word usage - What pronoun to use, he or she?

When I was reading:

A ferryman of the underworld tests the soul of a dead king to see if he can count to ten.

For a moment, I thought: "who are 'he'? The king or his soul?"

then I keep on reading a little further:

The dead soul's answer takes the form of a poem in which the ten fingers are listed in their order.

and I got clarification.

But what if it'd have been a dead queen? Must one say:

"... to see if she can count to ten?"

Answer

Well, when talking about royalty, a queen is a female ruler, so yes, using a female pronoun would be appropriate.

Regarding your initial confusion about what 'he' referenced, keep in mind that if you take a soul to be the essence of a person, then in a metaphysical sense the king is his soul. In the context of the passage you've highlighted, it doesn't matter that there is no longer a body housing him; the king still exists as an entity and can therefore be referred to by his pre-established gender.

Why there is no article in 'I was out of town'

I have heard "Out of town" idiom when people say that they were away.

I wonder why there is no indefinite or definite article before the word 'town'?

IMO, it should be the definite article because I am talking about the particular town.

Answer

Chalk it up to idiomatic English. It's curious how we would generally say:

I was out of the area.

but:

I was out of town.

The same goes for the phrase away from:

I was away from the area.

I was away from town.

The same holds true for after we get back:

I'm glad to see you're back in town.
I'm glad to see you're back in the area.

When it comes to the word town, sometimes an article is optional:

I've been looking for you all over town!

I've been looking for you all over the town!

Both of those are acceptable, but I think you'll find the first one is more common and idiomatic.

Interestingly enough, I would never omit the article with the word city:

I was out of the city.
I was away from the city.
I'm glad you made it back to the city.
I've been looking for you all over the city.

"That man was I." or "That man was me." - How to choose the pronoun after linking verbs?

How to choose the pronoun after linking verbs?

We must put the same word after the linking verb that we would put before the linking verb, mustn't we?

Do you know who was the man under the mask? that man was I.

Another example:

But not one of them knew or guessed that if there was a man on this earth who knew better than everyone else that I was ridiculous, then that man was I, and that what I found all the more annoying was that they didn't know ... The Gambler and Other Stories

But I found a lot of examples where people had used it as following:

There was no way to prove — actually prove, really prove — that that man was me. The Illustrated Man

So, what are the rules and exceptions?

Answer

The matching rule you describe in your question ("We must put the same word after the linking verb that we would put before the linking verb") is correct, as far as it goes, and for a certain definition of "correct". It is the usage that was traditionally prescribed; the justification is that a linking verb like "to be" does not take a direct object (like the verb "to see") but takes what is called a predicative complement that describes the subject. As you see in your examples, some people still apply this rule in current usage.

(I say "as far as it goes" because the matching rule doesn't, for example, provide clear guidance about which form to use when the subject is in the genitive case, as in "my being ???" (we can't say *"my being his") or when there isn't any explicit subject, as in "to be ?? is punishment enough". I asked a question about these situations on ELU: “Being [he/him] is not easy.” Which is prescriptively “correct”?)

The thing is, most English speakers don't speak in a way that conforms to the matching rule.

In general, in ordinary modern speech, linking verbs like "to be" are always followed by the objective form of a personal pronoun.

Exceptions:

• 
  

  I specified "personal pronoun" for a reason. This does not apply to the interrogative or relative pronoun "who/whom". The special objective form "whom" is not normally used at all in ordinary modern speech; instead "who" is used as a subjective and objective pronoun. So the traditionally prescribed form "Who am I" remains indisputably correct, and "Whom am I" is pretty indisputably wrong.

  
  



• 
  

  When a personal pronoun comes directly before the relative pronoun "who", many speakers tend to keep the personal pronoun in the subjective case. It's a bit unclear why, so I'll just give an example: "It is I who [did X]" is apparently more common than "It is me who [did X]". Information taken from Barrie England's answer on ELU, which itself has as the source the ‘Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English’.

  
  

pronunciation - When to pronounce ‹s› as /z/ in the middle of words?

When do you pronounce ‹s› as /z/ in the middle of words? Is there any rule? I also saw there are some differences in articulating medial s between American and British accents. I already know the rule for pronouncing plural s and es.

Is there any case where ‹c› is pronounced /z/?

phrase meaning - What does "be to" mean?

Harry swallowed and looked around him. He realized he must be in the hospital wing. He was lying in a bed with white linen sheets, and next to him was a table piled high with what looked like half the candy shop.
“Tokens from your friends and admirers,” said Dumbledore, beaming. “What happened down in the dungeons between you and Professor Quirrell is a complete secret, so, naturally, the whole school knows. I believe your friends Misters Fred and George Weasley were responsible for trying to send you a toilet seat. No doubt they thought it would amuse you. Madam Pomfrey, however, felt it might not be very hygienic, and confiscated it.”
“How long have I been in here?”
“Three days. Mr. Ronald Weasley and Miss Granger will be most relieved you have come round, they have been extremely worried.”
“But sir, the Stone —”
“I see you are not to be distracted. Very well, the Stone. Professor Quirrell did not manage to take it from you. I arrived in time to prevent that, although you were doing very well on your own, I must say.”
(Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)

If the sentence were ‘I see you are not distracted anymore’, I would think Dumbledore thought Harry could think properly, after having come round. Then what does the original mean?

