Friday, December 17, 2021

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

"economic burden" VS. "financial burden"--are they interchangeable?

Posted: 17 Dec 2021 02:08 AM PST

I am wondering if these two phrases are interchangeable in context like the example sentences below.

  1. Buying a house often places a huge financial burden on young couples.
    Buying a house often places a huge economic burden on young couples.

  2. Studying abroad adds financial burden to family.
    Studying abroad adds economic burden to family.

What is the meaning of the sentence in the given context?

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 11:45 PM PST

"The compressed culture of the campus can promote the idea that work is fun, palaces of informality to house workers _________ a technologically-driven utopia.

1.following the vision of.

2.acting on the belief that.

3.driven by a belief in."

What does the sentence mean contextually?

How to transform from interrogative to assertive? [closed]

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 10:41 PM PST

Having difficulty in transforming interrogative to assertive. I am not having this problem while transforming from rhetorical questions to assertive. However unable to do the same for non rhetorical interrogative to assertive. So I would require some help.

Word for when someone asks if you remember them

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 10:09 PM PST

I don't know if it's common everywhere, but in my country any family-or-friends gathering has at least one person who will come up to you and ask if you remember them, as if they're cashing in on a coupon of shaming you publicly. And I was thinking so common an occurrence should have a word for it.

So . . . is there a word for it?

Using 'WhatsApp' as a verb

Posted: 17 Dec 2021 02:05 AM PST

Oxford Learner's Dictionaries presents 'WhatsApp' as a verb and noun.

WhatsApp™ verb

/ˈwɒtsæp/, /ˌwɒtsˈæp/

/ˈwʌtsæp/, /ˌwʌtsˈæp/

[transitive, intransitive]

WhatsApp (somebody) to send a message, photo or video using the WhatsApp service.

I WhatsApped Abigail yesterday to let her know what had happened.

She spent most of the evening WhatsApping and taking selfies.

Is it acceptable to use 'WhatsApp' in formal contexts as a verb?

“Had started” or “Started”?

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 08:35 PM PST

As the bath oil facility is where the fire had started, its proximity to the island fruit trees means the fires spread onto the orchard farm.

I didn't use "has started" because it's already done. I'm also narrating in the present tense. But I'm seesawing between "had started" and "started." Which one should I use?

"And" or "or" omitted in this sentence?

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 08:09 PM PST

In the following sentence, is it correct to assume that "and" or "or" is omitted before "through our online services"? If so, is such an omission grammatically acceptable, or is it just an error by the writer?

This Privacy Policy describes why and how we process the personal data we receive over our websites, through software and applications, through our online services, when we provide services, when we license our products, when we handle inquiries about our products and any other means, such as, when we obtain your data at an exhibition.

What would be correct "Businessman's club" or "Businessmen's club"? [closed]

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 05:23 PM PST

What would be correct "Businessman's club" or "Businessmen's club"? If there is a difference, British version.

(just in case, or "Businessman club" or "Businessmen club" or any other forms?)

"English writing skills" or "English writing skill"? [closed]

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 04:38 PM PST

Should I say "English writing skills" or "English writing skill"? Or maybe written English skills? There are so many variations. :)

Is there a word for the phenomenon where explicitly stating assumed things, unprompted, makes you question their validity?

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 04:18 PM PST

An example might be if someone were to say they were, "A tooth dentist". As a dentist, I assumed they worked on teeth, but as they explicitly stated 'tooth' you would question why they felt the need to add that - ultimately reducing the trust in the sentence.

Another example might a group of adults reading some text (eg. a book) and someone says, unprompted, "I can read". It was assumed everyone in the group could read, yet someone explicitly saying that without being directly questioned would cast doubt.

The "tooth dentist" is an example of a semantic pleonasm or redundancy, but that alone doesn't imply that the validity of the statement is brought into question. The "I can read" example is stating the obvious to such an extent that its only consequence is to provoke uncertainty.

When documenting a programming function: given vs passed argument [closed]

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 02:04 PM PST

I'm a software engineer, and I always struggle when documenting functions because I'm never sure if I should use given or passed when explaining about the give/passed arguments. Is there a rule I can follow? e.g.

// MyFunc uses the given argument....  func MyFunc(arg1) { return false }

vs.

// MyFunc uses the passed argument....  func MyFunc(arg1) { return false }

Are both gasoline and mains gas called "gas" in the USA? [closed]

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 05:50 PM PST

I know that "petrol" is called "gasoline" in the USA, but frequently shortened into just "gas".

But then there's also the English word "gas", which to the best of my knowledge is still the same in the USA.

So what if somebody is talking about their gas-stove while casually mentioning their car?

