Vegetable base doesn't work in this context.

You would use vegetable base to mean that some product comprised mainly vegetables as in: Our soup has a vegetable base.

Your options are several.

Supermarkets store fruits and vegetables in refrigerated warehouses.

Individual sections of these warehouses are referred to as storerooms (or sometimes as cool-rooms if kept at low temperature).

Such storage centres may be referred to as depots or distribution centres although these words are used for any base away from the hypermarkets/supermarkets they serve.

Farmers keep products in barns (which are big) or sheds (which are small) prior to dispatch.

Products stored in rooms underground are kept in cellars.

People keep fruit and vegetables in their pantries unless they need to be kept cool in refrigerators or frozen in freezers.

But the short answer to your question is either warehouses (which are large and may be refrigerated) or storerooms (which are relatively small).

The term "Vegetable Base" would be construed to describe a food where a vegetable is the primary constituent - such as a "Vegetable Based Soup Stock".

The "Vegetable Base" would be the vegetable component, and would usually (although not always) be a concentrate of some sort.

You're referring to a "cold storage facility", in this case, specifically for vegetables, although the same terminology is used for storing processed and semi-processed meat animals (eg sides of beef, etc.).

Hope this helps!

The terms packing house or packhouse describe a structure similar to what you are looking for.

A packing house is a facility where fruit is received and processed prior to distribution to market.

(Source: Wikipedia )

Some sources refer specifically to fruit packing or alternatively for meat processing (where is is also called a slaughterhouse ), while others (e.g. see Wiktionary entry ) include other kinds of produce as well.

Wikipedia has a list packing houses in the United States , and most of them have "packing house" as part of the name.

This seems to indicate ithat the term is established in the food industry.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/27840/laugh salutes Monica C

Wikipedia uses the generic term "produce distribution centre" .

"Produce" is a common and highly standardized term for unprocessed fruits and vegetables on their way to retail.

Here in Ontario we have installations called "food terminals", where produce is sold at wholesale to buyers working for restaurants and markets.

But "produce distribution center" is probably the better generic option.

With "warehouse" the emphasis is on storage, possibly long-term (which would not be the case for produce) and also does not convey the multi-buyer wholesale distribution aspect.

While not vegetables, grain is stored in a granary .

Question: How do they refer to big roofed places, in which vegetables, having been brought from fields, are kept before being taken to various outlets to be sold?  I thought "vegetable base" was a good term, but it looks like Google doesn't return many results. Besides, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on "vegetable base"

Is "vegetable base" a common term in English?

Wikipedia uses the generic term "produce distribution centre" . Wikipedia uses the generic term "produce distribution centre" . The terms  packing house  or  packhouse  describe a structure similar to what you are looking for.  You're referring to a "cold storage facility", in this case, specifically for vegetables, although the same terminology is used for storing processed and semi-processed meat animals (eg sides of beef, etc.).  The term "Vegetable Base" would be construed to describe a food where a vegetable is the primary constituent - such as a "Vegetable Based Soup Stock

"Vegetable base" is incorrect in this context. However, "packing house", "food terminal", "cold storage facility" or "pack house" are al viable terms.

"Vegetable base" is incorrect in this context. "packing house", "food terminal", "cold storage facility", "packing house" or "pack house" are all viable terms.


You might call it a stifled laugh , as in, “Mary tried to contain herself, but couldn’t help letting out a stifled laugh.”

You could also use the word snicker (either as a verb or noun) or possibly titter - though the latter might sound a little dated and silly.

This "pfft" could be called a "snicker".

Also, sometimes the stifled laugh comes out not as a "pfft" but more of a "snort" if you try to keep the laugh inside by shutting your mouth.

At deviantart.com , you can see the entirety of a cartoon titled "What are you Laughing at?"

It may be hard to read because the lettering is so small, but the characters are trying not to laugh, and are emitting the words "snicker" & "snort" (highlighted in yellow) instead.

How about the word snort .

It could be used in a sentence like: When Nick told his wife about the narrow escape from a traffic ticket

Betty tried to withhold a chuckle that came out as a snort.

How about Titter?

I came across it a while ago doing a crossword on a plane.

titter /ˈtɪtə/

verb verb: titter ;

3rd person present: titters ; past tense:

tittered ; past participle:

tittered ; gerund or present participle:

tittering give a short, half-suppressed laugh; giggle. "

her stutter caused the children to titter" synonyms : giggle, snigger, snicker, tee-hee, give a half-suppressed laugh, chuckle; noun noun: titter ; plural noun: titters a short, half-suppressed laugh.

"there were titters from the gallery" synonyms : giggle, snigger, snicker, tee-hee, half-suppressed laugh, chuckle;

According to wordhippo , a suppressed laugh is: A half-suppressed, typically scornful laugh

The site also offers these synonyms: snigger, snicker, giggle, chortle, sneer, cackle, chuckle, guffaw, simper

I tend to think of guffaw, although Merriam-Webster says this is "loud laughter," how about a stifled guffaw?

I think at this point pfft is an onomatopoeia.

It's a part of my vocabulary at least, but it's more like a stand in for the word pashaw .

Which is an exclamation about the hilarity of an incredulous situation.

It's a way to 'call bullshit' without swearing, or to preserve the lightheartedness of a conversation.

He let out a pfft

but I wasn't sure if he was actually annoyed, or just trying to not hurt my feelings by laughing it off.

Question: What do you call the small burst of laugh that people let out when they want to refrain from laughing, but can't? You know the "pfft" sound? I am not sure if it only happens when you refrain from laughing, but yeah some people I guess laugh like that.

Word for a small burst of laughter that can't be held back

This "pfft" could be called a "snicker".  You could say titter..  A short, half-suppressed laugh

The following are all possibilities: "stifled laugh", "snicker" "snort", "titter" and "guffaw".


The English adjective to describe a man or boy whom the speaker/writer regards as exhibiting stereotypically or inappropriately feminine characteristics is "effeminate."

Please note that this word should be used with caution, if at all, as these days it is often seen as offensive.

Also, please note that what specific characteristics are seen as "effeminate" can vary widely across different times and cultures, and even from one individual to another.

Wearing pink, being emotional, and gesturing with one's fingers are by no means universally coded as "feminine," and therefore will not always be seen as "effeminate" when done by a man.

Effeminate , an adjective that means "having feminine qualities untypical of a man; not manly in appearance or manner."

Nanigashi makes an excellent point about the cultural and temporal boundaries that limit the applicability of categorizing particular behaviors as feminine or masculine.

There is also androgynous : partly male and partly female in appearance; of indeterminate sex, which is not quite the same thing of course.

A less derogatory, more politically correct term, that no one has mentioned yet is: metrosexual .

Although a metropolitan sexual describes a man who is just more particular about grooming and cleanliness.

(Google the old SNL skit "Sprockets" with Mike Myers for more information).

I am thinking of sissy (adj.), a pansy (n.), unmanly (adj, to describe one's behaviour).

Keep in mind they all are derogatory.

In a modern and broad-minded society, having nails painted, or wearing a pink outlandish suit, or getting overly emotional doesn't necessarily describe a woman.

Another option is camp (adjective), meaning to behave in a way stereotypical of a gay man (in Western culture).

This includes exaggerated feminine traits, but also some traits (mannerisms, walk, accent) unique to the gay male subculture.

Note that gay itself could be an option, if you genuinely think they are homosexual.

However this has also been used as a general insult/criticism without necessarily being related to sexuality.

"That's so gay" implies that you think something, or something someone is doing, is bad/stupid/lame/dumb.

Katy Perry wrote a song about an ex-boyfriend called "Ur so gay (and you don't even like boys)" which made the intent of the insult clear.

This use is generally offensive to gay people, of course, because it originates in accusations of homosexuality being used as insults, and then became a more generic insult in the 1990s when homosexuality became less taboo.

It also reminds me about an expression used by the former Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger: girlie man .

ell.stackexchange.com/users/96504/someone in the crowd

There is also gender bender , a quite catchy term which seems to fit your examples shown.

It implies a more conscious effort of the person thus described, perhaps even a level of activism or show, as opposed to the purely descriptive effeminate which can be entirely unconscious.

Since identity and in particular gender issues are "mined territory" Graham has a point:

As this reddit discussion shows the term can be perceived as inappropriate, for example exactly because it implies a level of activism.

Understandably gender-fluid people (I hope I'm not insulting anybody) are loath of being categorized, so it's prudent to tread carefully in this context; using the rather benign gender bender is no exception.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/15471/Peter - Reinstate Monica

Depending on the specific behaviours and the cultural context, a man could be described as being feminine as opposed to effeminate .

Both are valid, but effeminate is more derogatory, suggesting that the speaker thinks his mannerisms are in some way inappropriate, offensive, affected, or possibly even insulting to women by performing an exaggerated caricature (this is when effeminate crosses over into camp).

A man who performs some "stereotypically female" behaviours in a more naturalistic, less exaggerated way, could be correctly described as feminine without being effeminate.