Answer

The construction BE to VERB means, depending on context, BE expected/supposed/required to VERB. VERB may be any infinitive: simple, passive, perfect, or progressive (or any combination of these).

You are to leave immediately. = You are required to leave.
The prisoners were to be executed at dawn. = The prisoners were supposed to be executed at dawn.
She was to have been in New York on Thursday. = She was expected to have been there.
I am to be travelling all day tomorrow. = I am expected to be travelling—i.e. I expect to be travelling.

Negatives are a little tricky to paraphrase, because idiomatic use is unsymmetrical:

The prisoners were not to be executed until dawn. = They were not supposed to be executed. BUT
You are not to leave. = You are required not to leave, i.e. You are forbidden to leave.

And the negative passive has an additional possible meaning: BE not to be VERBen can mean BE impossible to VERB. So You are not to be distracted may be understood as either

1. You are required not be distracted, i.e., It is forbidden that you be distracted, OR


2. You are impossible to distract.

In this case it is clearly the latter which is meant: "I see I cannot distract you."

grammaticality - "Comparing these stories is/are lazy": "is lazy" or "are lazy"?

Am I talking about the gerund or the stories? Should I use is or are after the word lazy?

word usage - What does "I'm pretty sure" mean?

Does that expression mean "I'm totally sure" or "I'm almost sure"? I always thought the first option was correct, but once I saw in a series episode a character who said that, and his interlocutor expressed skepticism about it (something like "Are you sure or pretty sure?"). Does that depend on context, or does it always mean the same?

Answer

We can't assign a percentage of certainty to it, but it isn't close to 100%. Perhaps 60-85% certain is close to what it means for most native speakers. The more emphatic the statement (stress and pitch and volume are involved, because this is primarily spoken English, but in written English it might be underlined or in bold font or in capital letters for emphasis), the more certain the speaker/writer is. I'm quite sure probably means about 90-100% certain, however.

rhetoric - Meaning of "It is written"

It is written in the book

Does it mean that someone wrote something in the book and it's still there?
Or does it mean that someone writes it in the book?

meaning in context - Usage of past tenses with "wish"

I am confused a little bit about the meaning difference between these two phrases:

I wish I was there.

I wish I had been there.

Could you explain about it?

Answer

In English, when you wish for something that is impossible to achieve, you normally backshift the tense of a verb to indicate that it is unachievable - for example, present simple goes to past simple. See here for more information about backshifting, which is also used in reported speech.

I am there -> I wish I was there

I was there -> I wish I had been there.

So, the first sentence means that you want to be there now, and the second sentence means that you want (now) to have been there at some time in the past.

Strictly speaking, be is a slight exception to the rule: you should use the subjunctive were, but it is perfectly acceptable to use the past simple was.

I wish I were there.

word choice - What is the difference between "talk to" and "talk with"?

Does the meaning of "talk to" and "talk with" relate to their one-side or two-side conversation?

Answer

Skyminge is correct. Talk to implies a one-sided conversation, and "talk to a stone" is an excellent example of this. It doesn't have to be one sided though, for example "I talked to my boss today", and you'd assume that he talked back too. Talk with implies both people are doing some of the talking. For example "I had a good talk with my wife last night, though it felt like I was talking to a brick wall".

tense - "would have" vs "would"

1. Princess Diana would be 50 this month, if she were here now.


2. Princess Diana would have been 50 this month, if she were here now.

Are both "would be" and "would have been" possible here?

If yes, is there any difference in the meaning?

If not, which one is correct and in what situation should the other be used?

spelling - Which are the most reliable pronunciation guidelines?

I know there are no completely consistent pronunciation rules in English. But as an English language learner, I would like to have a set of guidelines to use as a fall-back when I am unsure about a word's pronunciation.

Among all the guidelines I found on the web, the two most complete are PronRules.pdf and Hou tu pranownse Inglish.

Do you know of any better guidelines than these two?

prepositions - To + verb + '-ing' usage question

How do I know when to you "to + V-ing" in English?

The following sentences are completely correct, could someone explain how grammatically correct? Or there are exceptions? For example, why not use "I look forward to see you" and "he admitted to take his money" instead?

• 
  

  The key to being more productive is

  
  


• 
  

  I look forward to seeing you.

  
  


• 
  

  He admitted to taking the money.

  
  
  


• 
  

  Scientists are closer to being able to...

  
  


• 
  

  Seven steps to reaching your goals!

  
  

Answer

I assume your confusion comes from failing to distinguish two different words spelled to.

---

The examples in your question aren't exceptions. They contain the preposition to:

The key [ to being more productive ] is ...
I look forward [ to seeing you ].
He admitted [ to taking the money ].
Scientists are closer [ to being able to ... ].
seven steps [ to reaching your goals ]

In each case, the -ing form of the verb is what is traditionally called a gerund. When the verb is in its gerund form, the clause as a whole functions very much like a noun phrase.

Each of the bracketed phrases is a preposition phrase.

---

This should be distinguished from the infinitive marker to:

I want [ to eat as many sandwiches as possible ].
I'd like [ to visit New York ].

In each of these examples, the bracketed portion is a to-infinitival clause.

The word to in these examples marks the clause as infinitive; the -ing form is not possible here.

auxiliary verbs - Tag question: Two hours should be enough time, ________?

The complete sentence is:

Two hours should be enough time for passengers to travel from Taipei to Kaohsiung by high speed rail, isn't it?

