Friday, July 9, 2021

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

Which number to use in the sentence "Many parents give their child/children their (Adam and Eve's) name/names"?

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 09:39 AM PDT

  • Children is in general, I don't know the number of children. So should it be in singular or plural?
  • Adam has one name, Eva has one name, and they two together have two names, but parents give only one name to each child, so should I use singular or plural?

Using "To disappointment " as an introductory phrase

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 09:16 AM PDT

Can "To disappointment" be used as introductory phrase?

Example: To disappointment, he stopped trying.

Is this sentence equivalent to: "Disappointed, he stopped trying." ?

Coughing Severely or Severely coughing?

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 09:13 AM PDT

Is it "He was coughing severely" or "He was severely coughing"? Is there a preference at all?

"Starting from" - is that clear? [closed]

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 08:13 AM PDT

  1. What is it about: "Starting from Gold"?

  2. There is a four player statuses: "guest, classic, gold, VIP". Is "Starting from Gold" a clear way to explain, that bonuses available for gold and VIP players?

enter image description here

  1. Is there a better way to say it?

Why is the verb after the words “better” and “rather” always singular (no s)? [migrated]

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 06:58 AM PDT

I don't know what word type these belong to (are they adverbs?). I notice that the verbs after these two words are always singular verbs even though the pronoun is a singular pronoun.

The following is an example.

"We better ask." is correct grammar as expected since the pronoun is plural. The verb must not end with s.

However, "She better asks." is not correct grammar even though the pronoun is singular. I thought verbs following singular third-person pronouns end with s.

"She better ask." is the correct one.

I don't understand because "She asks." is correct, while "She ask." is not correct. If so, why is "She better asks." not correct, and "She better ask." is correct?

Why do words such as "better", "rather" change this convention?

What I find even more confusing is that words like "never" and "always" do not change the convention. "She never ask." is not correct, while "She never asks." is correct.

I could be wrong, but don't these words have the same word type as "rather" and "better"? It's just that "rather" and "better" is for suggestion/recommendation while "never" and "always" is for frequency.

Thank you for your response.

What's a word to describe adding something unless it already exists, in which case I retrieve it? [closed]

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 06:18 AM PDT

What's a word or two to describe adding something to something else, unless that first something already exists in which case I'll just retrieve that already existing thing?

Example: I'm writing an API endpoint that will add a new record to a table and return the newly created id unless of course that record already exists, in which case I'll retrieve the already existing record and return its id. The API is called AddOrGetRecordId

Add or get is not very elegant. Is there a better way to describe this?

"After users create an account" or "After users create accounts" [migrated]

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 05:25 AM PDT

This has been bothering me for a long time and I don't know what the proper word to describe it is, so I just put the words in the title.

The live sentence is something like this:

After (a) user(s) create(s) (an) account(s), they will get (an) email(s).

It is used to describe a normal behavior of a website. I think it will be easier if I just say

After a user creates an account, they will get an email.

But if for some reason I want the subject to be plural, then should I also make the object plural as well as the object in the clause?

Omitting "of" after all [duplicate]

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 02:40 AM PDT

I keep getting a suggestion from Outlook to drop "of" when it's proceeding "all".

Screenshot

However, according to my education, that's just lazy and plain wrong.

I found this answer to a very similar question. However, I find it wholly unconvincing as it provides no citations or justification in what's been written.

So my question is thus:

  1. Is it correct to omit "of" in this circumstance.
  2. Does the answer to part 1 depend on which side of The Atlantic you learned to speak English?

"Hook it home" meaning

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 04:20 AM PDT

I stumbled upon the idiom "hooking it home" in some of Bukowski's lines. Namely,

the whores are there for young boys and old men;
to the young boys they say,
"don't be frightened, honey, here I'll put it in for you."
and for the old guys
they put on an act
like you're really hooking it home.

The only related idiom meaning I found online is the following:

to get a ride by hitchhiking. e.g., My car broke down and I had to hook it home.