I've called the gas company about these outrageous gas bills, oh, and Honey, will you please drive and fill up the car with gas?

Or is mains gas called something different in the USA?

Trying to find a grammar rule that explains heavy use of ‘but’ instead of ‘that doesn’t’ in older English

Posted: 17 Dec 2021 03:19 AM PST

I have seen quite a few sentences that look like this in 18th and 19th century literature:

There was hardly a lawyer of repute but took up the question, and had an opinion as to Lizzie's right to the necklace.

― Anthony Trollope, The Eustace Diamonds (1871)

And as for canes, hardly a man but has a half-dozen or more of all styles, colors, and weights.

― Mark Sibley Severance, Hammersmith: His Harvard Days (1878)

And after this matter it is said we come to the abstract idea of man, or, if you please, humanity, or human nature; wherein it is true there is included colour, because there is no man but has some colour, but then it can be neither white, nor black, nor any particular colour, because there is no one particular colour wherein all men partake.

― George Berkeley, The Principles of Human Knowledge (1710)

These buts are very akin to that doesn't or doesn't have. (Note that in the first sentence, Trollope means that reputable lawyers ᴅɪᴅ take up the question, as revealed by context, since he goes on to list a couple of solicitors and attorneys with opinions.)

Then there are a few easier explained that use but strictly instead of that:

I thank your Lordship for your invitation to Chilbolton, but I fear it is impracticable this year, It is not impossible but that next year I may have the honour of waiting on your Lordship at Sᵗ. Asaph, If I go to Ireland I certainly will go that way.

― Sir Joshua Reynolds, Letter LXXVII¹ (1784)

But using that rule on Trollope's sentence would turn the sentence on its head completely.

I would like to learn more about the former usage, and what kind of rules explain it.

What's a word that describes the type of person that unintentionally answers a question with related info without answering the question specifically? [duplicate]

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 03:18 PM PST

Imagine you are talking to an older person and you ask, "What is the sun made of?" To which they reply, "It was a cold day today, but I was sitting on the park bench earlier and felt pretty warm in the sunlight."

They were able to talk about something that was related to the question, but obviously did not answer it. What is a word that describes this state of being? I'm fairly certain that there is a more specific term for this, but the only words coming to mind are "spacious" and "gaseous" (as a state of being, not as a description of composition).

I was listening to a podcast in which the host was interviewing someone that seemed to be elderly. The host would ask questions of the interviewee but would not get exact answers in return. The answers would either be related to the question (like above), or they wouldn't be related at all. Some people might say that the person being asked the questions "isn't all there" mentally, but that's more of an observation of the state of being and not a description of the state of being itself.

I'm having difficulty with figuring out how to accurately ask this question, so there's some serious irony in here somewhere.

Edit: The suggested duplicate question does not answer the question. The word I was looking for was "vacant".

What's the word for making something or someone appear intelligent? Similar to aggrandizement, but specifically for intelligence

Posted: 17 Dec 2021 01:05 AM PST

The context in which I want to use this word is that of someone making an effort to show off how smart they are. They are putting effort into creating a certain impression regarding their intellectual capabilities.

Self-aggrandizement is pretty close, but not quite specific enough because I am looking to specifically post out that they're primarily focusing on intelligence.

Edit

How this would be used in a case for someone describing an individual who is citing facts just to make themselves sound smarter

'that person is focusing on self-[WORD]'

How this might be used in a neutral case.

'The health board carefully explained all their recommendations for many reasons, one of which is [WORD] so that people can have confidence on the capabilities of the board'.

One word for "The original person who experienced an event"

Posted: 17 Dec 2021 03:00 AM PST

The person whom the story belongs to is not telling the story, but someone else is telling it on his behalf. In that case, what's one concise word or phrase to replaced the bold part above?

This story is recounted by another person on behalf of the original person that experienced this story.

This phrases is added before the actual story is recounted, so this is pretty much a reminder to the audience that the person they see telling the story is not the real guy. The best I can get to is "This story is recounted by someone else on behalf of the true protagonist," but that still sounds off.

If x....could happen

Posted: 17 Dec 2021 04:22 AM PST

I have a question regarding "if" conditionals with could.

  • If they see us, they could kill us.

  • If they see us, we could start something between us.

In these, "could" means "might", the person only stating that if the condition is fulfilled, there is a possibility but not a guarantee that the statement in the main clause will also be realised.

How about:

  • I might go to the party if my mom lets me.

  • I could go to the party if my mom lets me.

Do these also convey a possibility, and not a guarantee (if the conditional becomes true)?

Can we use the present continuous with a gerund, other than the specific examples listed?

