal writing, but not in formal writing. |
Would saying "if" in place of "whether" be a big mistake? | For example, in the expression "I don't know whether I'm coming or going", would saying if in place of whether be a big mistake? Would doing it in written English be an error too? | In general, if and whether can be substituted for each other. In certain situations, they have different meanings. For example: I don't know whether I should arrive on Friday or Saturday I don't know if I should arrive on Friday or Saturday The first sentence implies that the person will arrive, but they are not sure when. The second sentence could be read that the person might not arrive at all. |
Does "hardly" have a unified meaning? | “Hardly”, “hardly ever”, and “hardly even” seem to mean different things and I can hardly distinguish between them. There's this page, listing 2 very similar meanings for hardly, and which seems to indicate here that it composes “normally” with ever (i.e. hardly + ever = almost + n+ever), but doesn't mention even. Also, I can't help but believe there should be a way to understand it as in a hard way (hard-ly), but I can't find it. What's a clear way to understand all this? | The meaning of hardly has evolved over the centuries. So has the meaning of the adjective from which it is derived, hard. But where the adjective has accumulated meanings, so most of its meanings are still alive in one context or another, hardly has drifted from meaning to meaning. I won't trouble you with the entire history (which you may find in the Oxford English Dictionary—look at Hard, both adjective and adverb, and Hardly); but by about 1600 hard had the senses of difficult and close, narrow, and both of these may be detected behind the modern sense of hardly. When a historian writes that “The King hardly escaped, by charging with his own troop of horse solely, through the body of the enemy” he implies both that Charles escaped only with difficulty and that he escaped only narrowly” — by the skin of my teeth, we also say. When Captain Corcoran boasts that he “never” curses, and then admits that it’s actually “hardly ever”, he’s claiming that it’s so close to “never” that it’s not worth dwelling on. In fact, it’s hardly even worth mentioning—very close to being not even worth mentioning at all. In today’s use the difficulty sense has declined, but it’s kept alive by uses like the old song “Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye” in which a woman meets her old love who has been almost unrecognizably disfigured in war. |
English questions with what/where/why <verb> <object> instead of what/where/why does <object> <infinitive> | I've learned that to phrase a question in English, one should use do + infinitive. However, I've also seen constructions like what brings the future? or what says the constitution?. Are such constructions conditionally correct? Or are they simply wrong, but commonly occurring? If they are correct, under what circumstances are they so? | I agree with @Mark Robinson. The introduction of do in questions (What do you think?) and in reference to the past tense (Did he swim?) is a relatively modern. Because the usage without the grammaticalized do is more archaic, it also sounds more formal to our ears, but was not originally formal. It was just English. Now, we use it to heighten the question's intensity, or poetic purposes, or just for verbal flare. It is perfectly comprehensible to native speakers, so the only concern in using it is whether its oddness will be appreciated as you hope in any particular situation. |
What are the grammatical rules determining whether to use "which" or "what"? | What are the grammatical rules determining whether to use which or what? I usually go by intuition. It's "What car are you looking at?" and "What bicycle do you like most?" but "Which song did you sing?" Quite often, I don't know whether to use what or which. How can I tell? | Which is used when there is a selection of choices, and you are picking one. What is used for a description, or if you don't know what the choices are. For your examples, it should be: Which car are you looking at? This is because you are probably next to your friend and have an idea of the selection of choices. Which bicycle do you like most? I'm assuming here that you are both in a store or looking at the same webpage, so that you know your choices. What song did you just sing? Here, you don't know the choices that were picked from, so you use what |
Using “for” in the sense of “because” | In what circumstances should it be preferable to use for when it has the same meaning as because? | From Grammar Girl: I was tired after my journey, for I had been forced to bike 20 miles. However using for at the beginning of a sentence is considered bad/improper by some. To find some more specific information, please read the first link, it explains usage of for quite well. Also when for us used as a preposition, it is different. For instance, this sentence uses for properly. |
"very unique" - Is it wrong? Why? | Is the following statement correct: I have found a very unique book. meaning that the book I found is very rare. I was told that statements very unique and extremely unique do not make much sense. If that is true, can you please explain why that is? | It depends on who you ask. The Oxford Dictionary entry for unique defines it as: being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else: Some people, such as the writer of this blog or this list of English errors, think that unique should only ever refer to one thing: Unique means (sometimes I can’t find any other way than to just repeat myself) one of a kind—there aren’t any more like it anywhere else—if this one disappears, then it will be extinct—you can search and search all over the world, but you won’t find a second one—after they made this single one, they broke the mold and threw the pieces into 27 different trash cans so that no one would be able to make another one. People who follow this view will say that terms like "very unique" or "extremely unique" are not proper English. This is why you may have been told that they do not make sense. However, this is a very prescriptive view which says that English ought to be a certain way. Not everyone thinks that "very unique" is unintelligible, and other dictionary entries just say unique means: very special, unusual, or good In short, there is no one opinion on how unique should be used. Some people use it as you have, and others think you would be wrong. It all depends on what you think the definition of unique should be, and even dictionaries disagree on this. |
Difference between "alright" and "all right"? | Is there any difference between "alright" and "all right"? I can find both forms in different articles (especially on the Internet), although all right seems to be more common. I was wondering if both forms are acceptable or whether it is some sort of difference between American and British English or just a common mistake? | Language is always changing, and most often in the direction of simplification. You can even see the evolution happening before your own eyes. "All ready" became "already"; "all right" is in the process, through usage and repetition, of becoming "alright" (if not in fact "a'ight"). It is already accepted as an informal alternative to "all right" and I predict that it will supplant the two-word version altogether (!) except in the most formal writing (e.g., academic papers) within the lifetimes of many of us. |
Difference between "even if" and "even though" | When I was at university, my English teacher used to insist a lot on the difference between these two expressions, telling us that even if was to be used when introducing a hypothetical situation (Even if I knew where John is, I wouldn't tell you), whereas even though was to be used as a concession or admission (Even though I know where John is, I won't tell you). A few years have passed since my university days, and I'm under the impression that this kind of distinction is no longer made. Even if seems to be prevailing, and even though is less frequently found either in texts or in speech. Is my feeling correct? Has the difference between the two forms been cancelled? | I think what your English teacher told you is right, as far as it goes; but there is a middle ground it does not address, where either may be used. I imagine that very often this is what you are hearing. The even clause may be neither hypothetical nor concessive but 'occasional'—that is, it may refer to a condition which is sometimes true and sometimes not. In such a case you might use even if or even though, because both are contextually equivalent to even when: You should eat breakfast every morning, even if/though/when you're hung over. Even if/though/when he's sometimes over my head, I enjoy Prof. Sartorius' lectures. In formal contexts you would probably adjust these sentences a little to fit the conjunction more precisely: ... even though you may be hung over Even when he's over my head ... But those are niceties which are not required in ordinary conversation. |