Which does not seem suitable. I found some other references in sports articles, e.g.

Six minutes later Hernández finally had the ball in Neuer's net, hooking it home with a brusque left-footed volley, only to be given offside.

This use seems more related since it has the "scoring" meaning.

On the other hand, I was thinking about a same-flavored idiom: hammer (something) home, i.e,

To make something extremely clear; to make someone understand or realize something, especially through forceful repetition.

What's your take on Bukowski's line? Is this (something like "forcefully scoring") another use of "hook it home"?

What is the meaning of this poem? [duplicate]

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 01:32 AM PDT

I see I see said the blind man to the deaf woman over a disconnected telephone.

My daddy used to say this a lot. What does it mean?

"Do not" or "does not" [duplicate]

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 12:25 AM PDT

Which one is correct:

  1. Although Payroll does not get involved with the data-mapping activities, they are still required to provide the sign-off because payroll is part of the country's time trio.

  2. Although Payroll do not get involved with the data-mapping activities, they are still required to provide the sign-off because payroll is part of the country's time trio.

Why is there a flap allophone of /t/ but not of /k/ or /p/?

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 06:16 AM PDT

In English, there are three (phonemic) voiceless stops: /t/, /k/, /p/. In most if not all American accents, a /t/ between vowels (the first of which is usually stressed and the second unstressed) is pronounced as a flap--the alveolar flap/tap. So we say [ɾ] is an allophone of /t/. English does not have phonemic ɾ but phonetically every (well, not every but most) consonant can occur in English.

The /t/ is prone to becoming flap but I haven't seen that happen to other voiceless stops like /k/ and /p/ when they are between vowels. Is there any reason why it only happens to /t/ in English?

Is the passive constructed correctly: "The city will have been being locked down for 15 days from tomorrow"? [duplicate]

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 01:48 AM PDT

That is what I learned from grammar books.

  1. "I go to the cinema tomorrow" means I am scheduled to go there at that fixed time

  2. "I am going to the movies tomorrow" means I bought the ticket (ie I arranged it)

  3. "I am going to go to the movies tomorrow" means I am planning to go to the movies but I have not bought any ticket.

  4. "I will go to the movies tomorrow" means right now I suddenly have that intention of going to the movies (this is a spontaneous decision at the time of speaking)

Today is the 1st of May and the city council announced the city will be locked down from the 2nd of May to the 16th of May.

Is it correct to say

  1. "The city will have been being locked down for 15 days from tomorrow." (is it like a prediction?)

  2. "The city will have been in lockdown for 15 days from tomorrow." (is it like a prediction?)

  3. "The city is in lockdown for 15 days from tomorrow." (is this like a future scheduled event?)

  4. "The city is being locked down for 15 days from tomorrow." (is this like a future arrangement?)

The/My father who

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 06:41 AM PDT

Here's a quote from A Student's Introduction to English Grammar:

On the basis of this kind of contrast, the two types of relative clause are traditionally called 'restrictive' (or sometimes 'defining') and 'non-restrictive' (or 'non-defining'), respectively. We don't use these terms. They are misleading: the integrated relative is NOT always restrictive, in the sense of picking out a subset of the set denoted by the head noun.

Here's another example, one that we found in a novel by Dick Francis, where the NP is definite rather than indefinite:

[12] [The father who had planned my life to the point of my unsought arrival in Brighton] took it for granted that in the last three weeks of his legal guardianship I would still act as he directed..

Again the relative clause does not distinguish one father from another: the narrator here is talking about the only father he ever had. So the information given in the relative clause is NOT semantically restrictive. It is integrated, though. The reason for expressing it in an integrated relative is that it has crucial relevance to the rest of the message: it was because the father had planned the narrator's life hitherto that he assumed he would be able to continue to do so.

Here, can you replace The with My like this?