Question: Does there exist a word which describes someone who is male but behaves like a female? In Chinese, we say that "他很 (He is so) 娘". Such guys may have the following features (include but not limited to):    lifting their little finger   being emotional   wearing lovely pink clothes    Any words in English describing the above men with those features which seem strange to me?

Is there a word for a man who behaves like a woman?

Effeminate , an adjective that means "having feminine qualities untypical of a man; not manly in appearance or manner."

A man who behaves like a woman can be called "metrosexual", "a gender bender", "feminine", "effeminate" "gay", "a sissy", or "androgynous".


It is a verb in British English: commentate: VERB

[NO OBJECT] British Report on an event as it occurs, especially for a news or sports broadcast; provide a commentary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/commentate

Running commentary is also fairly common.

running commentary ( noun ) a continuous spoken description of an event while it is happening

The classic phrase for such a description is play-by-play .

Literally this means a detailed description of a sports event, describing each event in the game as it happens.

But it has been extended to descriptions of other sorts of events, including political ones, on a similar as-it-happens basis.

Such "play-by-play" descriptions arose when games were broadcast by radio, with no accompanying images, because video had not yet been developed.

The intent was to give the listeners the same information as they would have if they were physically present.

Indeed it gave more, because the broadcaster often had expert knowledge of what to watch for, what was significant, that many people did not have, or not to the same degree.

It is also known as "play-by-play commentary."

Strictly speaking the commentary is the account of the event, not the process of delivering that account, but it is often extended to cover the process as well.

The action of doing the description is sometimes called "giving a play-by-play" or "delivering a play-by-play".

In either case, "commentary" can be added.

Commentary is the noun, but as you are asking for the action, the corresponding verb is commentate/commentating .

Those who commentate are called commentators

There's narrating verb (used with object), nar·rat·ed, nar·rat·ing. to give an account or tell the story of (events, experiences, etc.). to add a spoken commentary to (a film, television program, etc.) or cast In sports broadcasting, a sports commentator (also known as sports announcer, sportscaster or play-by-play announcer) gives a running commentary of a game or event in real time, usually during a live broadcast, traditionally delivered in the historical present tense.

This is used a lot regarding games, such as on Twitch,

although there it can be used very broadly: often someone casting a game will be discussing things only tangentially, if at all, related to the game.

Also, while the traditional past tense of "cast" is just "cast", many people now use "casted".

If it specific to sports, as the other answers have said, commentating or running commentary is the common word.

Reporting live is another which I think has a broader potential context of use.

Also, reporting tends to be more about the events with as little 'extra information' as possible, while commentary tends to include some opinion or any other relevant extra information.

In British English, "live commentary" is probably the most common phrase for this.

For example, the national UK radio station that specialises in sports reporting uses it in its schedules .

A less common phrase would be " color commentary ", referring particularly to background information provided between plays.

"Calling the game" can also be used.

The same term gets used in place of "calling off the game" (e.g. due to rain), but there's plenty of references as to it being used to denote commentating.

One answer that I haven't seen here yet is "Casting".

A especially eSports, a lot of the announcers call themselves casters, and I've heard the term use in ways like "sports casting".

Question: What do you call the action of "describing events as they happen" like sports anchors do? I heard the word "commentary", but I doubt "commentary" actually refers to the action of describing an event as it's happening. Also, I am wondering what the verb might be.   Here's a video example, but I doubt it's needed:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiYXiRZncYk

What do you call the action of "describing events as they happen" like sports anchors do?

Running commentary  ( noun ) a continuous spoken description of an event while it is happening.   In British English, "live commentary" is probably the most common phrase for this.

The possibilities are: "providing a commentary, a running commentary or a live commentary. Moreover, one other option that can be used is casting.

The possibilities are: "providing a commentary, a running commentary or a live commentary. One other option that can be used is casting.


You stage a coup, like the documentary How to Stage a Coup . to produce or cause to happen for public view or public effect // stage a track meet //

stage a hunger strike (source: Merriam-Webster )

In cases like this, an NGram search is often helpful.

(The * basically means "find the words most used at that position" and _VERB specifies you're only looking for verbs.)

Here, we can see that stage is the most commonly used verb.

Of course, you do need to pay attention to what the words actually mean; other top hits like plan and attempt mean something else.

While the term stage in Glorfindel's answer is widely applicable, it implies primarily the planning and preparation for a coup and not necessarily success.

Less common but used to refer specifically to the actions involved to carry out the plan is

execute a coup , which does imply success.

M-W : to carry out fully : put completely into effect // execute a command

In the case of your example, it's possible that a coup might be staged by the United States but executed by some local organization.

Another possibility is to orchestrate a coup . or‧ches‧trate /ˈɔːkəstreɪt

$ ˈɔːr-/ verb [transitive] (written) to organize an important event or a complicated plan, especially secretly Example:

The riots were orchestrated by anti-government forces.

(Source: Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English )

"Mount" is an alternative to "stage" stage/lead/mount a coup Macmillan Dictionary stage/mount/launch a coup Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English to stage/mount a coup Oxford Learner's Dictionaries: English

It is considerably less common on Google Ngrams though.

What word to use there depends on what you want to say.

The term "stage" implies that the entity in question actually performed the coup.

For a outside party that has less of a direct role, there's "instigate" instigate : to goad or urge forward : PROVOKE https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instigate or "back" : to support by material or moral assistance backing a candidate for governor —often used with up back up a friend in a fight https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/back

I believe coups are engineered .

Foment - "instigate or stir up (an undesirable or violent sentiment or course of action)."

Depending upon your intended exact meaning, you could use "precipitate," "catalyze," or "encourage."

Question: The coup was ______ in this country by the United States.  It was indeed United States that ______ the coup in this country.  If the problems take a turn to the worse, then the army would ______ a  coup.   I want a verb for the blanks. In the above contexts, the United States or the army are meant to be the  main   agency  in doing the coup.    I thought about  run/ran  and  set . Are these idiomatic suggestions? Any better suggestions?

What verb goes with "coup"?

Mount is an alternative to "stage"   stage/lead/mount a coup   Macmillan Dictionary  stage/mount/launch a coup   Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English  to stage/mount a coup   Oxford Learner's Dictionaries: English. The term "stage" implies that the entity in question actually performed the coup. For an outside party that has less of a direct role, there's "instigate"   instigate    : to goad or urge forward

The possibilities are as follows: "stage", "orchestrate", "mount", "instigate", "engineer","stir up", "foment", "precipitate", "catalyse" and "encourage".


I believe these are the appropriate technical terms, and more can be read here .

But an airplane has 3 angles that can vary, but the one you are specifically referring to is pitch .

The closest dictionary defintion I found was in CED : the amount of slope, especially of a roof

The direction that an (air)plane or a (sea)ship is pointing to is called heading : the compass direction in which the longitudinal axis of a ship or aircraft points The direction that an (air)plane or a (sea)ship is moving is called course : the direction of travel of a vehicle (such as a ship or airplane)

1 Heading and course can be different when there is wind (or when there is a water current in the case of a ship).

"Heading" and "course" are expressed in cardinal directions (i.e. "north/south/west/east") or degrees of rotation relative to the north (e.g. "heading 90 degrees" and "heading east" are synonyms).

These are measured on a horizontal (geometric) plane , (i.e. a surface which is perpendicular to the direction of gravity).

The "up/down" direction that an airplane is pointing to relative to the horizontal plane is called pitch angle:

The pitch axis [...] has its origin at the center of gravity and is directed to the right, parallel to a line drawn from wingtip to wingtip.

Motion about this axis is called pitch.

The "up/down" direction that an airplane is moving relative to the air around is called angle of attack : [...]

the angle between a reference line on a body [...] and the vector representing the relative motion between the body and the fluid through which it is moving.

The "up/down" direction that an airplane is moving relative to the ground is called angle of climb : The angle of climb can be defined as the angle between a horizontal plane representing the Earth's surface and the actual flight path followed by the aircraft during its ascent.

Note that the angle of climb depends on the ratio between horizontal distance traveled and the change in altitude , which is usually relative to mean sea level (I say "usually" because there is more than one way to define what "zero altitude" means ).

You may be looking for the word attitude , which is the orientation of the airplane in all three axes (pitch, roll, and yaw).

Pitch is the nose up/down angle of the plane, roll is the bank angle of the wings, and yaw is the nose left/right angle.

Note that this should not be confused with altitude , which is the height of the airplane either above sea level or above the the surface over which the aircraft is flying.

Depending on how technical you want the word to be, you might also want to use Angle of attack .

This angle is the angle of the plane relative to the fluid(air) through which it is moving.

While the word is usually applied to the wings themselves, it does also apply to whole crafts.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack for a more complete/correct explanation.

The direction that an aeroplane is pointing in is called its heading .

However, if there is wind blowing from the side, the actual direction the plane is travelling in will be slightly or significantly different from its heading, depending how strong the wind is.

Question: What do you call the angle of the direction of an airplane? I am thinking of "tilt" or "slant", but I am not if there's a more specific word for planes. I am thinking there's a more technical word for it, but I am not sure.  For example:   The pilot changed the tilt of the aircraft nose by pushing the  joystick forward.