Is "Bunch of people" a valid phrase? | Some time ago I was told that use of the expression bunch of people is incorrect. Apparently, bunch should not be used along with people meaning group of people. But the problem is that I can hear that expression from lots of people, especially non-native English speakers. Can you please explain whether bunch of people is correct or not and why? | I'm a native speaker of English, and bunch of people does not sound wrong to me, nor do I suspect, to most native speakers (academics excluded; see below). The Corpus of Contemporary American English reports it used about a fifth as often as "group of people", which is certainly somewhat promising as far as it being "correct". But I can't really say whether or not it is correct without knowing why the person who told you it's incorrect said that. It might be that it's considered rude to think of people as a bunch—I disagree, but if that's the case, whether it's right or wrong is going to depend on your specific audience. Just in case, though, I checked the OED since it is far more knowledgeable than me, and interestingly enough, this seems to be of relevance: 3. A collection or cluster of things of the same kind, either growing together (as a bunch of grapes), or fastened closely together in any way (as a bunch of flowers, a bunch of keys); also a portion of a dress gathered together in irregular folds. 4. fig. A collection, ‘lot’. Also, a company or group of persons. Definition 3 is the one that we're usually dealing with, and it seems to fairly clearly imply that bunch of people doesn't work, since people don't grow together (twins, triplets, etc. excepted) and usually aren't fastened together. Definition 4 seems like it would work, but every usage it cites has bunch in isolation; it was never used in the form bunch of people. I didn't see any other relevant definitions, so bunch of people may not be formally correct after all; either way, group of people is much more common and appears to be uncontroversial in usage. |
"In" and "on": How can I decide which one to use for vehicles? | Examples: In a car, van, etc. On a bus, boat, motorcycle, etc. How can one decide which preposition to use? Is memorization the only way or is there a better way? Note: People generally explain this by either distinguishing between open and closed vehicles or between large and small vehicles. However, the examples I've given defeat both explanations. | The only way to be sure is to memorize. However, you can use guidelines to make the right choice 90% of the time or more. If there is no compartment involved, you get ON it. (bicycle, motorcycle, skateboard, etc.) (Note: partial compartments, such as those of convertible cars or open-topped boats, count as compartments; pretty much anything where the vehicle at least partially surrounds you.) Oddly enough, if the transportation is large enough to allow you to move around freely, you also get ON it. (Bus, train, large boat, passenger plane, etc; anything with an aisle or walkway.) Otherwise, you almost certainly get IN it. (Car, personal aircraft, canoe, etc.) Thus, you would get IN a speedboat, but get ON a cruise ship, even though both are boats and both are enclosed, because the speedboat is small enough that although you can probably change seats without difficulty, you can't really move around freely inside it. As a counterexample, even though a van may be large enough that it does have an aisle and you can move around freely inside it, if you call it a van, you get IN it. |
The vs. a: Surprising use of the | Consider the following exchange: A: How are you getting to Seoul? B: I'm taking the train. Note B's use of the. Usually, we use the when the listener knows which one. So, why doesn't B say a? | This is just an hypothesis, but I think it may have something to do with operating according to a fixed schedule at a high frequency. Public transport does this. Because of that, one vehicle is as good as the next: we do not distinguish between one bus and another as physical vehicles, but only as entries in a schedule. As all buses are more or less interchangeable, I think our subconscious may be thinking of them as one bus, coming again and again, at least in the context of taking the bus (not when you say "I was almost run over by a bus", or "a bus was blocking traffic"). Or we may treat the bus line as a single phenomenon. The same applies to trains, subways, ferries, and monorails, although in certain situations a/an is used—there are always exceptions. But aeroplanes don't seem to operate according to such a fixed schedule and route. And taking a plane is just more of a happening. As an alternative, it is possible that this the is a remnant of phrases like "I will take the 6 o'clock train to London", which was probably more common when trains ran less frequently, waited a little longer for delayed passengers, and when taking a train was generally more of an event. When indicating a that you were going to travel by train, you were generally picked up, and so you would more often say "I'm taking the x o' clock train". People could call the station to inform whether your train had arrived yet, when they were supposed to pick you up. They knew at what time the six-o'-clock from London arrived. Later, as train schedules became more frequent, and people were not always picked up from the station any more, mentioning the time of departure became less universal, but people had got used to saying the train, so they kept that while leaving out the time. I must say that I find this hypothesis less convincing, but it is a possibility, mainly because of the definiteness in modern "I'm taking the train". |
Should vs. had better | What is the difference between "should" and "had better"? Consider these sentences for example: It's cold outside. You should wear a coat. It's cold outside. You'd better wear a coat. What are the differences in meaning? How can one decide which one to use? What pitfalls are there? | The primary difference between the two is in the implication of the result. "You should" carries the connotation that if you do as suggested, the outcome will be favorable; it puts the focus of the statement on a positive consequence. You could say that it is an encouragement to engage in good behavior. "You'd better", on the other hand, carries the connotation that if you fail to do as suggested, the outcome will be unfavorable; it puts the focus on the negative consequence. You could say that it is a warning about engaging in bad behavior. If the phrases were extended, you would almost always see something along the lines of You should wear a coat, so you can stay warm vs. You'd better wear a coat, so you don't get frostbite. |
What's the accepted way to use "criterion", "criteria", "criterions"? | In many publications, especially IT related, I find lots of expressions with criteria e.g. What is your criteria ... What are your criteria ... What are your criterias ... English dictionary says that criteria (or criterions) is a plural form of criterion. However, I never found sentences like "What is your criterion ..." or "What are your criterions ..." Can you explain what is the correct usage of criteria. Are criterions and criterion still in use in modern English or they have become obsolete? | Criteria is plural, criterion is singular. That's just the way it is, if you want to sound educated. Consider that it's an awfully erudite word to throw around in an illiterate manner. |
When do we double the consonant before '-ing' affix? | My son is learning how to spell. He is doing a good job listening to sounds and working out spelling that way (which doesn't work for many words, but at least a lot of common ones), but although he's gotten the -ing chunk, he frequently misses doubling letters in these words. Is there a guideline for when the end consonant is doubled? He's working on these sorts of words: riding sitting skating writing getting | Are they still teaching the old 'long/short' vowels? If so, here's the rule: If the syllable before the /-ing/ is pronounced with a 'long' vowel, leave the final consonant single (and delete any final silent /e/) If it's pronounced with a 'short' vowel, double the final consonant. It may help make this clearer if you explain that a vowel before a doubled consonant is (almost) always short. Then write the /-ing/ forms out 'wrong' and invite your son to pronounce them the way they look: ride ridding sit siting skate skatting write writting get geting As Renan points out, it gets more complicated when the final syllable of the base form is unstressed; but it looks like your son hasn't gotten that far yet. |
Can you reply "you too" to wishes such as "Good luck"? | Suppose someone is saying to you: I wish you Merry Christmas! or Good luck! Is it meaningful to reply "You too"? Or should you respond "Same to you"? | "You too" is an abbreviation of a repeat of the sender's statement, for example: Merry Christmas! [Merry Christmas to] You too! This is entirely valid spoken English (it's very informal in written English), but be careful of when you don't want to return the greeting in its exact form. For example, the following is fine when both you and your friend are heading home from work: Have a safe trip home! You too! But the previous conversation is wrong (but usually obviously and inoffensively wrong) if the first person is not travelling home, for instance if the second person were leaving the first's house after a visit. In such a circumstance, one would normally have to think of an alternative response, for example: Have a safe trip home! Thanks! Have a great evening! |
Would a native speaker append “no” to a statement to turn it into a question? | Does appending no to a statement make it a question? E.g., "You decided to wait for me elsewhere than we had agreed, no?" Note: The title and part of the body, as well as the idea, are taken verbatim from this example question. | As a native speaker I don't often find myself using no in this way, but sometimes I may attach no to the end of a statement to turn it into a question, especially if I'm expressing doubt. There are, however, some situations where this wouldn't sound right and you would normally say something different. Some examples: But you arrived in town last night, no? Is a good example of where the appending of no works. But, to me, it is more natural to say something like: But didn't you arrive in town last night? or: But you arrived in town last night, didn't you? Another example: She was on her way to work, no? Sounds better as: She was on her way to work, wasn't she? "..., right?" can also be used to express doubt and can be a better indication to the person you're talking to that you are asking them a question and would like a response. For example: You took the ferry, right? He had a lot to eat, right? |