[My father who had planned my life to the point of my unsought arrival in Brighton] took it for granted that in the last three weeks of his legal guardianship I would still act as he directed..

It doesn't work for me. But if the information given in the relative clause is NOT semantically restrictive, why shouldn't My work?

The only reason I can think of that you cannot use My instead of The is that "My father" would only refer to the only father that the narrator has whereas "The father" does not.

Is there any difference between "thou wast" and "thou wert"?

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 06:04 AM PDT

Today I realised for the first time that in the KJV Bible both thou wast and thou wert are used, and I was intrigued by the need to have two forms for the same person and number of the past tense simple in a language which generally has so few verb inflections.

While looking it up I found the confusing statement:

As verbs the difference between wast and wert is that wast is (archaic) second-person singular simple past tense indicative of be while wert is (archaic) second-person singular simple past tense of be (used with the pronoun "thou"). (Wikidiff)

It's even hilarious: A is different from B, because A = C while (!) B = C.

Leaving jokes aside, I also found this little reference on a site dedicated to Shakespeare:

wast - were - 2nd person singular, past tense - (RJ II.iv.74)

  • Thou wast never with me [Q wert]

wert - were - 2nd person singular, past tense - (2H4 III.ii.162)

  • I would thou wert a man's tailor

Does anyone know what the real difference there is between the two? If there isn't any, then why two forms?

What's the word for someone who knows what you need in advance?

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 06:22 AM PDT

An adjective that describes someone who knows what you need in advance and do for you.
It is more than flexible and adaptable.

For example, My father used to watch news on a phone after he had dinner. So my mom knows that and she charged his phone in case there will be no batteries when he needs them.

In this time, how can I describe my mom?

Is there a more British way to talk about tackling problems?

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 06:00 AM PDT

I can see that the Cambridge Dictionary is at least aware of the use of tackle meaning "come to grips with a problem" and I can see that the Sunday Times has used it on occasion. It still seems so connected to (American) football that it shouldn't be the most idiomatic way for a Brit to express the idea.

Is there any better or more common way to express this idea in British English? or do Brits just use the exact same phrasing but whilst imagining rugby or (field) hockey instead?

What does "you'll know me again" mean in British English?

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 02:06 AM PDT

I'm reading The Lives of Christopher Chant by Diana Wynne Jones, and someone says to a stranger who is helping him, "You'll know me again, young lady." What does that mean?

I think it must be a British English idiom, because Google says that "you'll know me again" is also used in Salome and the Head and Bleak House. But I don't know those works well enough to triangulate a meaning.

Is "its" ambiguous in "This bucket is produced in a factory overseas. Its capacity is small"?

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 03:05 AM PDT

I would like to show two sentence patterns:

A) The purpose of the capacitor is not to provide energy. Its capacitance therefore does not have to be large.

B) This bucket is produced in a factory overseas. Its capacity is small.

I think the use of "its" in A) is O.K. as "its" can refer back to capacitor only. At first glance, it could do so to "purpose" and "energy". However, as neither of them can be associated with "capacitance", it is clear that "its capacitance" is the capacitance of the "capacitor".

Furthermore, I think in B), "its" is used in an ambiguous manner. Here, "capacity" can refer back to both "bucket" and the "factory overseas".

Is my understanding correct?

Difference between a word combination "retail fuel company" or "fuel retail company."

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 05:07 AM PDT

Please give me your opinions to a word combination "retail fuel industry/company/network/logistics" or "fuel retail industry/company/network/logistics." What is primary in this word combination a word "retail" or "fuel," or there is no difference between them?

I have seen in the Internet different word combinations "retail fuel company" or "fuel retail company," but when we talk about "retailers," there is always "fuel retailers."

Thank you for your time and answers!

A question about 'Past Perfect'

Posted: 08 Jul 2021 11:38 PM PDT

I'd appreciate if anyone could explain to me the usage of past perfect in the following sentence, since the past perfect, I assume, is unusually referring to 'later past'.