What do you call the angle of the direction of an airplane?

You may be looking for the word  attitude , which is the orientation of the airplane in all three axes (pitch, roll, and yaw).  Pitch  is the nose up/down angle of the plane,  roll  is the bank angle of the wings, and  yaw  is the nose left/right angle.

The direction of an aeroplane is called the heading though perhaps "attitude", "pitch" or "angle of attack" is more accurate.


As others have said there are many expressions describing a situation in which there is no apparent beneficial outcome, such as choose the lesser of two evils , between a rock and a hard place , etc.

It could also be called a no-win situation .

One might say than in such a situation, you're faced with two evils (or maybe more than two).

There's a commonly used phrase choose the lesser of two evils : To pick the less offensive of two undesirable options.

I wasn't excited about going to a seminar all weekend, but I also didn't want to lose my license, so I chose the lesser of two evils and spent the weekend learning about new regulations in our field.

Do you really want to get a demerit for not having your blazer?

Just choose the lesser of two evils and tell the teacher you forgot it—maybe she'll take pity on you!

(source: The Free Dictionary )

There are many such idioms in English.

You could say you are "caught on the horns of a dilemma," "between a rock and a hard place," "between the devil and the deep blue sea," "between Scylla and Charybdis.

These generally all mean you are faced with two equally unpleasant options. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/on-the-horns-of-a-dilemma

In that situation, you are said to have a Sophie's Choice .

Example (from Wiki):

We've been given a Sophie's Choice .

We can improperly care for some children vs. improperly care for other children.

A choice where every alternative has significant negative consequences. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sophie%27s_choice

The expression lose-lose situation (any choice is as bad as all the others), as mentioned by Ryan, is probably the best one so far.

All I can do is recommend you another way to describe a situation where all outcomes are considered equally bad:

Either choice is bad any way you slice it .

Here's how the Macmillan Dictionary defines any way you slice it : used for saying that something remains true, whatever way you consider it Example:

The book is a bestseller any way you slice it.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't is another common idiom conveying this.

A situation in which one can't win.

For example, If I invite Aunt Jane, Mother will be angry, and if I don't, I lose Jane's friendship-I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

[Colloquial; first half of 1900s]

A lot of answers here (lose-lose, lesser of two evils, horns of a dilemma, rock & hard place) seem to indicate choosing between two options.

Where there are a number of distasteful options

the general idiom I've come across is: The best of a bad bunch

Yes, it looks like you have a range of choices, but in an ideal world, you wouldn't select any of them.

Since you have to choose one, you pick the best of a bad bunch.

" Dilemma " can work well in some cases: di·lem·ma ( noun ) a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones. Also, I like " lose-lose " mentioned above – but “dilemma" is more formal.

It's called a zugzwang .

CHESS noun: Zugzwang a situation in which the obligation to make a move in one's turn is a serious, often decisive, disadvantage.

"black is in zugzwang"

I'll add Catch-22

It's from an old satire story about American military life.

This particular allusion is to intentionally self-defeating regulation.

In the story, a soldier may apply for relief from battle on grounds of insanity, per regulation 22, but had to make the application himself.

However, the ability to recognize one's own insanity proves no insanity exists at all, thus the soldier would "catch [regulation] 22" and his request would be denied.

The most appropriate use for this should be when you have a choice, but outcomes are identical, but common usage is for a selection of choices and all outcomes are not favorable.

Whatever your choices, I give you The Clash while you decide.

Here, we call it "elections"..

But you could say "entre a cruz e a espada" in Portuguese ('between cross and sword' literally).If all your 'options' are bad, you dont choose.

Except on elections.

Actually, not joking or trolling, but people just don´t get it...

A typical term for this scenario is to refer to " Morton's fork " .

The etymology for this dates back to tax collectors in medieval England, after a scheme proposed by a bishop named John Morton, which held that anyone who lived modestly must be saving money and thus could pay their taxes, while anyone who was living lavishly must be wealthy and can thus also afford to pay taxes.

Question: How do you call a situation in which you seemingly have a choice, but whatever you choose it will be to your disadvantage in one way or another?

What do you call a situation where you have choices but no good choice?

There's a commonly used phrase  choose the lesser of two evils :   To pick the less offensive of two undesirable options.  You could say you are "caught on the horns of a dilemma," "between a rock and a hard place," "between the devil and the deep blue sea,"   Damned if you do, damned if you don't  is another common  idiom  conveying this.   " Dilemma " can work well in some cases:   di·lem·ma  ( noun )  a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones.

The posssibilites are as follows: "faced with two evils", "choose the lesser of two evils", "caught on the horns of a dilemma", "between a rock and a hard place", "between the devil and the deep blue sea", "between Scylla and Charybdis", "damned if you do, damned if you don’t", "best of a bad bunch", "bad any way you slice it", "dilemma", "zugzwang", catch-22", "elections" or "Morton’s fork".


Both "soared" and "surge" work perfectly fine in this context.

Perhaps they don't sound right to you because you've never heard them properly used.

Some examples: 6 Metrics Behind Zoom Video's Soaring Stock Price

The last time rates soared like this, the stock market plunged double-digits and in the same story:

Interest rates are surging in the U.S. and around the world, sending shock waves through equity markets Figurative synonyms such as rocketed , shot up , swelled , and others are also common.

If you don't want to use figurative language -- and there is no reason why you shouldn't, even in an academic paper -- then rose sharply or increased rapidly both work.

Example: Report:

US electricity prices rose sharply in October In the future, try doing a Google search on a particular word combination such as "rate surge" before assuming it is not idiomatic.

You might find that it's actually quite common.

I'm going to suggest that skyrocketing is actually your best option.

The concern seems to be that "skyrocketing" is too informal for use in academic writing.

I don't believe this is really true.

It's easy to find examples of scholarly research using this word, in both social sciences and physical sciences , and it seems to be especially common in economics .

It is a much stronger word than surge, or even soar, implying an extremely large increase over a very short period of time.

It's most commonly associated with rising prices or rising rates of occurrence.

While many of the things the word is applied to are considered undesirable, I believe the word itself is essentially neutral in tone.

While it's most commonly used with undesirables like inflation, prices, and costs , it can be applied to desirable effects such as literacy and employment rates as well.

A good opposite word for a sudden dramatic decrease would be "plummet"

If you're using fell , the contrasting verb (in the past tense) is simply rose : From rise : [Merriam-Webster] 7 a : to move upward :

ASCEND 7 b : to increase in height, size, volume, or pitch Also since you are not using a dramatic version of fell (such as plummeted or crashed ), despite the fact that the decrease was fairly small, the same neutral language seems to be appropriate for its complement.

However, if you do want something more dramatic, but you don't like any of the words you've mentioned, there seem to be fewer other options that you'd likely be happy with.

Perhaps just using an adjective, such as swiftly rose , would be the most formal.

It seems that you have set yourself two contradictory requirements.

You want a dramatic, emotive, journalistic term like "skyrocket", or "surge", but also a term suitable for an academic paper, which should not be dramatic or emotive but descriptive or analytic, plain and simple.

So either you choose an unemotive term like "rose", "increased" or you use a journalistic term like "surged", you can't have both.

You could say jumped to indicate a rise over an unusually short time period.

From jump : [Merriam-Webster] 1 b : to move suddenly or involuntarily 2 a : to move haphazardly or irregularly : shift abruptly 2 b : to undergo a sudden sharp change in value

Question: The labour market condition in a region where the unemployment rate skyrocketed from 6 to 10 percent is no better than in the region where the rate fell from 13 to 12 percent.    I can't find a word that fits there except "skyrocketed". "Soared" or "surged" does not work there for some reason. It just does not sound right to my ears.  I am happy with how skyrocketed sounds, but the word is informal. And I am writing an academic paper.

Is there a formal/better word than "skyrocket" for the given context?

Both "soared" and "surge" work perfectly fine in this context.

The possibilities are as follows: "soared", "surged", "skyrocketed", "swiftly rose" or "jumped".


Still (/stɪl/) and steel (/sti:l/) are distinguishable.

The vowel sounds in these two words are different.

Steal and Steel (/sti:l/) are homophones and are pronounced exactly the same.

However, the words are, in this case, easily identified by grammar.

In this sentence, "steal" is a verb and "steel" is a noun.

"Steel" as a verb cannot take "steal" (as a noun) as its object.

So there is no ambiguity in the sentence.

Context is the key to understanding.

If your reader or conversation partner understands you are talking about someone or something with a habit of misappropriating steel, then it is perfectly reasonable to say they still steal steel or steal steel still .

If they do not have that context, they you may need to explain it.

Most native speakers of English will pronounce steal and steel identically, but differently from still .

Some people in Yorkshire might pronounce all three differently, and some people in Tennessee might pronounce all three the same.

In all the "standard" accents with which I am familiar, steel and steal are homophones, both pronounced /stiːl/.

The spelling of steal and words like team and cream among others reflects a distinction in pronunciation which was mostly lost by the 18th century in what is known as the meet - meat merger .