Why is "a Japanese" offensive? | When talking about a person from Japan, why is it offensive to say "a Japanese" rather than "a Japanese person"? The English language Wiktionary says (person in or from Japan): The singular “a Japanese” is less common than locutions using the adjective, such as “a Japanese person”, and is considered potentially offensive by many speakers. but doesn't explain why it is offensive. Allwords.com says Note: many people object to the usage of this sense in singular form, and it is now more frequent to see a person in or from Japan referred to by using the adjective Japanese. Rather than "a Japanese," you will frequently see "a Japanese person."'' but again, there's no explanation. | I found an answer in this article: 「私は日本人です」は、I am a Japanese. それとも"I am Japanese? In English there is a distinction between nationalities that end in 'ian' like Canadian or Italian and those that end in 'ese' like Japanese or Burmese. Those that have the 'ian' can say 'I am Canadian' or 'I am a Canadian' interchangeably, but usually in English the 'ese' ones don't use the 'a' when they're referring to people--unless it is being used as an adjective. You could say "That is a Japanese person" (where Japanese is an adjective describing the word 'person') This convention also applies to nationalities that end in 'ish' as well, as in 'I am British' or 'I am Scottish' --though Scotland is a different case because they could say, "I am Scottish" or "I am a Scot". I don't really know why this convention exists, but saying 'I am a Chinese' to a native speaker would be very strange for them. |
How should I construct a question from a sentence containing "used to"? | What is the question form of "She used to come here."? Is "Did she use to come here?" or "Used she to come here?" From my high school English classes, I remember I was taught it is "Used she to come here?" but now it seems a strange way to form a question. Which one is the correct form, or the most used one? | What you were taught in high school (Used she to come here?) is still found in some textbooks for learners of English, but I've never heard it used in spoken language, nor have I read it in modern written texts. I guess that changing the intonation of the sentence and adding a rising pitch to it, without altering the word pattern, is perfectly acceptable in a colloquial context; however, to be on the safe side, I would ask such a question using the did form, so Did she use to come here regularly? |
Is it common to use "gonna" in written English and even in business English? | Gonna is a short form of going to. That sounds a little bit like slang. Is it common to use it in written English and even in business English? | Gonna is informal; you can use it in written English, but it is not normally used in business English. |
Is "You alright?" (without "are") acceptable? | I'm having a hard time figuring out which is the correct form of asking this kind of question. I mean speaking strictly, this doesn't sound right: You alright? or You eaten anything? compared to Are you alright? and Have you eaten anything?. So please enlighten me. Are those both forms correct or just something which is ignored for the sake slang speakers? | Those phrases are examples of ellipsis: the omission of words that can be understood from the context, or given contextual clues. While ellipsis is not normally used in formal English, it is more used in spoken English, or informal English. |
What is the difference between “unacademic” and “nonacademic”? | Both the words mean "not academic," but is there any difference between unacademic, and nonacademic? Is there any phrase where one of the words should be used instead of the other? | Non-academic is a simple neutral statement of allegiance. Non-academic experience is one you gain outside of school. Non-academic license for software is different than "software for educational use only". Unacademic is inappropriate for academic standards. A paper that calls upon results of Tarot readings as source of prediction of construction durability is unacademic. The theory of Intelligent Design is unacademic. |
How are words ending "-ology", "-onomy", "-ography" pronounced? | My English teacher often corrects me on the correct pronunciation of these suffixes. She says these should be pronounced with the stress on the first O. I have heard many educated folks pronounce it with no stress at all. I have also heard that the vowel O should be pronounced as "au" rather than "o". What is the actual pronunciation of these suffixes, both in British and American English? | In both American and British English, there is an emphasis on the first O, but not too much. For example, "astronomy" is pronounced: "as" like "us" (or sometimes "ass" from "class") "tr" from "trim" "on" from "marathon" "om" like "um" "y" like "ee" from "tree", but shorter However, in Indian English, I have heard many people pronouncing it astrOHnomy, basically giving the O in "astro" the same emphasis as the O in "micro" and tacking on the "nomy" (rhymes with "mommy"). This is completely different from the pronunciation above, and is wrong in American/British English. |
Articles: When do I use "a", "the", or "__"? | How do I know whether to use the definite (the) or indefinite (a, an) article, and when to omit it altogether? | Use the definite article when you know which particular thing or set of things it is you're talking about. We're going on a summer holiday! Let's get in the car. The apples in my local shop look delicious. Use the indefinite article when you don't know exactly which thing it is you're talking about. I need a new car. I'd love some apples. Use no article when you're talking about the complete set of things. I like cars. Apples give me indigestion. I've already come across one exception to this, so they are out there: "That means the dog is a lot more efficient at making use of the nutrition in starch than the wolf." - BBC News In this situation, they are referring to dog and wolf as particular species, rather than a particular dog or a particular wolf. |
Lite instead of Light | I commonly see lite version, lite cream, etc. When is it acceptable to replace light with lite? Is Lite already accepted as correct English or is it just an informal/incorrect spelling? Are there any differences in meaning between the two, or is one just a more informal variant of the other? | Definitely Informal Lite is a very incorrect and informal form of 'light', and it is used only in advertisement and branding. Not sure about this, but it was most probably used by food companies first, saying that their product had less fat compared to other products. |
When should I use "phantasy" rather than "fantasy"? | I am a native speaker of Italian, and since the equivalent word in Italian is fantasia, I write fantasy. A friend of mine told me that phantasy is also an English word. Considering that generally, when in Italian a word uses an f followed by an a, the equivalent English word uses pha, I am confused about the correct spelling. What is the correct spelling between phantasy, and fantasy? Is it correct to say that phantasy is an English word currently used? | Definitely Fantasy. Phantasy is an archaic spelling, currently used for stylistic purposes. |
What is the difference between "hug" and "embrace"? | What is the difference between hug and embrace? Hug: Squeeze (someone) tightly in one's arms, typically to express affection. Embrace: Hold (someone) closely in one's arms, esp. as a sign of affection: "Aunt Sophie embraced her warmly". Is it only about strength or are there more subtle differences I don't quite grasp? | The main difference is the level of affection shown in each. You would hug a family member or close friend as a sign of being pleased to see them, but you would embrace a lover, wife/husband or boy/girlfriend. |
How does the "Dalai Lama walks into a pizza shop..." joke work? | On YouTube, there's that famous joke the Dalai Lama didn't understand — and neither did I. It even made headlines in my part of the world, and on some of the sites I frequent, yet nobody ever bothered to explain it. I am at a loss. I suppose pretty much every non-native speaker will have trouble getting it. The Dalai Lama walks into a pizza shop and says "can you make me one with everything?" Is this some sort of pun? Double-entendre? A top-voted comment on YouTube says, "The joke is based on ambiguities of an expression, not the ideal joke to crack with a foreigner." Well, duh. Thanks for nothing. I looked up every single word of it in several dictionaries, including can, shop, one, make, with, walk, and each of these has a multitude of meanings, and I have no idea how they work together to create something funny. | This is indeed a pun. To make someone something can mean "to create something for someone", as in, I made her a sandwich. But it can also mean "to change someone into some thing or state", as in, I made her angry; Zeus made her (into) a cow. To be one with something is a spiritual expression meaning...something spiritual. When people say they are one with the universe, they mean they experience some sort of supernatural bond with the entire universe. Don't ask me how it works. Here everything is equivalent to the universe. This is known as nondualism. The Dalai Lama is known for his spirituality. But one can also stand for one pizza, as in can you make me one [pizza] with [all available toppings]: everything means "every topping/ingredient you have that you can put on a pizza". |
Are British words jarring in US English? | In particular, I don't mean mere alternate spellings like colour, honour, but words that are entirely different: using lift instead of elevator, fridge instead of refrigerator etc. What is the common outlook on using them in plain informal speech in the US? What are the chances they won't be recognized at all? Will they be seen as pretentious? Weird? Unwelcome? | AFAIK most Americans know the British equivalents for their words, and vice versa. Some people even use them (some Britons use the American words). It wouldn't be considered weird - an American would just assume you were British, or learnt British English. It wouldn't be considered unwelcome either, by the vast majority of Americans. |