Is it grammatically correct to use "isn't it" in the above sentence? If not, how would you revise it?

word meaning - Question about "death grip on something"

The other thing is our hand position when we’re driving. It’s nice, soft hands are very important in learning to drive. We don’t want a death grip on that wheel. We want nice, soft hands, like pretty much anything that you do in sports, your hands have to be nice and soft. If your hands are soft and you’re not real tense, you’ll find that you have the ability to steer a car much, much better.

What does the word grip mean here? What does it mean to say to want a death grip on something ?

Question about question tag (nobody /everybody)

When you say "there is nobody in the garden" is the answer would be (are they? ) I just have read before that in ques. Tag we use (they) when the question include (everybody/nobody..etc

Answer

A sentence that begins with There is is called an existential clause, the sentence refers to the existence or presence of something.

In English, existential clauses usually use the dummy subject construction (also known as expletive) with there, as in "There are boys in the yard"…

In the OP's sentence, the subject is not "nobody" but there (is). Consequently, the rule dictates that you should repeat the same subject used in the clause to make a question tag.

There is nobody in the garden, is there?

As illustrated by FumbleFinger's comment, when the main clause begins with the subject "nobody", or "everybody", "everyone", "no one", etc. THEY is used in the question tag.

Nobody is in the garden, are they?

The pronoun nobody makes the clause negative, so the verb used in question tag should be positive. However, if the pronoun everybody/everyone is used, the question tag should be in the negative.

Everybody is in the garden, aren't they?

preposing - "and build upon that, but build they have": Should that 2nd "build" be "built"?

From the book Thinking in Java:

The .NET platform is roughly the same as the Java Virtual Machine (JVM; the software platform on which Java programs execute) and Java libraries, and C# bears unmistakable similarities to Java. This is certainly the best work that Microsoft has done in the arena of programming languages and programming environments. Of course, they had the considerable advantage of being able to see what worked well and what didn't work so well in Java, and build upon that, but build they have.

I'm not sure how to properly understand that part. First of all, is that even correct? I mean build, shouldn't it be built?

1. 
   
   

   and build upon that, but build they have. -- [original]

   
   


2. 
   

   and build upon that, but built they have.

   
   

Is version #1 with build, as in the original, correct? Or is version #2 with built correct? Or are both correct?

Clear things up for me, please.

Answer

1. and build upon that, but build they have. -- [original]


2. and build upon that, but built they have.

In general, both versions are acceptable in today's standard English.

But in this specific example, there would often be a preference for version #1, which is the original version that had used "build":

• 
  
  
  
  
  1. and build upon that, but build they have. -- [original]
  
  
  
  

Version #1 would often be preferred because the second "build" would then match the first "build" which was used in the previous clause, and that would give a rhetoric effect which would often be desirable by the speaker.

Note: A related answer post to this grammar issue is: “Wrote it I did” Is this grammatical?

---

LONG VERSION

---

Your example uses complement preposing in the second clause, where the preposed element is a verb phrase (VP). Usually the second clause will involve an auxiliary verb when the preposed element is a VP.

Here are some typical examples. The 2002 CGEL, page 1376:

• 
  

  [11.i ] I've promised to help them [ and help them I will ].

  
  


• 
  

  [11.ii ] It's odd that Diane should have said that, if [ say it she did ].

  
  

The preposed VP in [11.i ] is "help them", and in [11.ii ] it is "say it". Notice that the nucleus of the second clause in both examples end with an auxiliary: "will" for [11.i ], and "did" for [11.ii ].

Here are their corresponding versions that don't have the preposing:

• A.i. I've promised to help them and I will help them.


• A.ii. It's odd that Diane should have said that, if [ she said it ] / [ she did say it ].

But when the auxiliary verb is the perfect "have" and the preposed element is its complement, then both the past-participle form and the plain form of the verb are acceptable.

The 2002 CGEL page 1381:

Inflection with perfect have

A special issue arises when the preposed element is a complement of perfect have. Compare:

[25]

• 
  

  i. He said he wouldn't tell them, [ but tell/told them he has ].

  
  


• 
  

  ii. He denies he has told them, [ but tell/told them he has ].

  
  
  

Although have normally takes a past participle, it is the plain form of the verb that is preferred in [i ]. The past participle is preferred in [ii ], where it has been used in the preceding clause, but even here the plain form tell is acceptable.

---

NOTE: The 2002 CGEL is the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum (et al.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.

grammar - Does "The belief is that the earth is round" exemplify apposition?

The belief is that the earth is round.

Do 'the belief' and 'that earth is round' correctly show apposition here?

definite article - usage of THE with the plural subject (or noun)

I have following construction.

Table 4 shows the parameters used by the filtering approach. The parameters are determined by the knowledge about the data and landscape.

I want to clarify, whether second sentence should be started with THE or without THE. I am confused, as with plural words we are not normally use THE (As I know, is that so?)

tense - Is it possible to be grammatically correct without using past perfect?

Can you guys please help with which verb tense to use when talking about numerous specific events?

In the example below, I'm not quite sure if past perfect really is necessary.

"She sent me a new book as soon as I finished the book."

"She sent me a new book as soon as I had finished the book"

Then in the example below, I'm not sure if it will be incorrect without using past tense.

"Do you remember when my son got sick last Tuesday and I had to go pick him up? That's why I got worried when his teacher called me this morning."

"Do you remember when my son had gotten sick last Tuesday and I had had to go pick him up? That's why I got worried when his teacher called me this morning."