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 06:44 PM PST

Can we use the present continuous with a gerund in instances other than have been + present participle + gerund , am considering + gerund, and "am going to + gerund" ?

I've taken the following examples from "Thinking About Using -ing Words?" at Learning English.

verb + gerund One common situation in which two -ing words can appear next to each other is when the first -ing word is part of a continuous verb tense and the second -ing word is a gerund, as in the first example:

I've been avoiding going to the doctor.

Here, have been avoiding is the present perfect continuous form of to avoid. Going is the gerund.

Here's another example:

I'm considering buying a home in DC.

Here, am considering is the present continuous form of the verb to consider. Buying is the gerund.

go + gerund Two -ing words can also appear together in what we call "go + gerund." Go + gerund is an example of the verb + gerund construction.

In English, we add the verb to go to certain recreational activities. These activities include fishing, swimming, shopping and skating, plus more than a dozen more.

Because of this, when go is in the continuous verb tense, you will see two -ing words together.

Listen:

I'm going shopping in Alexandria next weekend.

In this sentence, am going is the present continuous form of the verb to go and the gerund is shopping.

Here's another:

We're going skating on Friday in the sculpture garden.

In this sentence, are going is the present continuous form of the verb to go and skating is the gerund.

Note, however, that you will not see two -ing words together when go is not in the continuous tense with these activities. For example: "We went skating in the sculpture garden last Friday" is still part of the go + gerund structure.

Are there any other grammar constructions than these with a verb-ing + gerund?

Thanks!

"the X, to Y and which I do Z"

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 09:03 PM PST

Let's say I look up to Alice and Bob. Can I convey this fact about Bob in a comma-delimited clause like this?

"This is Bob, up to Alice and whom I look."

or similarly

"My couch, on my bed and which I often sleep, is brown."

Of course I'd avoid this awkward phrasing in practice, but I'm curious whether it's considered technically valid.

difficult sentence meaning

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 06:02 PM PST

What is the meaning of this sentence?

... because believing in something will be seen by the passive nihilist as preferable to taking the risk of not believing in anything, to taking the risk of staring into the abyss – a metaphor for nihilism that appears frequently in Nietzsche's work.

One source: Nihilism

What is the history of "may" being used to mean "must"?

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 07:30 PM PST

According to (online) Merriam-Webster, "may" has the following two distinct definitions, among others

1 b: have permission to

4: SHALL, MUST —used in law where the sense, purpose, or policy requires this interpretation

Oxford dictionary does not seem to have the definition of may = shall, must.

What is the history of may being used to mean "must"?

Do readers pay attention to British vs. American pronunciation when enjoying poetry?

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 08:29 PM PST

Do native poetry enthusiast pay attention to British vs. American pronunciation when enjoying poetry?

As I understand, there could be differences in rhythm and rhyme depending on the given accent, which could affect the "exterior quality" of a piece of poetry. The question came to me in connection with poetry translation to English, but I would generally find it interesting to know whether native speakers actually consider the nationality of the poet before reading his/her works, or find it irrelevant.

(I mean, I'm not sure I would want to listen to a Robert Burns poem in an Australian accent :D )

A word to describe an excessively formal process or procedure

Posted: 17 Dec 2021 03:56 AM PST

I'm looking for a single word which can describe that a given process is overly formal in a sense that it requires plenty of steps or involves myriad subprocesses.

For instance, some company is about to introduce a new development methodology and employees complain that this methodology is ???, and therefore it would be tiresome to follow because it has many phases.

The word ceremonial, in my own opinion, has a religious connotation. Another option is to merely use such adjectives as overly, exceedingly and very in order to emphasize this fact, but nonetheless it would be great if there exists a single word.

Passive or Active (Infinitive construction)

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 03:40 PM PST

The task is to open the brackets: I don't want these rumours (to spread) around. As far as I can see, both "to spread" and "to be spread" are possible. What sounds more natural to you? Does "around" influence your choice of Active/Passive?

Grammar books say we tend to use Active constructions. e.g. I have a lot of books to read. Exceptions to this rule are said to be: see (It remains to be seen) and do (There was nothing to be done about it).

A way to describe a group of trees of one species using only one word

Posted: 17 Dec 2021 03:37 AM PST

While working on a short story I stumbled over a simple sentence when I was trying to depict in a succinct, and yet expressive manner, a fact that the main character was at the edge of a birch woodland. I do not really like a word combination "birch woodland" or a "birch forest" and I'd like to express this by means of one word.

To give you a rough idea, in Russian there is a way to name a woodland type, consisting mostly of one preponderant and homogeneous tree species using a single word without explicitly saying an "XYZ" forest. For example, let's say there is an aspen forest. Instead of saying this word combination you can merely say aspen with a special suffix ("осинник"). This style is mostly prevalent in literature rather than colloquial language for that matter.