"Filled in for someone" meaning | What does filled in for someone mean exactly? An example of a sentence with the idiom: While you were off, I filled in for you. Does it mean the author of that sentence took over my duties entirely while I was off or he was helping out (not much) with some of my duties? | It would normally depend on the person, however it would normally mean that they did most, if not all, of the persons duties. If someone is 'filling in for someone' they are taking over for them, as much as they can, as a favour to the person. It means that they do all of the other persons duties, that they have the skills to do. |
Why "about" in "she kept walking about the room"? | Regarding the sentence She kept walking about the room. Is that ok to use "in" instead, as in She kept walking in the room Why is "about" used in this sentence? Is there any difference to between "about" and "in"? (The above question was asked to me) | The definition of "about" is Used to indicate movement in an area While "in" is Expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else So, here, "about" is more specific. "She kept walking about the room." brings up a mental image of a woman pacing around a room. "She kept walking in the room" brings up a mental image of a woman walking in a straight line in a room (to me at least) Aside from this, "she kept walking in the room" has another meaning-- "she kept entering the room", which is a completely different situation. |
"Do you like me?" or "Are you like me?" | What is the proper use of "do" versus "are" in the phrases: Do you like me? Are you like me? Is there any difference between them? | The misunderstanding is not about "do" versus "are". Instead, it is caused by the word "like". It can be either verb or adjective, but also may serve an adverb: I like chocolate - here, like is a verb. It answers the question "what to do?" and its meaning is "to enjoy", "to sympathize" or "to prefer". I am a programmer, like my brother - here like is adjective. It answers the question, "how?" and its meaning is "similar to" or "close to". There are lots of birds like ducks and gulls - here like is an adverb. Its meaning is "to give an example". Not very grammatical but a nice example sentence is: Like my brother, I like fruits, like apples or bananas. Here, "like" serves three different roles, and the meaning is: Similarly to my brother, I enjoy fruits, for example, apples or bananas. Now, back to the question. "Do you like me?" means an asker wants to know if you enjoy the friendship of him/her. "Are you like me?" means an asker wants to know if you are similar to him/her by character or whatever. |
Is there a mnemonic that helps remembering when I should use "hate," and when "ate"? | Being an Italian native speaker, I sometimes write ate when I should have written hate, and vice versa. Is there a mnemonic I could use to remember when I should write ate, and when hate? | There isn't a well known mnemonic, I think because it's not usually a cause of confusion to native listeners. To help, I'd suggest the following: ate is an anagram of eat hate is tattooed on the fingers of one fist, love is tattooed on the other (if you're a biker, seaman, etc). |
How can one differentiate between "who" and "whom"? | Many times, I've been asked the difference between "who" and "whom". I myself know the difference, but it is hard to explain to others. What is the easiest way to explain it to those with a basic understanding of English? A mnemonic (if possible) would help. | In modern informal usage Traditionally, who and whom are distinguished: who is used as a subject, whom as an object. But the distinction produces a number of inconsistencies, and it has confused even such native speakers as William Shakespeare, the translators of the King James Bible, and Daniel Defoe.1 Fortunately for the English learner, in modern informal English, you don't need to distinguish them. Who (as well as derived forms like whoever) can be used in all positions. For instance, who can be used as both a subject and an object (as an interrogative): Whosubject of "[i]s"'s there? They sacked whoobject of "sacked"? Whoobject of "to" will the task be assigned to? and similarly when it heads a relative clause: Give it to anyone who asks for it. Give it to the employee who it's assigned to. "Whom" will generally still be used when it immediately follows the preposition it is the object of. But such constructions are uncommon in informal English, since pied-piping of prepositions is used only in formal registers. "Whomever" is essentially unused, with "whoever" used even immediately after a preposition: Give it to whoeverobject of "to", subject of "asks" asks for it. Give it to whoeverobject of "to", object of "picks" the computer picks. 1 That is, the distinction was never widely observed in detail. |
What is "cultural capital" and what role does it play in learning the language? | My English teacher once jovially remarked that if I were to ever fully understand literature texts by native English writers, I would have to have cultural capital. He went on to add that I wouldn't exactly understand what the term means precisely because I don't have some in the first place. A quick Google search led me to a Wikipedia article on the term. From whatever I can sense from the article, I figured it refers to the cultural background that a native speaker gets from their upbringing. It seems to me that without cultural capital, one cannot pickup inside-jokes and other little nuances that require cultural immersing. How close am I in the understanding of the term and what good does it provide in terms of better learning the language? | You are definitely on the right track. Many of the nuanced phrases and figures of speech in a language come from an intimate knowledge of the culture surrounding it. A good example would be pop culture references. Another is region specific stereotypes or traditions. If a foreign national was spending time in America and had no knowledge of the politics of the country, it may be very confusing to hear someone referred to slightingly as "such a liberal". The speaking party may assume that their listener knows all the connotations associated with "liberals" in the USA, but without some "cultural capital", the visitor may not. |
When to use "some" instead of "a" | You were just having some dream. and You were just having a dream. Are both correct? What is the difference, if any? | Yes, both are correct. In your first example some is being used in an informal way. There are two plausible interpretations for some. The first possibility is that some means the dream is remarkable in some way (meaning 6 in the above link). It takes the place of a and adds this extra meaning to the sentence. So You were just having some dream! Is pretty much the same as saying You were just having a remarkable dream! When you use some in this way, you must put emphasis on it. Another example could be: That is an apple. vs That is some apple! Where the apple could for example be tastier than normal. Some, used in this way, indicates that some attribute of the thing is surprisingly different to normal. The other possibility is that some means a but in a dismissive way (meaning 2. in the link I provide). So You were just having some dream. Could be interpreted as You were just having a dream, don't worry about it. or You were just having a dream, it is of no importance. Another example would be: A- Who is that on stage? B- Oh, just some roadie. Because B doesn't think the roadie is of interest. |
What does this mean: "The more you fence in Iran, the harder it will be for the rest of the world" | I'm trying to understand the English in this article (bolding mine): “I think it was a genius action from Lula da Silva” said Mujica in an interview with the Brazilian daily Folha de Sao Paulo, when he argued it was a “gross mistake” of the international community to isolate Ahmadinejad. “The more you fence in Iran, so much harder it will be for the rest of the world. What Lula da Silva is doing is something which I consider simply brilliant. Life has taught me that you can’t surround, fence in someone. It’s a mistake. This forces the other side to react, to fight back…The world does not need any more wars. It needs solutions, ways out to this kind of situations”, underlined the former guerrilla leader. What does the sentence mean, The more you fence in Iran, so much harder it will be for the rest of the world.? I guess to fence in means to isolate? But as for the second part, so much harder it will be, what is it that is harder? | Here, you want to read for meaning based on context. Based on what is said later in the second paragraph, it seems that the author is trying to convey that "harder" means the stance that Iran takes toward the rest of the world. If Iran is surrounded, then it is more likely to react and fight back, possibly causing war and bloodshed. |