"The frustrated interrogator was not going to give up easily. "Are you both still working in the company?" Barbara, appearing not the least disturbed by the woman's incontinent insistence, scooped the last cherry out of her dish, smiled, looked directly at her, and said in the identical tone of voice, "We've separated, but the company is unaffected." That shut her up. Barbara had shown her big winner's badge by using "The Broken Record" technique, the most effective way to curtail an unwelcome cross-examination."

(https://howtotalktoanyone.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-to-respond-when-you-dont-want-to.html)

Can a place name modify something else

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 04:07 AM PDT

I have looked up the proper way to punctuate place names (for example San Francisco, California) and am wondering if they can be used to modify something else.

Here is what I have so far:

The "Spicy Ramen Festival" of San Jose, California, was held on April 7th at the Johnson Community Center.

But it sounds better to say verbally:

San Jose, California's "Spicy Ramen Festival" was held on April 7th at the Johnson Community Center.

It this grammatical?

Thank you.

Is there a word for someone who speaks before they think

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 02:53 AM PDT

Well as the title says, is there a word for a person who talks before they think? And if it is, whats the word and what's the antonym? I need to know this for to characters in a novel. Thank you in advance.

What to call a person who runs a non-profit organization?

Posted: 08 Jul 2021 09:06 PM PDT

A person who works in kitchens can be called a Chef, or Cook. Someone who designs websites can be called a Web Developer or Web Designer.

What would you call a person who runs a non-profit/community service organization?

My first thoughts were Philanthropist or Humanitarian, but those both seem a little large scale for my tastes and may come off as boastful. On the other end is Volunteer, but that doesn't seem to convey the fact that the person actually runs the organization.

The actual title is Executive Director but saying "David is an Executive Director" doesn't convey the non-profit nature of the organization

I'm looking for a single word that represents someone who is in charge of a simple non-profit/charitable organization that doesn't sound too "big."

Thanks!

Use of articles in lists

Posted: 08 Jul 2021 11:06 PM PDT

I'd like to know if I can omit the definite article when I'm giving some sort of a list, like in this example:

The company's reputation increases in the following cases:

  • Interest on the governmental level, Government and non-governmental organizations involved
  • Increased interest by the national and foreign media
  • Possibility of making decisions on reduced work engagement

Do I need to use articles before "interest" or "possibility" in this example, or I can leave them out when listing things like this?

Two people doing something together

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 07:28 AM PDT

There are words like "meeting", "gathering" or "get-together" that describe some people coming together for a certain time, for doing certain things together.

Those words may or may not imply that the people getting together are a group (i.e. 3 or more people) -- a meeting can be between two people, but I'd assume that a gathering is typically understood to mean a whole group of people.

Either case, is there any expression or preferebly a single word which indicates that it's exactly two people getting together for some activity?

Words that are typically used for an appointment between two people -- like date or rendezvous -- usually have a romantic connotation. I'm basically looking for a more neutral equivalent.

What is the difference between 'certain' and 'specific'?

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 03:06 AM PDT

For example, what would be more appropriate to use and why:

'This guy has a certain list of skills' or 'This guy has a specific list of skills'

I'd appreciate any other examples that would be helpful in understanding the difference between the two.

Thank you

What differences are there between "at the end" and "in the end"?

Posted: 09 Jul 2021 05:45 AM PDT

Can we use both expressions "at the end" and "in the end" interchangeably?

For example, are the following sentences equivalent?

  1. "I didn't want to take sides, but, in the end, I had to."

  2. "I didn't want to take sides, but, at the end, I had to."

Which one is correct and why?

Which day does "next Tuesday" refer to?

Posted: 08 Jul 2021 10:17 PM PDT

At what point does next Tuesday mean

the next Tuesday that will come to pass

and no longer

the Tuesday after the Tuesday that will come to pass?

And, when does the meaning switch back?
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)