In the example below, I'm not even sure how to change it into past perfect. Maybe it's because it is not necessary at all?

"He said that the moment he first met her, he felt something special and began to keep a diary."

Edit: I don't really understand the answer that was given to me.

Why should I use past perfect at all in my "Do you remember when my son got sick" example? Am I not explaining things in chronological order? I thought I was starting to grasp this past perfect thing, but now I'm even more confused.

Also, Why is it not "He said that the moment he had first met her, he had felt something and had begun to keep a diary"?

Didn't the meeting take place before his saying it? Or is "first met her" modifying what kind of moment it was? Also, didn't the "feeling something" and "beginning to keep a diary" happen simultaneously?

Answer

1. The first question is about the tense we should use after "as soon as". In a sentence such as this:

I had left when the phone rang.

you need to use the past perfect in the second clause to show which action came first and which – second. However, when you use “as soon as”, the sequence is clear and it is normally a matter of preference which one to use, so both your examples will be correct. In American English the preference would normally be past simple. The past perfect would emphasize the fact that one action was complete before the other one occurred. (an explanation given in Grammar for Teachers by Andrea DeCapua)

2. In the second pair of examples they are both correct again. It is unnecessary to use past perfect because the time is mentioned and the sequence of events is clear. Also, the actions are described in the order in which they occurred. You can use the past perfect if you want, to emphasize that one was before the other.

3. The third question was about the sentence

He said that the moment he first met her, he felt something special and began to keep a diary.

The actual words the man said must have been:

"The moment I first met her, I felt something special and began to keep a diary."

When you report his words and begin with “He said”, the entire phrase shifts one tense back and becomes:

He said that the moment he had first met her, he had felt something special and had begun to keep a diary.

Although this is the grammatically correct sentence, it is very common that the past simple does not become past perfect in indirect speech. When reporting, native speakers tend to make present tenses past ("I am studying" - "She said she was studying") but very often do not care to make the past tenses perfect, as grammar books always teach us we should.

That is what makes both these sentences correct: "He said that the moment he first met her, he felt something special and began to keep a diary." and “He said that the moment he had first met her, he had felt something special and had begun to keep a diary.” (have a look at the end of this page)

passive voice - "Supposed to" - past/present usage

I found this examples in my grammar book.

John is supposed to have helped Mary with shopping.

It was supposed to be warm today.

Both sentences are translated that something was about to happen but ultimately it didn't. So my question is if the first sentence could be written as

John was supposed to help Mary with shopping.

tense - passing vs having passed

After ______ MA Economics he joined the London School of Economics.

I am confused about using "passing" or "having passed"?

*Edit - I did some research and from what I gathered, the answer is "passing" because using "having passed" with "after" will bring a sense of redundancy. The "having passed" form of the verb has the "after" inherent in it.

grammar - In what ways can this song phrase be grammatically parsed? (From "Close to the Edge" by Yes)

In the song, Close to the Edge by Yes (click link to see lyrics), there is a line that I don't understand how to parse grammatically to make sense of it:

• "And assessing points to nowhere, leading every single one"

I'm not looking for an interpretation, but rather, the ways in which it could be grammatically parsed, even if such a parsing may be abstract or senseless.

For example, in the classic sentence, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" there is no sensible interpretation, but we can ascribe a grammatical parsing "Pronoun pronoun noun verb adverb" and we can get a sense that ideas, which are both colorless and green, sleep in a furious way.

There are probably a few ways that the above phrase from the Yes song can be parsed, but it's probably limited to a small handful. It might require some back reference to a prior line, especially the first line. Again, the full lyrics can be found here.

In other words, what are the possible/probable syntax trees related to this phrase? (But I need a beginner's explanation.) I'm just totally lost on it, and that prevents me from even getting to "step 2" of considering any kind of interpretation, which is beyond the scope of this question.

Answer

A seasoned witch could call you from the depths of your disgrace
And rearrange your liver to the solid mental grace
And achieve it all with music that came quickly from afar
And taste the fruit of man recorded losing all against the hour
And assessing points to nowhere, leading every single one

I'm not familiar with this artist or the history of this song, so the following could be wrong or inaccurate.

You're probably wondering in the last line if assessing is the verb, making the last line a dependent clause of the first line, or if points is the verb, making the last line able to stand out on its own as a sentence.

It's entirely possible the ambiguity is intentional, since this is a work of art and the lyrics, in my opinion, have a dissociative tone to them.

I'm led to believe points is a plural noun and not a verb because leading every single one makes sense as a modifier or qualification of what points are. Modifiers are generally close to the words they modify in English.

If points is the verb, then leading every single one would, from how I see it, link all the way back to depths of your disgrace. You don't really "lead" depths - you're at the bottom of them if you are falling from somewhere - unless you're climbing out of them (which may be implied by call, however ...)

"I am surprised": passive voice or adjective?

The sentence is: "I am surprised." I wonder why it cannot be considered as the passive form of "Someone surprises me." If it is true that it is in passive form, then why do people say that surprised is an adjective in that sentence? Please clarify this. I'm in confusion.

Answer

Well, of course it can be considered as a passive voice construction.  The active voice equivalent is quite easy to find:

• I am surprised.


• Something (or someone) surprises me.

The sentence can be understood in this manner, but that doesn't mean that it can only be understood this way.  There's another possibility:

• I am surprised.



• I am a surprised man.