How many meanings does "I am in" have? | I have heard the phrase ‘I am in’ or ‘I am absolutely in’ (and similar variations) several times. As I understand it, it means I agree with the idea and I will join you in your efforts. Recently, I wanted to use this phrase in a written form and I thought perhaps my understanding was incorrect. I Googled the phrase to reassure myself that I understood it, but I still wasn't sure of the correct meaning. I was not able to find a definitive answer. Frequently, the phrase was associated with other word(s) that completely changed the meaning. For example: I am in here. I am in a state of ... I am in love. In addition, this I am in seems to have the meaning of being accepted. So what is the correct usage of the phrase ‘I am in’? Does it have more meanings? Can all of them be used in written (formal) form? | "I am in", the way you heard it used, means "I will join you (in a given endeavour)", "I will participate (in the endeavour)", "you can count on me", "you can include me in your plans". The opposite also exists, "I'm out". Meaning "I'm no longer participating", "I'm not onboard anymore". It is informal, but that doesn't prevent it from being used in literature or movies to depict just that, informal situations. For example, in the movie Ocean's Eleven, George Clooney's character famously recruits Matt Damon's character by saying, You're either in or you're out. Right now. You can also ask people "who's in?" or "are you in?", etc. Again, this is okay for example for informal emails, but you won't see it used to invite people to a Royal gala, nor should you use it when replying to such an invitation. Another common expression is "count me in", with the same meaning as "I'm in". (And the corresponding "count me out".) The last usage of in is completely unrelated to all of the above. In that situation, in means "popular", "in fashion". (And once again, it is complemented by out meaning "out of fashion", "unpopular".) You can say, "red cars are in these days", for example. Or "gangsta rap is out". I would say this is less informal and more mainstream; you will find many newspapers or magazines, covering anything from fashion to politics, having a column titled "in and out [today/this week/this month]" or some such. Oh, and if you still want to look these words up in a dictionary, look under "in (adverb)" and "in (adjective)" — not "in (preposition)" —, and the better ones will have the corresponding entry. |
"Despicable Me": can "me" be used in such a way? | We know a movie named Despicable Me. I guess it means "I am despicable". But can me be used in such a way? For example, can I further say unavoidable me to mean "I am unavoidable"? Are there other examples? Or can I just do this with any adjective? | Considering this issue strictly in terms of grammar, there are two things to consider here. First, in the phrase "despicable me", "me" is a noun (a pronoun, actually, but still a noun) and "despicable" is an adjective. So in one sense, yes, it is perfectly grammatically appropriate to place adjectives before nouns ("red firetruck") and by extension it works to place "despicable" before "me". Second, the sentence as a whole is a fragment. There is no noun performing a verb; there is simply a lone adjective-noun pair, which technically is not enough to form a full, proper English sentence. However, it could be considered an exclamatory sentence, especially in context, so we let it slide. In short, it is a proper adjective-noun phrase, and we'll look the other way on the whole fragment thing, so yes, it can be used in such a way. |
Difference between “expat” and “migrant worker”? | In newspaper articles and elsewhere, I have seen the terms expat and migrant worker. Is there any difference? I've looked up both terms on Wikipedia: For migrant worker has a UN definition of: The term "migrant worker" refers to a person who is engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a State of which he or she is not a national The term expat, short for expatriate, has different meanings, but can be: its broadest sense, an expatriate is any person living in a different country from where he is a citizen. In common usage, the term is often used in the context of professionals sent abroad by their companies, as opposed to locally hired staff. The differentiation found in common usage usually comes down to socio-economic factors, so skilled professionals working in another country are described as expatriates, whereas a manual labourer who has moved to another country to earn more money might be labelled an 'immigrant'. There is no set definition and usage does vary depending on context and individual preferences and prejudices. Does this mean it's entirely up to the motivation and the type of labour? | The term "migrant worker" is more commonly used for people from poor countries working in a richer country, whereas "expat" is typically used for people from stable, first world countries living in a poorer, non-western country. |
Is it always necessary to repeat the pronoun before each verb? | Is it always necessary to repeat the pronoun before each verb? For example, do I need always to say: She called me and she said X or can I use a shorter one She called me and said X ? | It's perfectly okay to say - She called me and said X Moreover, it is actually encouraged because repeating pronouns makes sentences awkward. Only repeat pronouns if you think there will possibly be a confusion. |
Is there a single word for "native English speaker"? | Is there a single word for someone who is a "native English speaker" (or more generally, for native speaker of language X)? There are single words for people having given nationality (like Englishman), believing in given religion (like Christian), so why shouldn't there be a single word for describing such important phenomena as being native speaker of some language? | Xophone (Anglophone, Francophone, &c.) is used by people who require such things; but these terms are not in ordinary parlance. It appears that even the most anxious Nativists don't use it: a search of U.S.English.org, which bills itself as "the nation's oldest and largest non-partisan citizens' action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States" doesn't yield a single hit on Anglophone. We employ the adjective "English-speaking", and if pushed we'll call ourselves "English speakers"; but the fact is rather taken for granted than proclaimed as a point of pride. No doubt it's a sign of Anglophonic arrogance, but "being a native speaker of" English doesn't seem to need a label, at least to those who might bear it. |
Why say "Wait your turn" but "Wait FOR..." everything else? | Why in English is the word "for" not used in the phrase "wait your turn?" Wouldn't it make more sense to say "Wait for your turn" as for other things on which one waits? Wait for the stop light not Wait the stop light. Wait for (until) Tuesday not Wait Tuesday. Wait for you to arrive not Wait you to arrive. | Wait for your turn This is equally acceptable, however less used. Wait your turn is a proper and shortened way of stating the same thing, albeit in a slightly different manner. Wait your turn However this is much more common in modern day English. Both are proper and acceptable however. |
Are "stress" and "distress" interchangable? | Are the words distress, and stress interchangeable? I have heard them used in the same place, but are they the same? He was very (stressed/distressed) about his co-workers thoughts of his idea. | There are indeed some contexts where either word could be used, but they mean different things. In other words, the two words are (or rather, can be) grammatically interchangeable, but not semantically. He was very stressed about what his co-workers thought of his idea. This means he was feeling tension, strain, and/or worry about what his colleagues thought. It's even possible (unlikely, but possible) that his co-workers approved of his idea — perhaps approval means more work for him, or something. See definition 2 or 4 here. He was very distressed about what his co-workers thought of his idea. This means that he was outright upset by his co-workers disapproval: their negative opinions caused him psychological suffering. As you can see, at least in this particular case, the difference between the words is kinda-sorta one of degree: distress is a worse feeling than stress. But there are other differences: for example, you can be "under stress", but you can't be "*under distress". |
What does "This was clearly her day off?" mean? | What does "This was clearly her day off?" mean? Is this offensive to the person, or is it simply stating something obvious? This question came from Area 51, but I am curious to know this. | This is/was clearly X. Simply means that the circumstances make it apparent to the observer that X is true. Without knowing the full context of the statement, I can only speculate, but lets imagine a passage such as: She woke up at 10:30am, took a long shower, then made coffee, and sat on the sofa to read a magazine. This was clearly her day off. One can see from the circumstances that the woman is in no hurry to get to work, or other commitments so this was clearly her day off. The key is the word clearly, which has several synonyms in this context, such as obviously or apparently... This was obviously her day off. This was apparently her day off. Or even some similar phrases: This seemed to be her day off. It looked like this was her day off. |
Usage of "Rain check" | From time to time I hear the phrase rain check. For instance I have to take a rain check on that. I would say that means I have to get back to you on that issue. How do I use that phrase? What does it mean? Where does it come from? I always think while hearing rain in rain check that it sounds a little different than the word rain. Is it pronounced differently? It sounds like rai-n check. But I could be wrong. | I to have to disagree with your interpretation of that phrase. "I have to take a rain check" is not the same as saying "I have to get back to you." For example, this would be wrong: Where is that report I asked for? I have to take a rain check. — Incorrect To "take a rain check" is to turn down an offer that you expect (or ask, or demand) to be made available again at a later date. For example: The item on sale is no longer in stock. Can I get a rain check for that? — Correct This is a more idiomatic usage: Would you like to go out on my boat? I'll have to take a rain check! — Correct - or - Can I get a rain check [for that]? |