The distinction is preserved only in some corners of Ireland and Northern England, and I would say a learner should not bother with it.

The standard pronunciation of still has a shorter vowel, thus /stɪl/.

That said, many speakers of Southern, Appalachian, and African-American Englishes, and what is called Estuary English, speak with what is called the fill - feel merger .

Pairs like ill and eel , hill and heal , or will and we'll are pronounced the same in those accents.

Again, I would say a learner is safest sticking to the standard pronunciation in speaking.

I, for one, hear a significant difference between "still" and "steal" or "steel".

I would call the vowel sound that I make, and typically hear, in "still" a "short-I", while I would call the vowel sound in "steal" or "steel" a "long-e".

There are, I am sure, more technically correct terms for these sounds.

To help clarify, to me "Still" rhymes with "hill" and "kill", while "steal" rhymes with "keel", "feel", and "conceal".

As is implied by the forgoing, to me "steal" and "steel" are homophones, with no detectable difference in sound.

Can fluent English speakers understand the sentence?

What?

They still steal steel?

Well, certainly yes.

We use our knowledge of everyday English to make a rational interpretation of the likely meaning of the sentence.

In this sense, pronunciation is not key.

Can fluent English speakers distinguish these words when spoken in isolation, with no context?

I could certainly attempt to pronounce each word with such emphasis to make each one sound unique and probably identifiable to many people.

Would I do that in normal speech?

Probably not.

In English, the difference in writing between steel/steal and still is called a minimal pair.

ae/ee are pronounced the same way.

It is their graphemes (how they are written) that differ.

still is pronounced differently.

That said, there is only one sound difference between steel/steal and still.

minimal pairs

In English, minimal pairs (how you pronounce vowel sounds and not how they are written) are very important because still contains the sound /ɪ/ for the i.steal/steel contain the sound [i:] for ea and ee.

The difference between steal and steel in spoken language will come from the co-text .

This seat is as hard as steel.

To steal is not a good thing.

The sounds in steel/steal and still are never misheard by native speakers in this sense.

And still is an adverb.

So, a totally different category.

It is important to do exercises with minimal pairs in order to become used to them.

English has many quirks but knowing usual minimal pairs helps learners as how English sounds is not how it is written.

bat/bet steal/steel

[we saw this one], others include: feet and feat hot/hit but/bat bait

/late....notice:

ai and a are both the same sound.

The most difficult one is probably the /ɪ/. The sounds of the i and u in the word minute (for time) are both /ɪ/. Also, the /ɪ/ does not exist in some languages like French and Spanish.

So those speakers have a hard time with: sheet/ship.

Etc.

There are tons of places online and in books to learn these sounds.

Please note: there are regional variations sometimes.

At this level of learning, I think regional differences should be left out of explanations because it is already hard enough to grasp the idea of minimal pairs and graphemes in English.

"What?

They still steal steel?"

Yes, "still" has a different sound to "steel" and "steal".

We use our knowledge of general sentence order to logically work this out.

Also, the emphasis placed on each of these words in a question would allow us to understand that "steal" is the verb, and that "steel" is the noun.

More emphasis may be placed on "steal" because the sentence is interrogative.

However, I understand that this is something hard for non-native English speakers.

I have heard these three words pronounced as the same word many a time by non-native speakers.

It is like "fill" and "feel".

The only way you can get better at this is by listening to a native English pronunciation and practising.

Question: Can fluent English speakers understand this sentence the first time they hear it?   What? They still steal steel?   Can they hear a difference between the pronunciation of the words still, steal, and steel?

Can fluent English speakers distinguish between “steel”, “still”, and “steal”?

Steal and Steel (/sti:l/) are homophones and are pronounced exactly the same. However, "still" has a different sound to "steel" and "steal". The standard pronunciation of  still  has a shorter vowel, thus /stɪl/.  The sounds in steel/steal and still are never misheard by native speakers in this sense.

Context and knowledge of the English language means native English speakers can logically work this out. It is important to note that these three words may be similarly pronounced but generally "steel" and "steal" are pronounced differently from "still".

These three words may be similarly pronounced but generally "steel" and "steal" are pronounced differently from "still".


The ambiguity arises because you have one sentence doing three jobs.

It is telling us which city Jessica lives in, where that city is, and what the unemployment rate is.

The simple fix is to split the sentence, repeating "Halifax" Jessica lives in the city of Halifax, the capital of the province of Nova Scotia.

In Halifax, the unemployment rate is five percent.

Jessica lives in the city of Halifax, where the unemployment rate is five percent.

(do you need to say that Halifax is in Nova Scotia?)

Another way is to indicate a context in other sentences: Jessica lives in the city of Halifax, the capital of the province of Nova Scotia, where the unemployment rate is five percent.

This compares well with other Canadian cities.

In Ontario, the rate is ten percent.

However in the rest of Nova Scotia the unemployment rate is only two percent...

Halifax has an unemployment rate of 5%.

Although the original sentence could be parsed as using parenthetical commas, it could also be parsed as having each comma functioning to have what comes after it modifying what comes before it.

To make it clear that it's actually parenthetical information, use actual parentheses:

Jessica lives in the city of Halifax (the capital of the province of Nova Scotia) where the unemployment rate is 5 percent.

Here, there is no way of misinterpreting the fact that it's Halifax with the unemployment rate.

Nova Scotia has an unemployment rate of 5%.

On the other hand, if you wanted to say that it's Nova Scotia with the unemployment rate, remove the second comma and, thereby, any indication of parenthetical information.

Also, rephrase the sentence slightly: Jessica lives in the city of Halifax, the capital of Nova Scotia where the provincial unemployment rate is 5 percent.

Now, without the second comma, everything after the first comma modifies what came before it.

Also, by writing provincial unemployment rate , it's impossible to mistake it as referring to Halifax.

The use of provincial also makes it clear that Nova Scotia is a province.

I think the simple answer is, Don't be afraid to break up the sentence.

I'd write, "Jessica lives in Halifax, the capital of Nova Scotia.

The unemployment rate in Halifax is 5%."

We have a fair number of questions on this site about "how do I eliminate the ambiguity without adding more words".

Very often the answer is, "There is no other way.

You have to add more words."

Reorder the clauses so there is no ambiguity.

The subordinate clauses can only refer to things mentioned earlier in the sentence, so: Jessica lives in Halifax, a city with an unemployment rate of five percent and the capital of the province of Nova Scotia.

You might want to replace "and" by "which is", but IMO the grammatical arguments either way are mostly pedantry.

I really like alephzero's answer, because I find long mid-sentence parenthetical (or dashed) clauses not really compatible with direct journalistic or business writing, which is the style that is perhaps being aimed for here.

I'd consider:

J lives in Nova Scotia's capital, Halifax, a city with a 5% unemployment rate.

or if you feel the audience needs to be reminded that NS is a province: J lives in the capital of the province of Nova Scotia, Halifax, a city with a 5% unemployment rate.

and if the opposite sense is intended: J lives in Halifax, capital of Nova Scotia, where the provincial unemployment rate is 5%.

Use of parentheses will easily clarify this: Jessica lives in the city of Halifax (capital of the province of Nova Scotia), where the unemployment rate is 5 percent.

The focus, and hence the unemployment rate, remains with Halifax.

Halifax, the capital of Nova Scotia has an unemployment rate of 5 percent.

It is here that Jessica lives.

I am working on the premise that you would not list Halifax' unemployment rate if you did not intend to put it into some relation to Jessica's living situation, so this expository style gives you a good starting place for creating the context you want to establish for Jessica.

Instead of "lives", something more specific like "moved in order to work at Wooly's, a company specialising in mirror symmetrical pairs of socks" can be used in order to tie this into whatever comes next in a cohesive manner.

Another option: turn it inside out.

In Halifax, Nova Scotia, where Jessica lives, the unemployment rate is 5%.

Jessica lives in Nova Scotia--specifically, in Halifax, where the unemployment rate is 5%.

As for the original version, this is a worthwhile sentence only if the 5% unemployment rate is important to/for Jessica, and that very soon now we'll get to the point.

Question: The sentence here is quite confusing. I wrote this.   Jessica lives in the city of Halifax, the capital of the province of Nova Scotia, where the unemployment rate is 5 percent.   A fellow reader is confused:  Is the writer talking about the unemployment rate of Halifax or Nova Scotia?  I want to say the rate in Halifax is 5 percent. How do I establish clarity without breaking the sentence in two and repeating "Halifax"?

How to remove ambiguity: "... lives in the city of H, the capital of the province of NS, WHERE the unemployment rate is ..."?

Use of parentheses will easily clarify this:   Jessica lives in the city of Halifax (capital of the province of Nova Scotia), where the unemployment rate is 5 percent.

The solution is to break up the sentence and reorder the clauses to remove any ambiguity.


The quintessential idiomatic term in this context is leech ( vt , or as n the person doing it).

Per Wiktionary , (figuratively) A person who derives profit from others in a parasitic fashion.

Urban Dictionary's top definition lists "parasite" and "freeloader" as synonyms. Leech in this sense is very common slang in technical circles and especially file-sharing, where it refers specifically to downloading files but not staying online to share them.

