Friday, August 20, 2021

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

Judgement ps5 question

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 10:41 AM PDT

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gjiZ3E67e4U

He said:For a lawyers office,things are slow as shit down there.

I'm misconfusing something in this phrase he's not comparing something Right? like the office layers are more fast. What's this "for a lawyers office means? As I understand "As a "lawyers office " has more meaning. Please explain .

Contraction for negative short answers [migrated]

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 10:17 AM PDT

Is it possible and grammatically correct to use negative short answers without contraction?

Eg: Are you hungry? No, I am not!

If OK, is it considered more formal then?

What is the meaning of "all about"? [closed]

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 10:05 AM PDT

Our voyage up here was most disastrous—calms, squalls, head sea, waterspouts of rain, hurricane weather all about, and we in the midst of the hurricane season, when even the hopeful builder and owner of the yacht had pronounced these seas unfit for her.

Does bolded "all about" mean "etc" here?

Please evaluate my IELTS task 2, this is my first essay so I do not know exactly how to make a proper one, thanks a lot<3 [closed]

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 09:58 AM PDT

People should only concentrate on a single skill for life because it is the best way to succeed. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

It is a common belief that focusing mainly on a particular competence is prone to be the most optimum way to achieve life-long success. However, I firmly believe that having a wide range of different accomplishments would help people to succeed more easily due to the necessity of social skills in our society and the requirements to be able to do a variety of tasks in the labor market.

To begin with, individuals need varied soft skills to help them achieve their purposes more efficiently in our contemporary society. If people can not communicate or interact with their fellows or clients effectively, they can hardly succeed in many aspects of life comprising of their career, relationships, and other criteria. For example, ten-year-long research in China has indicated that adolescents obtaining many social skills are highly successful in terms of their wages and happiness after they have entered their adulthood rather than the ones who only concentrated on a particular field.

On top of that, there is a rising predisposition of employers to hire versatile workers. Many people believe that flexible employees can cope with continually changing demands and problems because they are competent in a variety of tasks related to their jobs. For instance, research in Japan has shown that the unemployment rate in the country is predominantly constituted by people who can only concentrate on a single skill, which has made them less attractive to the employers and therefore caused them to be out of work.

In conclusion, a paradigm for an accomplished person who is successful more easily is the one with different social and work-related skills due to the demand of the changing society and the labor market. Therefore, I believe focusing on different skills besides our main field is the optimum way to succeed.

What does "had a boat cleared" mean here? [closed]

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 09:41 AM PDT

The very day after that, in the southern bight of Tahiti, we had a near squeak, the wind suddenly coming calm; the reefs were close in with, my eye! what a surf! The pilot thought we were gone, and the captain had a boat cleared, when a lucky squall came to our rescue.

This is from Robert Louis Stevenson's letter to his cousin Bob. I wonder if "had a boat cleared" mean "evacuate a boat".

Grammatical function of 'however' [closed]

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 08:26 AM PDT

In the below sentence, what is the grammatical function (adverb, preposition, etc.) of 'however', and why? Most dictionaries say 'however' is an adverb, but I cannot understand why this is so, esp. in the sense of the below sentence.

However you look at it, he is wrong.

Grammar related to "not only ... but also..."

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 07:52 AM PDT

I know when using not only ... but also ... we should follow parallelism. Ex: not only cats but also dogs, or not only run but also jump. However, I am confused which of the followings is correct and is it necessary to put comma before the but?

  1. Generally, a system is required to be not only stable but also stable by some margin of safety.
  2. Generally, a system is required not only be stable but also be stable by some margin of safety.

Is this description correct? [closed]

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 05:56 AM PDT

I wanted to know whether this description of someone is correct

An English and geography teacher.

What's the appropriate tense here? [duplicate]

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 05:37 AM PDT

Hope everyone's doing well. I've a question about tenses.

For example:

Why did you select this prompt? I chose this prompt because it was/is easy to understand.

The action happens—or happened [hell, I'm not even sure myself]—in the past (chose), but the prompt was and still is easy to understand. What should I use?

Can you say "bald hill" to mean a hill that has no trees on it?

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 05:52 AM PDT

I am translating from Russian to English, and came across the phrase "На краю долины на вершине лысого холма стоит [...]" - trying to describe a hill at the edge of a valley. I've never come across "bald hill" anywhere in English. To me, it could be read literally like a hill that has no hair on it, but it could also be quickly parsed to mean a hill that is empty and clear of trees. Would most English readers understand this meaning, or would they laugh at the phrase?

Is there a word for conducting proper analysis before proceeding or facilitating something?

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 05:06 AM PDT

I am trying to come up with a slogan with the structure of 'Progress: ------ it'.

I want to use the term 'facilitate' but it seems like a reckless suggestion unless one does due diligence. I am looking for a word that would convey facilitating something after doing proper analysis/study.