When do "well" and "good" mean the same? | I know good normally is an adjective ("[object] is good"), and well is normally an adverb ("[activity] is performed well"). But quite a few times I've seen good used in place of well. For example, you can be feeling good. When is good applicable as adverb? Is the vice-versa situation possible? | As kiamlaluno tells you, it is non-Standard to use good where an adverb is called for. However, there's nothing wrong with using it with feel. Feel is ordinarily used as what grammarians call a copula: its complement is a quality attributed to the subject, and is therefore an adjective, not an adverb: I feel pretty! Oh, so pretty! I feel pretty and witty and bright! I feel really, really stupid. I'm feeling pretty bad today. And (again as kiamlaluno tells you) “I feel well” means you don't feel sick, but healthy. If you use feel with an adverb you are probably employing it not as a copula but as verb of physical action. “I feel badly” means your tactile sense is impaired. |
Difference between "clean" and "clear" | What is the difference between "clean" and "clear"? clean verb [with object] make clean; remove dirt, marks, or stains from: clean your teeth properly after meals I cleaned up my room (as noun cleaning) Anne will help with the cleaning clear make or become clear, in particular: [with object] remove an obstruction or unwanted item or items from: the drive had been cleared of snow Carolyn cleared the table and washed up Why does one clean teeth, but clear the drive? How to decide which one to use? | You can think of it this way: something that is cleared can still be dirty. For example, if the floor is cluttered with things such as toys and papers and whatnot, you can clear the floor by removing everything from the room. However, all those things probably left dirt or stains about. Next, you would have to clean the floor to remove those. |
When does one write a number as words and when as digits? | I think I heard somewhere a rule that says "numbers up to twelve should be spelled out, numbers above can be written numerically" but not only do I not remember if that was exactly how the rule went, I'm fairly sure the source wasn't really reliable. So, can you tell me whether - in a common text, not legalese, not calculations, nothing unusual - I should use digits or letters? Is it true you should write "eleven" but "13" in a literary text? Also, I'm pretty sure that, even if it's true, there must be exceptions. If I'm right, can you name them? | For this question, I'd go to The Chicago Manual of Style. Their general rule is, for non-technical contexts, "spell[] out whole numbers from zero through one hundred and certain round multiples of those numbers." Exceptions using digits: dates: 8 January 2012 numbers referring to parts of a book: table 23 on page 4; chapter 11 volumes, distances, other physical quantities: 15 kilometers; 6 cubic feet; 3 tonnes; 10 degrees of arc; ... (but if the context is non-technical, words can be used) Exceptions using words: when the value is approximate: seventy-five million at the beginning of a sentence: Two hundred fifty visitors ... (but sometimes it's advisable to rephrase, such as if a year starts a sentence) The actual list in Chicago is much longer and more complicated. Chicago also recognizes the practice of using digits rather than words for any value ten or greater. Usage is really rather flexible -- so consider the context you're working in, and try to be consistent. |
"I'll not" vs "I won't" - when is which preferred? | I know these two common contractions: I'll enjoy it I won't enjoy it I wonder: can one use the first one with a negative? I'll not enjoy it. Is this correct? If so, when/how would one use it? Would it differ from "I won't" semantically? | Technically, the two are the same. I'll not and I won't both expand to I will not. In modern day, the first contraction is less seen, but that does not mean that it is not correct grammatically. |
Can you use "understand" in progressive constructions? | In an answer to a question asked today on EL&U (Antonyms of “lesser” and “greater”), I read the following sentence : "If I am understanding your question accurately" To my knowledge, the verb understand is marked as non-progressive in grammar books and dictionaries alike (see for example Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary and Michael Swan's "Practical English Usage"). As a non-native speaker, shall I consider this a colloquialism, a new tendency in the language, an American form, or what? Am I safe in using it or would people frown at me if I did? | Understand in its ordinary sense is what is called a stative verb: one which ascribes a continuing ‘state’ rather than an action or a change of state to its subject. Some other stative verbs are like, own, consist of. The subject of a stative verb is not required to take any action or exert any effort to maintain the state; consequently, these verbs are not ordinarily cast in the continuous (progressive) forms. ✲John is not liking Mary. ✲We were owning a couple of Harleys. ✲A martini is consisting of gin and vermouth, with an olive. ✲I am understanding the Pythagorean theorem. Some other ‘diagnostics’ of stative verbs are: They do not bear a ‘habitual’ sense in the simple present — ✲John likes Mary twice a week. They can’t be used in the imperative — ✲Own a couple of Harleys! They can’t be used with the ‘What happened was’ construction — ✲What happened was the martini consisted of gin and vermouth, with an olive. They can’t be used with ‘carefully’ or ‘deliberately’ — ✲I deliberately understand the Pythagorean theorem. Like most common English words, however, understand has a range of senses. Ordinarily you say you understand something, and that's it; but it's also possible to understand more, or more deeply, or up to a point. In these cases it's quite in order to treat understand as something more like a process or activity, and to cast it into a continuous form: I’m understanding Hamlet just fine up to the point where he starts yelling at his mother. Every day she’s understanding more and more of what I say. Employing understanding in a conditional, in an if clause, causes a similar ambiguity: maybe I understand you, maybe I don’t, it’s not clear whether I’m actually in the state of understanding you or actively trying to get into that state. In that case, the continuous form If I am understanding your question not only emphasizes my uncertainty, it also appeals to you to understand that I am making an effort. This is neither a new use, or a colloquialism, or a colonialism: search Google Books for the 19th century on I am understanding and we are understanding and you are understanding and you will find uses in Parliamentary speeches and essays in Church of England journals as well as American religious and academic articles. No one will frown if you use it. |
Can I say to mail me referring to e-mail? | Can I say someone to mail me when I'm referring to sending me to an e-mail? I'm aware of other meaning of the word mail, but is it nowadays used in older meaning? In many languages mail and e-mail are synonyms. Would an average native speaker younger than 40 also understand it that way? | Mail is also used as verb to mean "send an email" ("Mail me when you are ready."), and as noun as synonym of email, such as in the following sentence: "You have got mail." |
Can I be mobbed by only one person? | Is it correct word usage to say that I'm mobbed by a single person? The word mobbing comes from mob, which refers to a large number of people, so only one person mobbing sounds a bit strange. | It depends on the usage. Perhaps I woudn't say: I was mobbed by Bill. but that doesn't mean I couldn't say: I felt mobbed by Bill. if Bill's attention was so overwhelming that it felt like I was fighting off an entire group. |
If I can skype someone, can I chat someone? | I can say I've skyped someone. But when referring to chat, such as ICQ, is it correct to say that I've chat someone, with the meaning that I've sent someone a message on chat? | What you are talking about is called "Conversion" in linguistics (turning one form of a word into another) and more specifically "Verbification" in the case you are asking about (changing non-verbs into verbs). So specifically answering your question — Yes, you can Skype someone, but you won't likely hear "chat someone" in correct usage. Even "Skype someone" is somewhat new and would likely only be considered acceptable usage in informal circles. That is simply by convention simply because one came into common usage, while the other… hasn't. Honestly, there are no rules that determine when a noun can become a verb. It is simply a matter of when it becomes common enough usage to become acceptable. You can "phone, fax, or text me" but you can't "cell, smartphone, or iPhone me" — Strange right? Wait, it gets crazier — You can "bus someone" across town, but you wouldn't "plane someone" across the country. You can "gun someone down" but you would not "pistol someone down." You can "hammer a nail" but you wouldn't "screwdriver a screw." You can "milk a cow" but you can't "egg a chicken." Fortunately, you can search the web to determine if something has become common usage, but be sure to use canonical or at least well-vetted sources (newspapers, books, articles, etc), not chat, street talk, or forums… which are more prone to slang and unconventional language use. |
Is playing with someone in Quake "quaking" with someone? | I often see new words being made up in English quite easily. Is this correct? What are the guidelines I should follow? For example, there's a legendary game known as Quake, and there have been people with which I've played with for hours. Would it be correct to say I was quaking with them? | First off, inventing words is generally frowned upon, especially in formal situations. In some cases it may even make people reflect negatively on your intellect, or be taken as offensive. That said, in cases of humor, on very informal context, then yes it would be fine, as long as the audience you're speaking to will understand what you mean. This is best achieved by using a real word and adding a common prefix or suffix to it, or by making it into a verb, as you are suggesting. That said, even if you make up this word, its use should only be tied down to that context. Also, if a word could possibly be confused with an already existing term, you must take care to make it clear in the context. In a case like this, perhaps it would best to avoid creating the word. Example of Bad Time: Boss: Why are you late? You: I overslept. I was up late Quaking it up! Example of Good Time: Best Friend: Are you ready to play? You: Heck yeah! I've been ready to Quake for over an hour now! |