A Google search for "leeching Wi-Fi" turns up a full page of results describing the exact activity in the question.

One word used is piggybacking , given by Wikipedia as Piggybacking on Internet access is the practice of establishing a wireless Internet connection by using another subscriber's wireless Internet access service without the subscriber's explicit permission or knowledge.

One definition of piggyback given by Lexico is piggyback VERB 1.1 Link to or take advantage of (an existing system or body of work)

they have piggybacked their own networks on to the system

The best [American, maybe not British] English word for this is probably mooching .

It specifically refers to using a resource that's not well-guarded, either without permission or overstepping intended level of permission, in a way that's annoying or inconvenient to others but not severe enough to be treated as theft.

Other examples of mooching include: Consuming snacks from employee break area as meals.

Dropping in a bank that has free lolipops for customers' children with no actual business to conduct, just to get lolipops.

Consuming a roommate's food from their [section of the] refrigerator, or consistently consuming more than your fair share from food purchased jointly for use by oneself and roommates.

Using a roommate's car that they always fill with gas.

The term mooching is also used fairly often for legitimate use of social welfare programs for their intended purposes, when the speaker either doesn't understand or doesn't accept those intended purposes.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/6186/R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE

One could say such people are free riders , a noun derived from free ride : 1 : a benefit obtained at another's expense or without the usual cost or effort (source: Merriam Webster ) and in the same spirit (thanks @PeterJennings), freeloaders , derived from the verb freeload : to impose upon another's generosity or hospitality without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved (source: Merriam Webster ) which nicely 'rhymes' with upload & download, which is what you do when using the network.

These are certainly not limited to using WiFi, as @Lambie suggests.

Honestly the word I have heard used for this is just "stealing".

This is fairly common in everyday use, because "stealing" is a quite general term for taking something without authorization.

TL;DR

It's helpful to think about the way you're framing this.

If you're viewing bandwidth or the Wi-Fi network as personal property, then the matching term or phrase should have a negative connotation that carries a sense of theft or unauthorized use.

Some Common Terms

They might be “stealing bandwidth,” which is a limited resource on Wi-Fi networks.

They may also be “trespassing” (in several senses of the word, and especially in the sense of unlawful transit of property).

Taking possession of another’s property (in this case, bandwidth) is “squatting.”

The person squatting on the network is a “squatter.”

If it wasn’t an open network, then someone had to “hack” it or “crack” it to gain access.

The former term is more common in colloquial speech, but the latter more strongly connotes “breaking” (or "breaking into") the system.

If it was an open network, and no money exchanged hands, then the unpaid use of the Wi-Fi would be “freeloading.”

The one freeloading would therefore be a “freeloader.”

It's definitely worth pointing out the terms above are closely related, but aren't identical.

For example, "trespassing" and "stealing" are both crimes, but stealing carries a stronger sense of criminal intent .

I'm going to suggest the obvious: thief .

It clearly indicates the "without consent" part of the question.

Or perhaps the more specific term: bandwidth thief .

If a company is paying for Internet access by the megabyte then the person using it without permissions is certainly stealing.

If the company pays a flat fee for a limited amount of bandwidth then the unapproved person is still stealing - if they use 200 MB of a company's 2GB plan, that is 200 MB the company is now deprived of using.

Question: Is there a word or phrase that means "use other people's wifi or Internet service without consent"? I think some people are able to use other people's wifi without consent even if they're password protected, is there a word that means exactly that? I don't know any word used to say that.

Is there a word or phrase that means "use other people's wifi or Internet service without consent"?

One word used is  piggybacking , given by  Wikipedia  as   Piggybacking on Internet access is the practice of establishing a wireless Internet connection by using another subscriber's wireless Internet access service without the subscriber's explicit permission or knowledge.   They might be “stealing bandwidth,” which is a limited resource on Wi-Fi networks.  If it was an open network, and no money exchanged hands, then the unpaid use of the Wi-Fi would be “freeloading.”

The correct possibilities in this respect are: "leech", "piggyback", "steal", "squat", "hack", "crack", "freeload" or "thieve".


Zero is usually treated as plural.

So "one woman", "zero women".

If "no" means "zero" then you typically use the plural.

No women have come to class today.

However when "no" means "not one"

you can use a singular to underline not a single one : No woman should have to put up with harassment.

The difference between these is subtle and there is variation in actual usage.

In my experience, the choice between "no woman" and "no women" is usually determined by this question: if there were at least one woman, would there be only one, or multiple?

Examples:

This list identified sixty-seven men and no women.

We use "no women" because if the list did identify at least one woman, it would probably identify multiple women.

No!

I'm not married!

I'm a single man!

I am married to no woman!

We use "no woman" here because if the man were married, he would probably be married to only one woman.

We have lots of hot dog buns, but no hot dogs.

We use "no hot dogs" because if we did have at least one hot dog, we would probably have multiple hot dogs.

I own a computer, but no TV.

We use "no TV" because if I did own a TV, I would probably own only one TV.

One man and one woman, zero, two or sixty-seven men and women.

Wherever you would use 'man', use 'woman' (when referring to females), and wherever you would use 'men', the female equivalent is 'women'.

I liked @James

K's answer.

"Women," is usually for general purposes.

No women allowed," or "Women's magazine," or "Women's #1 top choice of purses," etc. "Woman," is more specific.

This (specific) woman is not allowed," or "This (specific) woman's magazine is very interesting," or "This (specific) woman's favourite purse is

X." One of the only cases I can think of that uses "Woman," in a more general term, would be if you could replace "No woman," with "no person."

For example: "Some say no woman (no person) can do this," or "No woman (no person) would resist that bargain!"

Something like that.

This list identified sixty-seven men and no women.

In this case, "men" is plural, so "women" must agree with that grammatical number .

Otherwise, it's jarring.

Here's a different way of writing it:

This list identified 67 men but not a single woman.

In that sentence, "woman" is used because "single" changes the number from plural to singular.

(Also, the "but" starts a new "sub-sentence" and thus the grammatical number is reset).

(And sixty-seven is changed to 67 because traditionally the numbers zero to nine or ten are spelled, and the numbers ten or eleven and above are written numerically.

There are, of course, exceptions to the rule...)

Question: When do we use "no women" instead of "no woman"? I thought we used "no woman" instead of "no women" by default, but it seems that some people do use "no women". Is there a situation where one is preferred over the other, or are both phrases synonymous and can be used at any time?  For example:   This list identified sixty-seven men and no women.

When do we use "no women" instead of "no woman"?

Wherever you would use 'man', use 'woman' (when referring to females), and wherever you would use 'men', the female equivalent is 'women'.  For example: "Some say no woman (no person) can do this," or "No woman (no person) would resist that bargain!" Where  "men" is plural, so "women" must agree with that grammatical  number.  Zero is usually treated as plural.

When "no" can be replaced by "zero", the plural is used. Otherwise "women" is the correct option.


In my experience the most common idiom is a scheduling conflict This can apply anywhere, not just to academics.

For example, in a work email: Hi Jim, can we move our meeting to 3pm?

I have a scheduling conflict with another meeting at our original time.

Thanks.

Note this assumes you want to participate in both events.

If these classes just happen to be at the same time, then Laurel's answer of "simultaneous" is more accurate.

I had this happen to me a lot at University, and the word in use then was 'clash'.

Oh no, I have another timetable clash this semester.

or I have to see my tutor;

plant biology clashes with statistics on Thursdays

The classes are simultaneous : occurring, operating, or done at the same time.

— Lexico/Oxford Dictionaries

Here's an example in use (from a tango site ): Saturday July 25th 1-2:15pm w/Anais - Beginner Level - Embellishments for the leader and follower 1-2:15pm

w/Carlos - Intermediate Level - Paradas/Barridas (above classes are simultaneous)

From what I understand, you are saying The "Microeconomics - ECON101" class is scheduled at 11 am, and so is "Introduction to Psychology - PSYC101".

Is that correct?

Well, may be the easiest way to say this would be Both Econ101 and Psyc101 classes are scheduled at the same time.

You could also say ...

my Econ101 class coincides with my Psyc101 class ... From Cambridge (1) and Collins (2) "coincide" means (1) to come together in position or happen at or near the same time (2) If one event coincides with another, they happen at the same time.

There are many ways to say this

(you have not provided an example sentence)

You could use the word "concurrent" meaning "happening at the same time"

(Cambridge) ...

Econ101 and Psyc101 classes run concurrently ...

As Andrew mentioned, you can also say There is a scheduling conflict [or schedule conflict] ...

A scheduling conflict occurs when two (or more) subjects are offered at the same time, and the student must make a choice between the two. - How to Build the Master Schedule in 10 Easy Steps (2008).

I would express it by saying that the classes are "in conflict."

Oh no!

My math class is in conflict with the English class I wanted to take.

Or... That job would be a conflict with another commitment I have.

Overlapping schedule is not a bad phrase.

(Furthermore, neither are some of the other good answers.)

That is certainly a phrase that is used.