I'm trying to find out whether there exists something similar in English. I'm aware only of a few examples, namely a pinery (a grove/woodland with pines) and some more esoteric ones such as "oakery" (oak woodland) and "osier-bed" (grove with osiers/small willows). I'm not even sure whether the last two of my examples do not represent any kind of idiosyncratic vocabulary.

My first idea was to append "wood" ending to a name of a particular tree in order to obtain a desired word such as "birchwood" for a birch forest. However, I'm not confident whether this is appropriate. In fact, this rather alludes to some kind of timber and carpentry material than to a picturesque and vivid description of a grove.

I'm looking for a help of native speakers who are well aware of a proper literary style to describe a grove with one tree species using only one word.

The most appropriate single word to describe sunrise(dawn) glow

Posted: 17 Dec 2021 03:49 AM PST

I've noticed that in English there are several words which describe light or radiance remaining in the sky after the sun has set.

For instance, there is an "afterglow" which, in my opinion, refers to a more effulgent kind of sunlight that is scattered in the sky after sunset. There is "gloaming" which refers to a dim and faint light. There is "dusk" which is a darker stage of twilight. I can also think of crepuscular light, but I think it has a bit different meaning with a subtle twilight connotation and also looks a tad esoteric.

As you might have already noticed, there are several words which denote sunset colours, but I wasn't able to find anything more precise, which would imply the same glow but with a reference to a sunrise.

If we check a definition of an "afterglow" in the Oxford Dictionary, we can see that it is explicitly stated:

after the sun has set.

In case of other words such as "gloaming", "twilight" or "crepuscular" this is not mentioned. Can a native speaker confirm that I may use these words in the context of a sunrise glow?

The closest I've found so far is twilight and the word combination "sunrise twilight" can be found in different text corpora. But I am eminently willing to know whether there is a more precise word.

P.S. "dawn", "cockcrow" and "daybreak" denote mostly a time instance, hence I think they are irrelevant here.

Is it incorrect to say, "Why cannot....?"

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 05:14 PM PST

At any point in history was "Why cannot...?" used as frequently as "Why can't...?" Is it even grammatically correct to say "Why cannot you do this?" I know it can be rearranged to be "Why can you not do this?," but I always presumed the contraction and the contracted phrase could be used equivalently, without changing the sentence structure. I think this pattern holds true with the other question words (e.g. how, when, etc.); however, I also know it is common to say "Who cannot do this?" In general, are there rules pertaining to the uses of contractions in questions?

A word for someone who never had a mate because he/she has a high standard

Posted: 16 Dec 2021 06:35 PM PST

Is there any better word than picky?

I can run faster than _____. (1) him (2) he?

Posted: 17 Dec 2021 04:21 AM PST

Consider the sentence "I can run faster than 15 miles per hour." Its meaning is clear and to my eyes obviously grammatically correct. Now let me present some variations that have given me trouble for a long time.

  • I am faster than 15 miles per hour. – To me this is clearly incorrect. Directly comparing me to a speed doesn't seem right. We need to compare my speed to a speed, or me to another person.

  • I can run faster than him. – Compared to the base sentence, there is a distinct shift in meaning of the comparison. While before I named a speed faster than which I can run, now I am naming a person. It doesn't seem quite right. I realize the parts of speech can change, but my initial objection is that "him" is not a speed.

  • I can run faster than he. – This seems most correct to me, but still somehow feels objectionable. Is this in fact the correct way to say it? And if so, is it proper as is or need I say "... faster than he can" or even "... faster than he can run?"

  • I am faster than him. – With "am" instead of "can run" it now seems slightly more correct. But is it?

  • I am faster than he. – I'm in doubt here. It doesn't seem wrong to me to say, "I am faster than he is" or even "I am faster than he is fast." (Though I suppose that is a given since I could hardly properly compare to some other category as in "I am faster than he is smart.")

  • My speed is faster than his. – Hmm. This seems more proper as "my speed is greater than his."

So which of these constructions is correct and which is incorrect? Is there a general rule that I can follow?

UPDATE

The scholarly article Syntactic isomorphism and non-isomorphism under ellipsis may be of great interest to some readers!

Once we accept that the elided constituent and its antecedent can differ in form, it becomes reasonable to ask how large this difference can be. The answer in Rooth (1992), Fiengo and May (1994), Chung et al. (1995) and subsequent work is that the wiggle room is actually quite small: the elided constituent and its antecedent are allowed to differ only in the realization of inflectional morphology. Other than that, both constituents have to be syntactically and lexically isomorphic.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)