When to use words "country" and "state" while describing a sovereign political entity? | While describing a sovereign political entity, when is it appropriate to use the words country and state? To me, state sounds more official and academic, and country more informal, but this might come from the way the words from my language are translated into English. Making things worse, country is sometimes used to describe rural districts, while state is one of the names the sub-entities of state/country can be called. | If we ignore the complexities of countries which are subdivided by state, there is a clear difference in tone. Phrases such as "the power of the State" or "institutions of the State" refer to the legal authorities and ruling powers. You can talk about the sovereignty of a state, or various other abstract terms. Meanwhile, you visit a country, and talk to its citizens. A country is a physical place; a state is the country as a disembodied entity. Also, the phrase "the State" (especially with a capital S), may be used abstractly in works of political philosophy, not referring to any state in particular. Countries which are subdivided by states are a bit more confusing, and really have to be treated on a case-by-case basis. |
What is the saying to use when someone has long worked for an accident to happen? | What is the English saying/phrase to use when someone has long worked for something bad to happen to him? For example he was so long involved in risky activities, or he was treating other people badly, so that it was to be expected, that sooner or later he will pay for it. | He had it coming is a very popular expression used to denote that the person is himself to blame for the bad things happening to him. Another expression which is commonly used, particularly in press is disaster waiting to happen as in the following: He was so much into alcohol that he was a disaster waiting to happen. |
Walking up/down a level road/street | Is walking up/down the road/street applicable if the street is not sloped? I think I heard something about "with/against the numbering of houses" but I'm not sure if it's correct. Also, if that were correct, why is walking down the street more popular than walking up the street? | I don't think there's a specific rule involved here. It is perfectly fine to use up/down the street/road if the street is flat. Which of the two one would use is more debatable, and somewhat depends on each particular person's point of view. For example, one way, as you've mentioned, is to chose by house numbering: the way in which the numbers are ascending can be considered "up the street", and the way in which they are descending can be considered "down the street". Or maybe you can consider the direction in which the street is more... erm... fashionable to be "up", and the other one to go "down". I would say that in general, if used unrelated to the elevation, these phrases can mean the same, and can be used depending on your own preferences. Also note that "down the street" will always be understood, which I believe is the reason for it's popularity comparing to "up the street". |
What does "that would be that" mean? | A friend of mine watches BBC Top Gear. He sometimes hears the guys say "That would be that". What does that mean? | I don't know the context, but generally, this and similar phrases (e.g. "that's that") are generally used to mean, roughly, "The issue/task/event/discussion is done." It is generally used somewhat ironically, in cases where it has become obvious that the situation is resolved. For example, imagine you are debating with someone about the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow. A third person walks up, opens their phone, and finds the answer online. The discussion is complete, since the answer is found, and everyone knows it. An appropriate response would be, "Well then, that would be that." This is a silly example, but I hope you get my meaning. It is difficult to explain without hearing it in context. Another use can be seen here: "I realized Otto would probably just shake my hand formally and we would have very civilized time and that would be that." The explanation there is given as: "That would be all (there was). There would be nothing more." |
Meaning and usage of ain't | Sometimes I encounter ain't, but I really don't know how to translate it properly. What does ain't stand for? If I really wanted to use it, in which contexts would you say it's acceptable using it? | Ain’t is a negative present-tense form of the verbs be and have employed in all persons and numbers: I ain't we ain't you ain't you ain't he/she/it ain't they ain't It represents a coalescence of the ordinary spoken contractions of not and the three relevant forms of the two verbs: am not ⊲ a’n’t ) are not ⊲ a’n’t ) is not ⊲ i’n’t ) ⊲ e’n’t/ha’n’t ⊲ orthographic ain’t/hain't have not ⊲ ha’n’t ) has not ⊲ ha’n’t ) It is used wherever be not is used: as a copula, in progressive constructions, and in passives; and where have not is used as an auxiliary, in perfect constructions. Ain’t is not slang (which means, roughly, a fairly novel usage employed by an ‘in-group’ as a token of their ‘in-ness’) but a colloquialism which was at one time used virtually universally. You find it very often in 18th- and 19th-century plays and novels, in the mouths of persons of high social standing. However, it aroused particular hostility among 19th century schoolmarms, who assaulted it ruthlessly and succeeded in painting it as the mark of illiterate speech. Accordingly, it should not be used in formal contexts except as an ironic nod to the vernacular. It is still very common in speech, but regarded as sub-standard rather than merely non-standard. |
Referring to letters of the alphabet | In Italian, letters can be referred to using their noun. For example, when speaking of the letter M, I could say La lettera emme è l'undicesima lettera dell'alfabeto italiano. (that is, "M is the 11th letter of the Italian alphabet"), or simply Emme è l'undicesima lettera dell'alfabeto italiano. What is the equivalent way to refer to a letter in English? | English doesn't name letters that way. In writing, you just use the letter itself, generally capitalized and often with quote marks around it. For example: Some words that begin with 'M' are marriage, money, and military. That said, each letter does have a characteristic way to say it, such as when you're reciting the alphabet. A - ay B - bee C - see D - dee E - ee F - eff G - gee (with a soft g like in age) H - aitch I - eye J - jay K - kay L - ell M - em N - en O - oh P - pee Q - cue R - are S - ess T - tee U - you V - vee W - double you X - ex Y - why Z - zee or zed Mostly, these pronunciations are not written down, though you can use them to emphasize a sound rather than the symbol used to write it. For example: Some words that begin with an 'em' sound are marriage, money, and military. |
How might a native speaker refer to an object when they can't recall its real name? | Is there a short word in English for some small device or part, which the speaker has no idea what it is really called? I mean something more sophisticated and humorous word or phrase that saying 'that something'. | I like thingamajig, thingamabob or whatchamacallit. |
What can I say politely when something bad happens? | I am looking for a short phrase that I can say when something bad happens. For example, when my mouse breaks or my computer is hanging. I know the expression damn it but I need something more polite. | As mentioned, darn or dang are the closest approximations of damn, and crap also works, but other common alternatives include: shoot geez man! what the heck! (or hell, but that's closer to cursing) |
Differences between "hatred" and "hate" | As I understand them, when used as nouns they both mean the same: a strong feeling of dislike, but I'm not sure about how "intense" are each one related to the other. Does one of them represent a stronger feeling than the other, or their difference resides more in the context where they are used? | Hate and hatred, when used as nouns, have the same meaning. The difference between them is that hate is also used as modifier (e.g. a hate campaign), while hatred is not used as modifier (as it would be in a hatred campaign). |
"Most simple" or "Simplest" | Should I use most simple or simplest to indicate something cannot be more simple? Can I use both? Is one prefered? If simplest - how is that pronounced? (Is the e silent?) | Both are somewhat correct, but it's better to use simplest. This is called the superlative in grammar. It can be used by either adding the word "most" before the adjective, or by modifying the adjective with the suffix "-est". If you care about the rules, here is a quote from oxforddictionaries.com: The superlative is formed in different ways according to the length of the base adjective. If it has one syllable, then the letters -est are added. If the word has three syllables or more then the word most is placed before the adjective: most attractive. Words of two syllables vary: some add -est and some use most. Some even do either, for example clever. Spelling: adding -est If the word ends in a consonant, add -est (quick becomes quickest). Words of one syllable with a short vowel sound and ending with a single consonant, double the consonant and add -est (sad becomes saddest). With words of one syllable ending in ‘l’, you normally do not double the ‘l’, but cruel becomes cruellest. If it ends in ‘e’, add -st (late becomes latest). If it ends in ‘y’, change the ‘y’ to an ‘i’ and add -est (happy becomes happiest). emphasis mine. Also, if you look it up in the dictionary (e.g. here), you will see "simple - simpler - simplest". More than that, Simplest is also used more often that "most simple", you can see a clear tendency at this ngram (Sorry, it's small when added here as a picture. The blue line is "simplest", and the red line is "most simple"): It is pronounced as \ˈsim-p(ə-)ləst\, so you can pronounce it either with 3 syllables, or just 2 if you omit the first ə. |