Although, if you know exactly how many items are having overlapping schedules, it may be a bit more common to say a more specific term, "double-booked " or " triple-booked ".

If you are scheduled to be in two classes (or appointments in general) at the same time, you'd describe yourself as double-booked .

Question: For example, I need to enroll in two different courses at university, but there is a schedule in which both are held. Is it an 'overlapped schedule' or something similar?Is there a proper expression for this purpose?

What is it called when at university there are two subjects being held at the same time?

The most common idiom is a  scheduling conflict   This can apply anywhere, not just to academics.   You could use the word  "concurrent"  meaning "happening at the same time"

The following possibilities are an option: "a scheduling conflict"; "classes are simultaneous"; "classes are clashing"; "classes are overlapping"; or "classes are double-booked".


I have seen this written many times on bus timetables etc.

and find no reason why someone wouldn't understand it.

To be extra clear, I would make one amend:: The train departs at 16 minutes past every hour.

Or even better

The train departs at 16 minutes past the hour, every hour.

What alephzero said (in comment) is also true of US English: "every hour at 16 past the hour."

From Merriam Webster dictionary Definition of past the hour used with a certain number of minutes to indicate how long after the beginning of an hour something will happen "

Trains leave every hour at ten minutes past the hour."

This is more colloquial, to my ear, than "past every hour" and Google agrees One can also say "16 minutes before the hour," whereas "before every hour" is almost unattested

You may hear more casual variations of this such as: There are trains at 16 past, every hour.

The trains are at 16 past, every hour.

Generally, the trains will not be running on the same schedule for the entire day, so you'll often hear this with a time constraint:

There are trains at 16 and 39 past, every hour, until 5.

There are trains at 16 and 39 past, every hour, from 9 until 5.

You'd also be likely to hear these further condensed: There are trains at 16 and 39 past until 5.

There are trains at 16 and 39 past from 9 until 5.

The idiomatic expression in English related to this is "every hour, on the hour" (with the comma sometimes being omitted, as in: By 2002, the RUC was run every hour, on the hour , producing 12-hour forecasts with a 1 hour temporal resolution.

Which means that it ran at 10:00, 11:00, 12:00, etc etc.

Closely-related is "every hour, on the half-hour" (with the comma and/or the hyphen sometimes omitted,) as in: Retrieval times are 9:30, then every hour on the half hour , with the last retrieval at 3:30 (4:30 on Tuesday and Thursday).

To further approach your specific question, we also have "every hour on the quarter-hour", which I hope you might guess is: Train: Oxford Road to Urmston though it's only every hour, on the quarter hour , so not necessarily the best way.

All of that has been generalized to "every hour, on the X", where X is some number, and usually pluralized:

It looks like the buses leave every hour on the 16s .

This can also be generalized to frequencies other than hourly: Providing you with up to the minute breaking news, headlines and video, as well as traffic and weather updates every ten minutes on the ones .

This is, I think, a bit less-formal than some of the other correct expressions listed in other answers, but I would expect any competent English speaker to readily-grasp the meaning.

In British English (and I believe AmEng too)

there are idiomatic ways of stating specific times on the clock, although these expressions do not necessarily apply when speaking about hours and minutes in general.

You can write any time numerically in 12, or 24-hour format:

Trains depart at 15:16, 15:46.

16:16 etc

How we say those times depends on the number of minutes past the hour, and if writing them in words, we would write them as they should be spoken.

We don't usually use the words "hours" and "minutes" when quoting a specific time, and when the minutes are divisible by 5, for example: Five past four (16:05) Twenty-five past five (17:25) Twenty to six (17:40)

Also, when the time is precisely 15, 30, or 45 minutes past the hour, we tend to say: A quarter past five.

(17:15) Half-past five (17:30)

A quarter to six (17:45)

However, when the number of minutes is not divisible by 5, we do include the word "minutes", for example: Six minutes past four (16:06) In everyday situations, British English speakers tend to round times like this and say things like "It's nearly ten past four", or "It's just gone five past four".

Obviously that would not be the case with a transport timetable.

For the reasons above, we would definitely include the word "minutes" in your example, if only because it is an "unrounded" number of minutes (not divisible by 5):

The train departs at 16 minutes past every hour.

OR The train departs at 16 minutes past each hour.

It is also idiomatic, when speaking about any hour, to say "past the hour", as in this example from MW dictionary: Trains leave every hour at ten minutes past the hour.

Question: In German, we can say  "jede Stunde um 16 nach" . I just overheard someone teaching there was no such possibility in English. Yet I found  "hourly at 45 minutes past"  in one answer  here . Is the following also correct?   The train departs at 16 past every hour.

Can I say: “The train departs at 16 past every hour“?

The train departs at 16  minutes  past every hour.

The expression is correct in English and other variations are possible.


"Trip" is fine and doesn't carry any implication that it covered a long distance.

In my experience it would be the most common and ordinary word to use.

That is called a drive.

Though I'm not sure I'd call it that if I traveled by taxi, I'd probably call that a ride or a trip.

A drive is if I drive there myself, the passengers take rides or trips.

Edit: This qualifies as slang just barely, so

I'll note that I speak American English.

You may have different answers from other regions.

The general activity is driving, no matter the distance.

You can qualify the trip as a 'short drive' if you really want to structure the sentence the way you did (but see a bit further down on other ways you might express the same thing).

In general, English tends to prefer to use phrases like this to express specific concepts instead of using special words.

There are, as with anything in English, exceptions to this practice, but you will almost always be understood if you choose to phrase things this way instead of using more specific nouns.

You might also hear 'short trip' used in the same way, which has largely the same meaning but doesn't necessarily imply that any particular vehicle (or any vehicle at all for that matter) was used, just that the person traveled a short distance from one location to the other.

However, I would probably not structure things this way in the first place.

At least in the American Midwest, it's far more common when you're specifying

both the point of origin and the destination to just say that you drove from the first location to the second location.

So, your example might instead be better worded as "Yesterday I drove from Brooklyn to Queens".

Note how this does not try to qualify the distance traveled, because that's usually implicitly known (or at least, generically understood) based on the two locations that were mentioned.

This also can be easily extended to include the exact distance if required.

Going a bit further, if you were known to be somewhere specific at the time you started traveling to the destination, you might just omit the point of origin altogether and simply say you made a short drive to your destination.

Using your example, if you were known to be in Brooklyn yesterday, you could instead say: 'I took a short drive to Queens yesterday."

"Short drive" or "short trip" are both perfectly idiomatic.

A more colloquial expression for a short trip is a " hop " (see definitions under nouns and phrases), for example: It's a short hop to the local store.

It is used as an informal way of referring to any short journey, especially one you might make regularly.

When speaking about a regular journey that you make, such as a daily commute to work, it is idiomatic to refer to any hop/trip/journey using the indefinite article, for example: Yesterday I made the short hop from Brooklyn to Queens in my car.

Aside from words mentioned in other answers, like "trip" and "drive", you might also hear it simply as: Yesterday I drove from Brooklyn to Queens.

The distance might often be implied by context, i.e. the listener is familiar with the places, and the distance between them.

If you didn't expect they'd be familiar, you might actually say something like (if you really wanted to express the idea of it being a short distance):

Yesterday I drove from Brooklyn to Queens, which isn't too far.

Or, as said by @Astralbee, you might describe it as a "short" trip or drive.

Question: If you move from a place to another by feet, you call it a walk. A long distance displacement by any means can be called trip, travel, journey. But what about small distances, like inside your own town, (e.g. by taxi). What is the most appropriated word?  "Yesterday I made a __ from Brooklyn to Queens (in my car)".

What do you call the movement you do by car within a local distance?

You might also hear 'short trip' used in the same way, which has largely the same meaning but doesn't necessarily imply that any particular vehicle (or any vehicle at all for that matter) was used, just that the person travelled a short distance from one location to the other.

The following possibilities are an option: "a trip", "a drive", "a short drive", "a short trip" or "a hop".


Presumably, you are talking about this cat: If not, that's OK.

Hat on a cat describes a hat being atop a cat, as you say.

Cat in the hat can mean what you describe, the cat being inside the hat (e.g. the cat being inside a much larger hat).

However, there is a different usage of in here: in 9.

preposition

If you are dressed in a piece of clothing, you are wearing it.

He was a big man, smartly dressed in a suit and tie. ...

three women in black.

(Collins Dictionary)

In other words, we can use in [article/piece of clothing] to mean that someone or something is wearing the clothing.

So we understand that the cat is wearing the hat, like above.

This usage of in is common: the man in the red shirt the girl in the skirt the boys in blue * [=

the boys wearing blue attire ] the baby in the skeleton costume

As @ShadowRanger mentions, the cops are sometimes referred to as the boys in blue , but actually I had the Los Angeles Dodgers and their iconic white and blue uniforms in mind at first ( too soon!! ).

Regardless, this broadly applies to anyone in any color clothing.

The context will make the meaning clear.

The other answers do a fine job explaining how the you can use in to describe someone wearing clothing.

However, there is another difference between the two alternatives you give that I would like to highlight.