The word "surprised" is a participle.  Participles and participial phrases can modify nouns in much the same way as adjectives.  Some grammar books simply call them adjectives when they're used this way. 

If I am a happy man, I can simply say "I am happy."  If I do say that, then "happy" can be understood as a predicate adjective subject complement. 

We can understand the "surprised" of your original sentence in the same way. 

As it happens, "surprised" is a stative verb -- or, at least, it's a verb that's often used in a stative sense.  Both the passive voice interpretation and the subject complement interpretation are available for your original sentence.  For a stative verb, the subject complement interpretation is likely to be more useful and, for many, the more obvious interpretation.
 

it's not a matter of which interpretation is correct.  Both are correct.  It's only a matter of which interpretation makes more sense in context.  If you can see both interpretations easily, then you should be able to easily choose between them as context requires.  You may also find that, in many contexts, the overall meaning of the entire passage won't change no matter which interpretation you choose.
 

You may also want to note that "to be" isn't the only possible copular verb.  There's a handful of verbs that work in copular constructions:

• He is surprised.


• He seems surprised.


• He looks surprised.


• He sounds surprised.

You're free to interpret "He is surprised" as a passive voice construction.  For every other verb that fits this same pattern (and my examples are far from exhaustive) only the subject complement interpretation is obvious.

questions - A Complete Interrogative Sentence, Grammatically Proper, Like a Complete Declarative Sentence?

From what I’ve read, and got, here, a complete declarative sentence requests a verb, and arguments.

Does a complete interrogative request this, to get thought of as grammatically proper, too?

She (subject, argument[?]) did (auxiliary verb[?]) not (auxiliary adverb[?]) go (intransitive verb[?]).

Did (auxiliary verb[?]) she (subject, argument[?]) not (auxiliary adverb[?]) go (intransitive verb[?])?

And may you use it, and have it grammatically, and syntactically proper, as

Did she go not?

pronunciation - What are the differences between /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ in American English?

I learned /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ represent two different vowels.

However,recently I read a book, the American writer said she didn't differentiate between /ɑ/ or /ɔ/. She used only /ɑ/ for everything so I think dog, door,caught, cot, core, car must be /ɑ/.

It's easier for me to just say that everything represents /ɑ/. Though, I learn new words with /ɑ/ or /ɔ/ from reading,can I pronounce them with only /ɑ/?

image identification - Name or word for the edges in the top of windows outside the building/house

What is Name or word for the edges in the top of windows outside the building/house which are marked in the pictures? In most buildings/houses which is big where a person can stand or even sit. Not I'm not referring cornice, balcony or porch.

---

I just found, in India we call this slab. Does any agree with this word?

Answer

This used to be called a pentice (really the old spelling and pronunciation of penthouse) or a pent(ice) roof , but it appears that this term is no longer so widely known or used as it once was.

On Google I find many architects and builders calling it simply an overhang or a window overhang; and that is probably a better term anyway, since a pentice should be a sloping roof, like a fabric awning.

You are not alone in finding a name hard to track down: here is a question about it at *doityourself.com

meaning - "Tell to someone" or "tell someone"?

Sometimes, I have noticed that people, who are around me say sentences like:

You tell to John.

instead of something like

You tell John.

Please tell, is there any meaning difference in these two?

Answer

"You tell to John." is not a complete sentence. It has an indirect object, but no direct object. To be correct, you would need to add something, namely, the information you want them to "tell to John."

Tell [it/this/that/something] to John.

"You tell John." is an appropriate elision if previous context makes it obvious what it is that you want him/her to tell John.

parts of speech - What kind of sentence constituent is "a little"?

Tell me a little about yourself.

I have got two explanations of "a little":

1. "a little" functions as a pronoun. It means "something" or "a few things"


2. "a little" serves as an adverb of degree, which modifies the verb "tell". It means that you don't have to tell me all about yourself, just tell me partly about yourself.

I don't know which one is correct.

Is the word "in" required or omissible when talking about position?

Consider the guy highlighted by the red circle in the following image:

to describe him, is each of the following expressions correct and idiomatic?

He is the horizontal position.

He is in the horizontal position.

In other words, is the word "in" required or omissible when talking about position?

prepositions - "Get + prep." vs. "go/come + prep."

The 4th definition for "get" in macmillan:

4 [intransitive] to move to or from a position or place

get down: Abby had climbed a tree and couldn’t get down.

get in/into: Dad stopped the car and told me to get in. She forgot her keys and got into the house through the window.

get off: The hill was so steep we had to get off and push our bikes.

get out: A car stopped and two men got out.

I was told that get + prep. implies difficulty or effort while come/go + prep. does not.

I was wondering if these "get/got" could be substituted for "come/came" or "go/went" without considerable change in meaning.

Answer

I don't sense a connotation of difficulty or effort in get + prep. Get gets used in many, many phrasal verbs, where its core meaning of "acquire" mostly gets out of the way and serves as a placeholder for something else. There is often a connotation of acquiring the result in some irregular, direct, crude way, though. For example, get out means to exit, but exit suggests leaving in an orderly manner, such as through a door, whereas get out just means to get yerself out of the location somehow or other. Get in means to enter, but you don't "enter trouble", you "get in trouble".

The word come usually holds onto its core meaning, so it often suggests motion, or orderly motion, more strongly than get. But there is no rule. Whenever someone tells you a rule like that, tell them to "get off their high horse". :) English phrasal verbs work mainly by extending and varying familiar precedents in higgledy-piggledy fashion, not by orderly rules.