What does 'the very next day' mean? | In the song, Last Christmas, I heard the phrase "But the very next day." I'm not sure what it was supposed to mean, but from context I guess it's the day after Christmas Is it grammatically correct to say "very next"? Something is next or is not next. Can something be 'more next' that something else? Can something be 'very next' or just 'a little next'? | It is grammatically correct to say "very next". Very next day means the day after a certain event happened or happens. It means same as the next day but with an emphasis (to denote the short time period) and is used only in time-sensitive contexts and not every time one wants to refer the next day. For ex - John was not able to go to school that day but the very next day he recovered and went to school all fine and dandy. Instead of returning to London three days later, as he said he would, he came back the very next day. |
Is there a special word for the numbers 11 to 19? | In my language (Ukrainian), there are special words describing amounts between 11 and 19. They are constructed in a similar way as the numerals, but do not specify the numeral itself: Це коштує надцять тисяч ("this costs over-teen thousand" — meaning, "too expensive") Я вдома вже кільканадцять хвилин ("I'm at home a few-over-teen minutes already"); Is there a special name for amount between 11 and 19 in English? The reason why I'm asking is that I'm thinking in these categories, and I don't want to use less-specific words if there's a better term for it. I know that a person of that age is called a teenager. But I haven't heard the word teens to describe amount. I've also heard a dozen, which literally means 12, but I have the impression that it is sometimes used to say about 12. Am I right, and are there other words describing such amount? | English does not have a word referring to this range specifically. Different languages divide up the world differently - this is one of those cases where the languages don't have equivalent terms. The word teen or teens is close, but it has two limitations: "Teen" refers only to 13 - 19; it cannot refer to 11 or 12. Recently, the term "tween" has been coined to refer to the ages 10-12 for this very reason. "Teen" is most often found in reference to abstract ranges such as ages, years, temperatures and the like. So while we might refer to a "temperature in the teens" to mean a temperature between 13 - 19 (C or F), it's less common to refer to use it with concrete objects. It would be unusual or even wrong to say "I have teens of apples". Since there is no specific term, you should instead use constructions such as: Eleven to nineteen In the low two digits About 15, 15 or so, around 15, 15 give or take... More than ten but less than twenty Ten-something (I think this is more understandable and common than the alternative 'tensomething') There is a slang term that is close to the meaning and usage, but its use may be marked in certain contexts and it is informal: umpteen; "It'll cost umpteen thousand dollars." Or finally, reword your statement to avoid the situation |
To live in village or on country? | Speaking about someone from a rural area, should we rather say "he's living in village" or "he's living on country"? Country as a word has other meanings, such as the entity including the whole territory, so I'm cautious when this word is concerned. But that's only my feeling, and I'm not a native speaker. | Where I'm from, in the central U.S.... He lives in the country. This means he lives outside of all city limits. His nearest neighbor is possibly a mile away. He lives in a village. This would be unusual in the U.S., where the word "village" is rarely used. You might get some funny looks, but would probably be understood to mean he lives in a small town; or perhaps in an old/Victorian neighborhood of a larger city. He lives on the outskirts. This would mean he lives in, or very near the city, but near the city's edge. He will have neighbors, and there will be a few stores near by, but it's not a particularly urban area. He lives in the suburbs. Similar to outskirts; perhaps slightly more urban connotations. |
What is the difference between "look", "see", and "watch"? | When should I use "look", "see", and "watch"? I'm watching "Star Trek". Have you seen "Star Trek"? Are the examples above correct? | Here are some simple rules that will help deciding which word to use: See is used as inactive word; you just see without any effort: you have visual impression: "I can see my home over there", "I see trees of green" you understand: "I see what you mean" Look is used as active word, you make an effort to see: you try to see: "look at this!" (maybe you have to turn your head or stand up) you pay an attention: "to look for a baby" you search for something: "you can look up the word in the dictionary" Watch is also an active word; you also make an effort, but it is for a longer period of time: "I'm watching "Star Trek", "I like to go to a zoo and watch tigers playing" pay attention: Watch the kittens as they may run away. Here's an example demonstrating the difference: I'm looking, but I don't see it. Back to examples: I'm watching "Star Trek" — it is a continuous action; Have you seen "Star Trek"? — it is a question if you ever seen it at all, or do you know about it; It can be also formulated: Have you watched "Star Trek" all night?, and it will mean that you have spent all night watching a movie. See also: (1), (2). |
"I have no clue" vs. "I haven't a clue" vs. "I am clueless" | Is there a difference between the phrase I have no clue... and I haven't a clue... as well as I am clueless... For instance if someone said: What is wrong with this? Which of these could be used to answer? | I'm not a fan of Ngrams, so my answer is based on personal opinion and experience. Although I suppose that the three phrases would be perfectly understood in context, if I were to use one of them I'd go for the first one (I have no clue) or for a modified version of the second (I don't have a clue or I haven't got a clue). I wouldn't use the second phrase as it is because in negative sentences the verb have is normally used either in conjunction with got, thus being an auxiliary, or preceded by "don't"/"doesn't"/"didn't" as any other verb. As for clueless, OALD states that it is an informal, disapproving adjective which means "very stupid; not able to understand or do something", which is a deviation from the meaning of the previous sentences. |
When should "like" be used rather than "as" in a comparison? | In Italian, "spies like us" becomes spie come noi, and "do as you like" becomes fai come preferisci. In both the sentences, the translation of like, and as is come. This causes some problems to the Italian native speakers, who tend to use the English like instead of the correct word. In which cases is it correct to use like? I am not referring to like used as verb, but to like used as preposition/conjunction. For example, is it correct to use like in the following sentences? I am interested in a general answer, not an answer limited to the following examples. Do like we do. Like you wish. She is tall like your sister. She did like you said. | In my opinion, none of the above sentences are correct. Like can be a preposition, and is used before nouns and pronouns to talk about similarity. For example: He ran like the wind. or A person like you knows that..." As, on the contrary, is a conjunction. It is used before a clause and before an expression beginning with a preposition. For example: Nobody knows her as I do. or In 1939, as in 1914, everybody seemed to want war. It is true, however, that in informal English, like is frequently used as a conjunction instead of as, so the first sentence "Do like we do." could be heard. The third sentence is wrong because you are making a comparison and in this case as is the only one you can use. If on the contrary the concept which you want to convey is that the girl is tall and that your sister is tall too, then like is perfectly fine, but you need a comma to separate it from the first part of the sentence (that is, "She's tall, like your sister."). Finally, you normally also use as when talking about the function or the role of something. For example: He works as a waiter. or Don't use that knife as a screwdriver. Disclaimer: The grammar explanations and most of the examples are taken from Swan's "Practical English Usage". |
Is there a standard technique for practicing the "th" phonemes? | My son is still young enough to be practicing his pronunciation. He has trouble (not surprisingly) with th in particular. I have modeled the correct mouth shape for him but it still takes him a lot of effort to get the sound right. In regular speech, he just slurs the sounds into f or s depending on the word. With his l sounds, we had a lot of success by singing "Skip to My Lou" a lot. I can't think of any children's songs that have frequent th sounds though. Is there a current, accepted, standard technique to help him practice both the voiced and unvoiced th (which preferably don't involve sitting and saying "th, th, th" for a long time)? | Many people have this problem, especially children, and this song does a pretty good job of helping kids. I would also suggest this song by Mrs. Jones also has a great song, that teaches the "-th" sound, and has the lyrics, on the webpage. Also though, I might suggest using words he already knows how to say, like "Thank you" and "Teeth". Then relate those to other words. |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 14