"Everyone ask" or "Everyone asks"? [duplicate]

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 04:00 AM PDT

Have a construction "Everyone + Verb", the verb which conjugation needs?

  1. 3rd person singular?
  2. 3rd person plural?

The headmaster said "why?" change it into indirect speech [migrated]

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 04:07 AM PDT

I'm facing trouble changing it. Would you please help me solve the problem?

The headmaster said "why?"

Change the above sentence into indirect speech please.

"Within me" or "within myself"

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 10:37 AM PDT

I always hesitate between within me or within myself when the subject is I. Is there a rule that can help me decide? For example, in this sentence

The fullness of life that we receive within us/ourselves every time we (do something).

I just can't decide which one is correct and sounds more natural. I know I could omit within us/ourselves, but I am not asking for a re-writing of the sentence. Within is important for the text and needs to be there. My question is how I can decide which pronoun to use after within. Definitions in dictionaries like Cambridge, and M-W don't address this issue.

Can I say that a painting or a photograph is polemical?

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 08:17 AM PDT

I understand that polemical has 2 definitions, according to Merriam Webster dictionary.

1: of, relating to, or being a polemic : CONTROVERSIAL 2: engaged in or addicted to polemics : DISPUTATIOUS

It makes sense to say a painting or a photograph is polemical when it means "controversial". However, would it also make sense to say that a photograph is disputatious, meaning it could serve the purpose to strongly defend a particular opinion?

An adjective to describe eyes like these?

Posted: 19 Aug 2021 11:32 PM PDT

Some people have eyes that look rather different than most people's, with their whole upper eyelids (*) being very visible. Is there a term or an adjective for eyes like these?

enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

(*) By "eyelid" I meant the part below the eyelid crease (Perhaps that's anatomically wrong)

What's it called when a factual account spins itself in "folklore" (e.g., refers to wildlife as "legendary creatures")?

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 08:48 AM PDT

We decided to watch a "documentary" about "legendary creatures" because they seemed like contradictory terms to us. What are these "legendary creatures"? Bigfoot, Nessie…the creature from the Black Lagoon, chupacabras, vampire bats? What exactly?

And the answer is—wilderness wildlife—wild boars, wolves, brown bears, fire salamanders, etc.

I wouldn't consider those "legendary creatures" (except the fire salamander perhaps). That lead-in seems misleading to me. But it's not just that; the narrator is almost whispering, like it's a bedtime story, and uses phrases such as "creatures of folklore" while relaying only factual information about wildlife in their natural habitat (i.e., wolves, not werewolves or any Big Bad Wolf somewhere).

I don't know what you'd call this, but I don't think it's mysticizing (e.g., interpreting earthly events as alien) or mythicizing something or someone (e.g., a historical figure such as William Wallace). It's like the opposite of a mockumentary… I don't know; maybe it's just selling something.

I suppose it's a theatrical, albeit factual, storytelling technique referred to as _____, an attempt to turn a factual story into a compelling tale by cloaking it in nonexistent mystery.

Example of usage I found while spell checking chupacabras (Wikipedia):

The chupacabra or chupacabras is a legendary creature in the folklore of parts of the Americas, with its first purported sightings reported in Puerto Rico in 1995. The name comes from the animal's reported vampirism—the chupacabra is said to attack and drink the blood of livestock, including goats.

As quoted from the search page for simplicity. Emphasis mine (underlining due to added link), but it links to the same wiki page as the chupacabra page does.

Instead of being loosely or broadly defined, I think it's more a matter of whether you define the words together (as in the "legendary creatures" wiki page) or as two distinct words. There is probably a term for that; I may have seen it here before.

"Each/every 5 ml contains..." - which is correct?

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 06:07 AM PDT

Many drug leaflets for liquid dosage forms state how much of the active ingredient is found in 5 ml of the solution. Would it be correct to state it as "Each 5 ml of the solution contains..." or "Every 5 ml of the solution contain..."?

Here's an example from a British leaflet, and here's one from an American leaflet. Both use "each", but is it correct to refer to a quantity of 5 ml as a single unit?

"will have to" in a past tense clause

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 12:00 AM PDT

We decided that we would have to stay at home.

We decided that we will have to stay at home.

Which one of the above is right? My grammar knowledge told me the first one, but how do we distinguish the "would" here from a "would" in Subjunctive Mood?

It is a question about phrasal verbs related to perspective [closed]

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 02:42 AM PDT

Let's imagine a situation in which you have people being caught and going to jail. You can say " they are taking people into jail". Now the first question: is this sentence correct when I use the phrasal verb"taking into" ?

Second question: if I'm inside that jail and I see more people coming in, will it be correct if I say: they are bringing up more prisoners? I mean the phrasal verb "bring up" can be used in this case?

How do I use a question as an embedded quotation when it also deserves a comma?

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 09:04 AM PDT

  • So I asked "Shall I do the thing?" and he responded with "Yes."