Below is some messy native-speaker reporting on the kind of stuff that you can't find in dictionaries and that can only be learned from experience, not from explicit statements.

---

Abby had climbed a tree and couldn't get down.

Abby had climbed a tree and couldn't come down.

Come down has a slight suggestion of smoother, more orderly motion. Get down means to move yourself down by any means or in any manner at all.

---

Dad stopped the car and told me to get in.

Dad stopped the car and told me to come in.

You don't ordinarily "come in" a car (except, uh, in this sense). In the right context, it works, though, such as if you knocked on the door of the car; then the situation is similar to knocking on the door of a room, where the normal response is "Come in." Another situation is if the story is being told from the perspective of someone inside the car: "Dad opened the passenger door and Kinzle came in and joined us." I'm sure you could "go in" a car in the right context, too. Very formally, I suppose you could "enter" a car, but I've never heard that. But ordinarily, you "get in" a car. That's nearly always what one says (at least in the United States).

---

She forgot her keys and got into the house through the window.

She forgot her keys and came into the house through the window.

She forgot her keys and went into the house through the window.

These all mean pretty much the same thing. Got into has more of a connotation of doing things in an irregular, nonstandard way. Came into makes me imagine seeing her enter the house from a point of view inside the house. Went into makes me imagine seeing her enter the house from a point of view outside the house. Got into doesn't suggest any perspective.

---

The hill was so steep we had to get off and push our bikes.

The hill was so steep we had to come off and push our bikes.

I suppose it's possible to say come off your bike but that would be very unusual. It would suggest getting off your bike in order to come to some other point, suggested by context. For example, if I said "Come off your bike!" I would probably mean to get off your bike and come to me. Normally you just "get off" a bike. The only real synonym I can think of is "dismount", which is extremely formal.

By the way, because get off is so ambiguous (you could also "get off a hill"), you would normally word it this way:

The hill was so steep we had to get off our bikes and push.

---

A car stopped and two men got out.

A car stopped and two men came out.

These mean almost the same thing. There is indeed a slight connotation of orderliness in the came out sentence, which the got out sentence lacks. I also find myself imagining the men as seen from the outside of the car with came out—or rather, imagining it more clearly than with got out.

meaning - toggle in -- what does this phrasal verb mean?

Example with a context (Java: A Beginner's Guide, 6th Edition by Herbert Schildt):

OOP is a powerful way to approach the job of programming. Programming methodologies have changed dramatically since the invention of the computer, primarily to accommodate the increasing complexity of programs. For example, when computers were first invented, programming was done by toggling in the binary machine instructions using the computer's front panel.

I don't think I comprehend that part well enough. To toggle something basically means to switch it back and forth between two different states. But here, I'm really at a loss as to how I should interpret the action of toggling in this context. Plus, the preposition in also throws me off a little bit.

Answer

Here's an example of the type of computer this is probably talking about:

As you can see, the computer inputs are a series of toggle switches.

So, while we now "type in" information, at that point, you'd have to "toggle in" information.

vocabulary - What do you call a person who add records to a log?

I have a log with records. How do you call a person who adds records to this log? a Logger maybe?

Answer

Depending on the field it can be specific,

I would avoid "logger", as it can mean "lumberjack", and when used in a business context usually refers to software that generates logs, not a person who creates them.

Data entry clerk

Is common if you're talking about a person who professionally enters data.

As with any written record you can use,

Author

or

Recorder

My preference would be "recorder" given that it is a term used to describe a person who takes down records, which seems best for your situation.

determiners - One of the best gift / gifts in my life is love

One of the best gift / gifts in my life is love.

When I indicate a single thing (love) as best, after "One of the best" would it be gift or gifts?

sentence meaning - Why do you always "go down the street"

I think I hear people mostly use the phrase "going down the street" instead of "going up the street" or "going on the street"

It is common to hear that :

I was going down the street when I saw her

in songs or movies.

I don't think the word down has something do to with a inclination, declination or direction.I feel people use it even they walk on a plain road/street.What exactly does this sentence mean?

So what is the difference between :

I was going on the street when I saw her

and

I was going down the street when I saw her

and

I was going up the street when I saw her

Answer

The choice between down and up for street movement is interesting.

If the street is on a hill the usage is obvious.

If the street is on the level it is less so, but there are some rules of thumb that can be applied.

If the city has an acknowledged "uptown" and "downtown" sections, "up the street" usually goes uptown and "down the street" goes downtown.

Sometimes the choice is made based on compass direction- going North might be considered "going up the street" whereas heading South might be considered "going down the street".

Other times it's local convention- however it got established.

And a lot of times it just doesn't matter and either one is perfectly fine.

But you can get a ticket for public indecency if you are caught "going on the street."!

--get more than a ticket, you would become a sex offender Here's a link to a similar question on English Language and Usage: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/83597/up-my-street-and-down-the-lane

verb forms - Use of -ing after while

In the following two sentences, there is -ing after while:

1. 
   

   While exploring the paths of program, we established a natural partitioning of paths on-the-fly based on program dependencies - such that only one path in a partition is explored.

   
   


2. 
   

   Any method which covers various possible behaviours of a given program while avoiding path enumeration, can be extremely useful for software testing.

   
   

Can someone help to elaborate why the use of -ing after while is correct (in term of grammar rule)?