The phrase "cat in the hat" focuses on the cat (who is wearing a hat), while the phrase "the hat on the cat" focuses on the hat (which is being worn by the cat).

When using the phrase without the context of a sentence (e.g. as the title of a book) this is a simple matter of which of the two you want to focus on.

However, when using the phrase as part of a sentence, this becomes a lot more relevant.

Consider the following two sentences: The cat in a hat is black

The hat on the cat is black

The first sentence is about a black cat wearing a hat.

The second sentence is about a cat wearing a black hat.

You can also use in to mean dressed or attired in something .

I would expect this usage came from French.

the man in the suit the woman in the pretty sun dress a boy in a bathing suit the girl in an orange wig

Also, in the story, there are a series of recursive cats in corresponding hats.

A cat's hat in that context is actually the hat belonging to their host cat, which they are in fact positioned entirely within.

Not for nothing.

The Cat: Because it's a specific cat having a specific identity and/or personality.

If it were about any cat, it would be A Cat .

In: Because he's wearing it.

If you are wearing an article of clothing you are dressed in that article of clothing.

On a cat means the hat is sitting on top of a cat but the cat isn't wearing it.

The cat just happens to be existing underneath the hat.

It would not have the same meaning.

It must be In because the cat is wearing the hat, not just sitting underneath it.

The Hat:

Because the hat is also special.

If it were just about a cat that wears any of a number of different hats it would be called The Cat In A Hat .

But this book is about a specific cat and a specific hat.

Question: Shouldn’t it be “Hat on a Cat” instead of "Cat in the Hat"?  The hat is sitting on the cat. If it was a cat in a hat, it seems like the cat would be completely in the hat.

Why is it “Cat in the Hat”?

The phrase "cat in the hat" focuses on the cat (who is wearing a hat), while the phrase "the hat on the cat" focuses on the hat (which is being worn by the cat). On a cat  means the hat is sitting on top of a cat but the cat isn't wearing it. It must be  In  because the cat is wearing the hat, not just sitting underneath it.

The cat is actually wearing the hat and not just sitting in it so it is "Cat in the Hat".

The cat is actually wearing the hat and not just sitting in it so it is "Cat in a Hat".


"Lingua" is not an English word.

To my knowledge it is only found (in English) in the expression lingua franca which comes from Italian and refers to a "common language" between two or more groups of people.

It is a loan word .

When referring to the anatomical thing, we always say "tongue" and never "lingua."

"Lingua" itself is Latin, and this root is the basis for several English words like "language," "linguistics," "bilingual"; as well as scientific names in anatomy like "lingual artery."

lingua isn't used on its own, but the latin root is part of a lot of words.

sublingual - below the tongue linguist - someone who studies languages bilingual - someone who speaks 2 languages linguine (or linguini) -

a delicious pasta, that somehow relates to tongues.

The simple explanation is that in anatomy, latin terms are used (for adjectives "dorsal"= of the back, "ventral"= of the belly/front, "jugular"=of the throat, "ischemic", "sciatic", "cranial", ... ; or for parts, like "retina", "vena cava", "atrium", "vestibula", "cranium", ... ).

In English, you will find "lingua"/"lingual" almost exclusively used in an anatomy context, because there it's "proper".

One of the advantages of using Latin is that a first year's med (or bio) student starts from a blank slate (I'd say, tabula rasa ):

There's no imprecise, overlapping terminology, no confusing half-synonyms (no "tummy", "belly", "stomach" for generally the same region).

The other advantage is that (as lingua franca in classical learning) older & foreign language texts use exactly the same verbs and adjectives; important as much scientific research is published in English but not written nor read by native speakers.

I cannot think of any use of lingua however sublingual means under the tongue.

Sub means under or below and lingual means tongue.

The word tongue is not used for the anatomical structure alone.

For instance, the tongue of the shoe.

The noun lingua is not used (Is it even in an English dictionary?).

It's probably been made redundant in the formation of the English language from its ancestors.

Tongue is always used as the noun, and can mean "language" as well, for example mother tongue (the language one learned from one's mother).

On the other hand, the adjectival form lingual is used, meaning "related to the tongue".

Not common on its own.

Prefixed forms are more common, and can relate to both meanings.

Sublingual : under the tongue.

Bilingual : fluent in two languages.

Question: Dictionary.com definitions:   tongue  - the usually movable organ in the floor of the mouth in humans and most vertebrates, functioning in eating, in tasting, and, in humans, in speaking.     lingua  - the tongue or a part like a tongue   Both words have the same meaning.  Why is the word "lingua" almost not used in spoken language? And in what cases can the word lingua be used?

What's the difference between words "tongue" and "lingua"?

To my knowledge it is only found (in English) in the expression  lingua franca  which comes from Italian and refers to a "common language" between two or more groups of people. "Lingua" itself is Latin, and this root is the basis for several English words like "language," "linguistics," "bilingual"; as well as scientific names in anatomy like "lingual artery." Tongue  is always used as the noun, and can mean "language" as well, for example  mother tongue  (the language one learned from one's mother

“Lingua" is a medical term from Italian and "tongue" is the preferred everyday term.


In my experience the verb 'bat' is often used for this:

The cat is batting the decorations hanging from the Christmas tree.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bat#Verb : (intransitive) To strike or swipe as though with a bat.

The cat batted at the toy.

As noted by others, pawing is also a descriptive choice.

I would recommend either verb over punching (typically a more forceful action which I associate more with humans than cats).

The first word that came to my mind was swatting .

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/swat#Verb , with the given example

The cat swatted at the feather.

Punching involves bending the arm and striking out forcefully with the closed fist.

A cat can't make either of those movements in the way a man would.

A cat playing with a dangling object usually bats it sideways with its paw.

You could simply use pawing .

One common term for this is batting or batting at .

When used with a cat (or other animal) this means hitting or tapping at something with the paw.

The cat is batting at the decorations hanging from the Christmas tree.

Describing a cat as "batting" or "batting at" another cat or an object means the cat is striking or tapping with its paw, but not so forcefully as to be a violent attack.

It usually suggests curiosity or playfulness rather than hostility.

A very idiomatic way to say this is:

The cat swiped the object with its paw.

As also used in the example by:

Merriam Webster 1 : a strong sweeping blow //

a swipe of a paw Although less reliable, a simple search also yields many results showing it in real-life usage:

Thanks Google

Taps

It might be an internet colloquialism, but I generally see this referred to as taps.

Many "cute cat videos" describe it as such, and there's even a subreddit devoted specifically to r/CatTaps .

It's worth noting that there is a fair amount of connotation depending on what kind of activity the cat (or other animal) is actually doing.

Tapping Moving the paw towards and away, possibly touching, usually tentative or investigative.

If the tap causes the target to move, might lead to Batting.

Batting

Connecting with a loosely hanging item with each (or most) attempts.

Each successful bat sends the item swinging.

Swiping More aggressive, and generally directed at another animal.

Hissing or growling might be involved.

Claws might be out.

This might be a followup to successfully batting an item.

Pawing

Generally an attempt to retrieve or receive something such as a partially obscured/covered item, or in/near a food bowl when they're trying to explain to their human that it's dinner time.

I don't think to punch is the right verb here.

Take a look at its definition from Cambridge dictionary: to punch (verb): to hit forcefully with your fist.

She punched him in the face after he called her names.

As cats can't make a fist, I'd advise you not to use it.

Instead, I believe to beat would be a good choice. to beat (verb): to hit repeatedly.

The cat is beating the decorations hanging from the Christmas tree.

to slap : to hit someone or something with the flat part of the hand or other flat object

I agree with the upvoted answer that batting is the best word.

There is another word that works, though it may be a little too cute.

The word is boop or booping .

Here's an example from Reddit:

"Kitten boops himself" :

You can find many more examples online just searching for "cat boop."

If cute is what you're going for, it's a fine choice.

It's not in most dictionaries as it's more of an onomatopoeia.

I think the meaning is basically thinking of the noise that a button on, say, a cute robot would make.

Often it refers to the cat's nose (since that is button-like), but it is not restricted to noses.

Swiping (to swipe), cats swipe at things.

Could also be: Jabbing Pawing Tapping Poking

nGrams reveals 'batted' to be the verb of choice (of those thus far presented) - but I think what we can conclude is that the reporting of the actions of cats has increased exponentially with the arrival of the internet... https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cat+swatted%2Ccat+swiped%2Ccat+batted%2C+cat+pawed&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccat%20swatted%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccat%20swiped%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccat%20batted%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccat%20pawed%3B%2Cc0

Question: What is the verb for describing the movement of a cat's paw  when it is trying to hit something with it? Can I use the verb  punch ? For examle:   The cat is  punching  the decorations hanging from the Christmas tree.

What is the verb for describing the movement of a cat's paw when it is trying to hit something with it?

In my experience the verb 'bat' is often used for this:  Describing a cat as "batting" or "batting at" another cat or an object means the cat is striking or tapping with its paw, but not so forcefully as to be a violent attack.

The following verbs may be used: "bat", "swat", "paw", "taps", "swipe", "boop", "jab", ‘poke" or "slap".