In that sentence, should the ? exist? It kind of feels like it should be a comma, given its place in the sentence. Thing is, if I take away the comma, it loses its identity as a question.

What is the correct way to solve this?

When the adjective 'suited' is followed by a verb, should this verb be in the infinitive or in the -ing form?

Posted: 19 Aug 2021 11:00 PM PDT

Here are some example sentences from different dictionaries.

With her qualifications and experience, she would seem to be ideally suited to/for the job. (Cambridge online dictionary)

This was a job to which he seemed well suited. / He is not really suited for a teaching career. (Oxford Learners' Dictionary online)

Satellites are uniquely suited to provide this information. (Collins online dictionary)

Why not to providing?

He is not suited to teaching. (Le Robert et Collins, dictionnaire français-anglais, paper version)

Why not to teach?

When followed by a noun, noun phrase, or pronoun, the adjective suited must be followed by the preposition to or for, that much is clear.

But when it is followed by a verb?

Is it to be suited to do something (full infinitive, preposition to or for dropped, Collins's example sentence) or to be suited to/for doing something (gerund, preposition maintained, Le Robert et Collins's example sentence)?

Does the type of subject – person (he) or thing (satellites) – have an influence on the structure one should use, or not?

It is not obvious that the adjective/verb-followed-by-noun and the adjective/verb-followed-by-verb structures should match, as is NOT the case in

to be scared of something / to remind someone of something

versus

to be scared to do something / to remind someone to do something

but not

to remind someone of doing something *!

However, note that

to be scared of doing something

is possible, but with a change of meaning from intentional to accidental – I suppose – as in to be afraid to do something (to choose not to do something which is in your willpower, to avoid doing it – intentional, voluntary) versus to be afraid of doing something (to try to avoid something unpleasant happening to you – if it did happen, that would be accidental, involuntary).

These things are much more complicated than either the dictionaries or the grammar books make them out to be!

Unfortunately, many monolingual dictionaries not aimed at foreign learners do not give example sentences of adjectives/verbs followed by verbs because they do not even realize that choosing the form the verb should be in IS a difficulty!

Is there an idiom or saying for someone asking the same question many times in hopes of a more favourable answer?

Posted: 19 Aug 2021 10:51 PM PDT

What is the idiom or phrase to describe someone fishing around by asking the same question to different people until they get the answer they want? Like when someone asks a sales person if there are any specials or discount, and the answer is no. So they go ask someone else the same question hoping that if they ask enough eventually someone will tell them what the wanted to hear first time.

Similar to the phrase "asking the same question won't get you a different answer". It's usually used to describe kids asking the same question hoping that someone will say yes. Almost like not wanting to accept reality, and trying to convince yourself you can when you know you can't, but ask anyway because eventually someone will give you the answer you want, even though it won't change the outcome.

So say a child does not want to drink water, but they have heard plenty doctor's and teachers and parents say that you HAVE to drink water else you'll die. They already know that's true but don't want to accept it. So they get clever and ask around, constructing the question in such a way that eventually someone will give them the answer they want to her. So instead of asking if they can drink juice instead of water and not die (because they know the answer will be no) they ask "Mom, instead of drinking 6 cups of water a day, can I drink 18 cups of juice a day instead?" implying that the fluid content in 18 cups of juice will be equal to the fluid content your body requires from the 6 cups of water everyone says you need.

I hope my question makes sense?

Does the sign "Take Free" make sense?

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 10:25 AM PDT

The two-word sign "take free" in English is increasingly used in Japan to offer complimentary publications and other products. Is the phrase, which is considered kind of trendy in Japan, also used in English-speaking countries with the same meaning? Does it make sense to native English speakers? Is another phrase "take one free" a better choice of expression?

Usage of "burn" as a form of mockery - How did it start?

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 10:02 AM PDT

I have come across numerous posts/memes on social media where, considering A,B and C are different people:

  1. A posts something seemingly innocuous.

  2. B comments on A's post, something either very funny or offensive to A

  3. C comments "BURN!!" with some ROFL emoticons

Not the best question, but I am just curious why people say "BURN", when they need to mock/insult other people? (according to UrbanDictionary).

How did this usage come into existence?

Is this used only in social media? Or is it used in real world conversations as well?

What is the origin of the phrase "bush league"?

Posted: 20 Aug 2021 01:01 AM PDT

I know it's baseball terminology, but I've never heard anyone explain why a feeder or low-level league is associated with shrubs. Is there some relation in the phrase to "farm system"?

Difference between "when" and "if" in a sentence

Posted: 19 Aug 2021 11:09 PM PDT

I was doing a grammar activity and filling in sentences when I came across the instruction: "fill in when or if."

I was wondering, since these two can be used in a lot of same sentences, what is the difference between sentences like this?

Chris might call while I'm out this evening. [If/When] he does, can you take a message?
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)