Answer

These are examples of reduced adverbial clauses,in which the subject and BE are deleted.

While we were exploring the paths of the program, we established ...
Any method which covers ... while it is avoiding path enumeration ...

This reduction is only permitted under two conditions:

1. 
   

   The verb of the clause must be in a progressive form, or rewritable as a progressive form.

   
   
   

   
   

   ^✲While explored the paths of the program ...
   ^✲... while avoids path enumeration ...

   
   

   
   


2. 
   

   The subject of the clause must be the same as that of the main clause which it modifies, or a pronoun which refers to it.

   
   

   
   

   ^✲While exploring the paths of the program, a natural partitioning was established ...

   
   

   
   
   

   This implies that it was the partitioning which was exploring. The technical term is dangling modifier—‘dangling’ because the clause ‘hangs loose’, not firmly attached to an appropriate subject. Note that the unreduced clause is OK, because the differing subjects are distinguished:

   
   

   
   

   ^OKWhile we were exploring ..., a natural partition was established ...

   
   

   
   

---

^✲ marks an utterance as unacceptable

past tense - weren't going vs didn't go

I already asked a question about “weren’t playing” vs. “didn’t play”. I’m not sure if the same rules apply in an example like this one:

The weather was very bad, so we didn't go north.

vs

The weather was very bad, so we weren't going north.

Can the second one be used in this case? Does the meaning of the sentence change?

verb forms - 'I did commented on your post' vs. 'I did comment on your post'

I did commented on your post.

Is this a correct sentence? As you know that we often make emphatic sentences by using "did"but when we make them we use 1st form but here 2nd form is used. I am just confused.

grammaticality - "It's an interesting topic for me" versus "It's interesting to me": Does it really matter?

I've just caught myself out twice by writing something down as being interesting for me! This is a typical Italian mother-tongue error, but Italian is not my first language. It used to be English, but now I'm no longer sure.

And yet when I say the above phrase it sounds OK. I feel comfortable saying it, so am I right to use the preposition for in this way? If as a linguist said: "Grammar is about how people really speak, not about how they ought to speak."

Here is a link which nicely sums up the difference between interesting to me and interesting for me.

Something you do is interesting for you.

Something people do or say is interesting to you.

prepositions - By vs Until vs Until then

Doing some exercises in advanced grammar book by Cambridge I faced several odd examples:

I've got to pay the money back by the end of the month.

I've got until the end of the month to pay the money back.

The book prohibits the usage of by in the second sentence whereas the usage of by in the first seems obvious. I'm kind of struggling to understand which semantic difference the usage of until adds to the second example. And why I can't use by out there.

The other pair

I put on an extra pair of socks. Until/By then me feet were freezing cold.

I stood outside the cinema for an hour. By then my feet were freezing cold.

The book prohibits the usage of Until in the second sentence. I cannot understand why and the semantic difference between those two sentences.

Answer

By preposition Indicating a deadline or the end of a particular time period. ‘I've got to do this report by Monday’ - ODO

Until preposition and conjunction Up to (the point in time or the event mentioned)
(as preposition) ‘the kidnappers have given us until October 11th to deliver the documents’
(as conjunction) ‘you don't know what you can achieve until you try’

- ODO

Common Mistakes in Business English notes:

• Use “by” when you refer to a deadline.


• Use “until” when you refer to the period of time before a deadline.

English With a Twist notes:

Until – describes a period of time before the deadline. In other words, up to a particular time.
By – is a time preposition and means “on” or “before”. It tells you when.

The key difference is that by focuses on the deadline while until focuses on the period before the deadline.

Here are your quotes, which I'll number for convenience:

1. I've got to pay the money back by the end of the month.


2. I've got until the end of the month to pay the money back.



3. I put on an extra pair of socks. Until/By then me feet were freezing cold.


4. I stood outside the cinema for an hour. By then my feet were freezing cold.

Example 1 focuses on the deadline itself (date of final payment), whereas example 2 focuses on the period prior to the deadline (period when payments are accepted).

Examples 3 and 4 with by speak of the time when the feet could be observed to be "freezing cold", whereas with until, they speak of the period of time when the feet were "freezing cold". There is a measure of intent that has to be inferred in these examples, about whether the end-point or the duration was the focus; it's not completely precise one way or the other.

The context of #3 suggests that the "freezing cold" applied prior to wearing the extra socks. The focus of the "freezing cold" sentence could be on the period prior to wearing socks (use until), or it could be on the time at which the socks were put on (use by).

On the other hand, the context of #4 suggests that the focus is on the time at the conclusion of the hour, so by is more appropriate. Although it talks about a time period, one's feet normally don't start off "freezing cold", hence the "freezing cold" reference applies to the end of the hour, not to the whole hour. Had the context sentence been that the person stopped standing outside after an hour, the inference would be stronger that they had concluded their period of having cold feet - the period then making until more appropriate.

style - To Google something: capitalize or not?

I have a small question about the usage of Google as a verb. Is it always capitalized, even as a verb? For instance:

I Googled his name and I got hundreds of results.

Now, I am aware that this is a neologism and as such, it's probably not going to be in any dictionaries, but what is the most common usage for Google as a verb? It really looks strange to me to write or read "Googled", hence my question.

Answer

No. Google as a verb should not be capitalized. Because if you put 'G' capital, you mean the word 'Google' as a company (proper noun). You cannot company something.

I found this on Wikipedia. It's useful.

The first recorded usage of google used as a participle, thus supposing an intransitive verb, was on July 8, 1998, by Google co-founder Larry Page himself, who wrote on a mailing list: "Have fun and keep googling!"

Its earliest known use (as a transitive verb) on American television was in the "Help" episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (October 15, 2002), when Willow asked Buffy, "Have you googled her yet?"

There's no first letter capital.

OALD has an entry of the verb google.

It's observed that when the tool of doing something becomes too popular (and omnipotent in its field!), its proper noun, over the period of time, becomes a verb and then the first capital letter is lowercased.

Another such proper nouns are --Photoshop, when used as a verb becomes photoshop (no capital) and Xerox, when used as a verb becomes xerox (no capital again).

On one blog (as fluffy says) it's written:

The verb "google" (no capital) has been used in the recent years with the meaning "search (something) on the web", even though you use other search engine than Google (capital).

[Generally, a verb is not capitalized. However, the only verb with first letter capital I have come across is Christianize. I had asked that question here on this board some time ago.]

Noun and verb usage:

Did you google this term? Vs. Did you search this term on Google?
You can photoshop this image to make it better Vs. You can make this image better using Photoshop.

word usage - Is it correct to say "I hurt"?

In this dictionary,

hurt (of part of your body) to feel painful; (of an action) to cause pain:My feet hurt. Ouch! That hurt! It hurts when I bend my knee.

Can we use "hurt" for things that is not a part of our body. Ex,

Is it correct to say "I hurt"?

Answer

Hurt means "causing oneself/experiencing pain" with no object. When used with personal pronouns as subjects it means "something indefinite/general causes X pain" or "X experiences pain in general."

My arm hurts = My arm causes me pain.

I hurt = Something indefinite causes me pain, I'm feeling pain in general.

If it has an object, it means "to injure X" and can be used with objects as well as people or body parts.

I hurt my arm = I injured my arm.

I hurt our relationship = I damaged our relationship

I hurt myself = I injured myself, I probably hurt too.

I hurt me is sometimes used to say you damaged yourself emotionally or spiritually. I hurt myself can mean this too, and if you mean you physically damaged yourself, is the preferred phrase.

nouns - Is "native" always considered offensive, when referring to a person who lived in a place originally?

When I read the definition of native in the OALD, I see the following:

(old-fashioned, offensive) a word used in the past by Europeans to describe a person who lived in a place originally, before white people arrived there

I remember that, when speaking with a friend of mine (American) about the people Columbus called indiani, I was said I should refer to them as American natives.

Is native always considered offensive, or is American natives the exception to the rule?

Answer

Actually the phrase is not "American natives" but "Native Americans".

I think what the writer of that definition was trying to say was that the word "native" as a stand-alone noun to mean a person from a non-Western culture with a low level of technology is now considered offensive. Like if you drew a picture of a group of people standing in front of a mud hut, with painted faces and carrying spears, and labeled it "Natives", this would be considered offensive.

The word "native" in general simply means some one or thing that originally comes from a particular place. In this sense it is a perfectly good word. I certainly would not be offended if you referred to me as "a native of New York". We routinely talk about "foods native to the region", about a person's "native language", etc.

But anyway, I don't think there's any simple rule as to what makes a word or phrase offensive. When I was a boy in the 1960s, members of a certain ethnic group were routinely referred to as "negroes". Then about the 1970s or so we were told that this term was offensive, and that we should call them "black". Then in the 1990s we were told that "black" is offensive, and we should call them "African-American". How did "black" go from being the polite term to being offensive? It just did. There's no pattern to such things.

I saw a survey a few years back that found that a majority of American Indians prefer to be called Indians rather than Native Americans. For that matter, I saw a survey fairly recently where they asked black people what they prefer to be called, and 1% said "African Americans", 2% said "black", 96% said "don't care", and there was the usual scattering of other answers.

pronunciation - Minimal pairs for i vs ɪ and is there an important difference?

According to a vowel question in Linguistic SE, English can be considered to have vowels [i ɪ e ɛ æ ɑ ɔ o ʊ u ʌ] which can be reduced to [i e æ ɑ o u ʌ] (plus an orthogonal length or diphthongization).

I use https://tophonetics.com/ for IPA phonetic transcription, which gives for "still steel" RP transcription /stɪl stiːl/, American /stɪl stil/, where I hear /i/ in American /stil/ as longer version of /ɪ/, as used in RP.

So is there a important difference? Are there minimal pairs? Does the difference depend on a dialect, distinct in some and non-distinct in other dialects?

In How to measure auditory distances between vowels, one chart does not mention /ɪ/ separately at all, the other one places it close to /i/.

I have few more related questions about /e ɛ/ ; /ʊ u/ and /ɑ ɔ/, which I plan to ask here, on ELL, or linguistics, depending how you will find my question be appropriate here :-)

I learned my English using [i e æ ɑ o u ʌ] vowel system, I am curious how wrong I am compared to full [i ɪ e ɛ æ ɑ ɔ o ʊ u ʌ].

Edit: I am aware about short vs long vowels (lax vs tense in proper linguistics lingo, IIUC). So my question is, if there is an important (distinguishable) difference between (short) /i/ and /ɪ/, and/or between (long) /i:/ and /ɪ:/ - if such sound as /ɪ:/ exists in English.

Also, I wanted to add "minimal-pair" tag, but none exists, not sure if it will be appropriate.