Both phrases are idiomatic but they don't mean the same thing.

The difference between "water bottles" and "bottles of water" is the water.

Bottles of water have water in them.

Water bottles can be empty.

An empty water bottle is not a bottle of water, though it might be a bottle of air.

Yes, it's fine in everyday life.

For example, in this recent headline from Metro, the free London newspaper: Panic buyer screams at Tesco staff for refusing to let him buy 24 bottles of water https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/19/panic-buyer-screams-tesco-staff-refusing-let-buy-24-bottles-water-12424789/

You can see the same structure used with all sorts of English phrases,

e.g. Bottle of beer vs beer bottle Soda can vs can of soda Packet of crisps vs crisp packet Paint tin vs tin of paint If you say "water bottle" you're using "water" as an adjective to describe the type of bottle it is — a bottle (usually) used to store water.

So that could be a branded bottle (e.g. Evian) or a reusable bottle that people refill from a water cooler or tap.

If you say "bottle of water" you're putting emphasis on the state of things — there is some water in the bottle, (but you're not commenting on the type of bottle).

So you could say:

Can I put cooking oil in a water bottle? — Reddit: /r/NoStupidQuestions

This person is asking if they can put oil into a disposable bottle normally used for water (water bottle).

If they do, we could say it's a "bottle of oil" even though it's in a water bottle :)

A bottle of water is any bottle that currently contains water.

A water bottle is a bottle designed/intended to hold water .

If you get an empty Coke bottle and put water in it, it's a "bottle of water" but not a "water bottle".

Now people do reuse purchased bottles of water and those do get called water bottles, but if you say "water bottle" most people will usually think of a product purchased without water, usually made from heavy duty plastic or steel.

Photo by Amraepowell

A bottle of water is a bottle with water in it.

A water bottle is a bottle that is used to hold water whether or not it contains water right now.

This applies to many containers that hold liquids: a teapot, a pot of tea; a paint bucket, a bucket of paint; a wine glass, a glass of wine.

Agreed with Curiousdanii, but with one clarification.

A "water bottle" is always a multi-use item, not a single use plastic bottle.

Even when empty or when something else is in it, it's still a "water bottle" and is referred to as such.

Even is someone refilled a crinkly plastic single use bottle and is using it as a "water bottle", it's only obvious if you're pointing to it when you say "Hand me my water bottle.

Otherwise I'd look around for a metal or hard plastic one until they said, "that one there!".

A plastic bottle of water is usually referred to as "bottled water" (at least where I'm from) and is referred to that way "How much for a bottled water?", or can be "How much for a bottle of water?", but "How much for the water bottle?" is almost always said with trepidation referring to an overpriced contraption with special insulation or at least an easy open non-spill top.

“Bottle of water” refers to the container and its contents.

“Water bottle” refers to the container.

A water bottle is a bottle for water[1].

A bottle of water is water in a bottle.

Bottle bottle bottle bottle bottle. -- [1] But not necessarily containing water.

Question: Consider the following image.   In school, I was taught there are four "bottles of water". Do native English speakers say it that way in everyday life, or would it be better to say "four water bottles"?

Is the phrase "a bottle of water" something a native English speaker would say?

Bottles of water have water in them, water bottles can be empty.    e.g.   Bottle of beer vs beer bottle  Soda can vs can of soda  Packet of crisps vs crisp packet  Paint tin vs tin of paint   A  bottle of water  is any bottle that currently contains water whereas a  water bottle  is a bottle  designed/intended to hold water . If you say "water bottle" you're using "water" as an adjective to describe the  type  of bottle it is — a bottle (usually) used to store water.  Now people do reuse purchased bottles of water and those do get called water bottles, but if you say "water bottle" most people will usually think of a product purchased without water, usually made from heavy duty plastic or steel.

Water bottles are generally empty and can contain any fluid. However, bottles of water contain water and are full.

Water bottles are generally empty and can contain any fluid. Bottles of water contain water and are full.


When in doubt, I find it helpful to simplify the sentence.

Consider these: The conclusion is uncertain.

The conclusion is final.

The conclusion is X. Clearly, whatever the conclusion is, it's singular and needs a singular verb.

Now let's look at what the actual conclusion is: Both are harmful.

Again, clearly, "both" refers to two things and thus requires a plural verb, "are".

You could check that by replacing both: Cigarettes and gun battles are harmful.

Angry dragons and mean dogs are harmful.

Now, let's take that last conclusion example --

The conclusion is X. -- and replace X with what it actually is:

The conclusion is [both are harmful].

When you look at it that way, it becomes clear that the sentence as originally written is indeed correct.

My conclusion is that your friends are wrong.

No.

No, no, no.

Send your friends back a grade.

Conclusion is singular.

Use is .

Both is plural.

Use are .

In relative , noun or adverbial clauses we often face these kinds of sentences.

E.g

“Who I am is not important.

It all depends on the way you define what sentence means in your context.

If you mean the string between two periods, then yes, a sentence can have an arbitrary number of conjugated verbs, and hence is and are in one sentence are allowed.

For example: The weather is fine and all people are happy.

If you consider a sentence to be the part containing subject and conjugated verb (or an infinitive sentence), then it is not possible.

Then, the example above must be considered as two sentences that are contactenated.

The example in your question is really a sentence and its subclause - so it is one sentence in the first sense but two sentences in the latter sense.

For better readability, there should be a that in between: The conclusion is that both are harmful.

You have two ideas together.

One is that the conclusion is right.

The other is that both A and B are harmful.

You are putting these into one sentence and finding it troublesome.

You are also rushing by with spoken English and leaving out an implied word that explains things.

The conclusion is that both are purple.

No reason they can't be used in the same sentence, but for the sentence you provided it's incorrect.

The context of the question is "can you use both or only one", so "both" is a solution and therefore: "

The conclusion is [the use of] both is harmful."

In the original sentence, "The conclusion is both are harmful.

", this is implying that both words "is" and "are" are independently harmful, and they are not both harmful.

Question: The conclusion is both are harmful.   My friends told me that you can not use 'is' and 'are' in the same sentence.

Can ‘is’ and ‘are’ be used in the same sentence? ‘The conclusion is both are harmful.’

If you mean the string between two periods, then yes, a sentence can have an arbitrary number of conjugated verbs, and hence  is  and  are  in one sentence are allowed .   For better readability, there should be a  that  in between:   The conclusion is that both are harmful.

“Is" and "are" can be used in the same sentence. However, adding "that" may make the sentence clearer.

“Is" and "are" can be used in the same sentence. Adding "that" may make the sentence clearer.


"It takes" is an idiom that refers to the skills, character, or other qualities necessary to achieve something.

"It takes a bigger man to walk away from a fight" means that the man who can walk away from a fight is superior in morals, judgment, intelligence, etc.

Answering directly your first question: It takes what?

According to the Free Dictionary what it takes The necessary expertise or qualities

She's got

what it takes to make a good doctor Inherited wealth is what it takes to maintain that lifestyle.

This idiom uses what in the sense of "that which" and take in the sense of "require."

The linked source extracts the text above from The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer

According to the Oxford Dictionary take 7.1 (of a task or situation) need or call for (a particular person or thing)

It will take an electronics expert to dismantle it Notice the distribution of the elements in the example, that match the ones in your question:

It takes - It's required

What?

An electronics expert / A bigger man

For what?

To dismantle it /

To walk away from a fight

The comparison being made in your sentence, the one that uses " than ", is between the man who avoids the fight and the one that stays.

The first is bigger morally speaking.

Let me rephrase your sentence: A more qualified man (First Man), morally speaking, is required for avoiding a fight than the one (Second Man) that stays.

First Man is bigger than Second Man.

And last but not least, notice that we are in front of a kind of proverb : a short, well-known pithy saying, stating a general truth or piece of advice .

What the sentence is really saying is, "A man who refuses to fight is braver than a man who stays and fights."

The sentence structure is the same as "It takes a hotter furnace to melt iron than it does to melt tin."

In other words, the furnace which is needed in order to melt iron is hotter than the furnace which is needed in order to melt tin.

I admit that the exact phrasing is a little strange.

Why would we write something like "It takes a braver man" instead of "It takes more bravery"?

Maybe there isn't a good reason.

But that's the way the saying goes.

The meaning of take in the sentence is to require or to need : to need : Parachuting takes a lot of nerve.

Transitive verbs take a direct object.

[ + -ing verb ]

His story took some believing

(= was difficult to believe).

Big man is an idiom; a big man is exceptionally masculine (usually implied to be tough and strong).

The sentence is saying that, to start a fight, you must be a big, tough, manly man.

The than in the sentence compares the "big man" who would start a fight to a "bigger man" who has the wisdom to avoid the confrontation.

This is actually a normal comparison with than .

The phrase should actually be simplified for understanding the structure:

It takes a bigger man to walk away from a fight than it does to stay and fight

It takes more now than it took in the past

In both cases, the structure is roughly: [subject]

[verb]

[object in comparative] than [subject] [verb].

and it is equivalent to phrases:

He plays football better than I do

He is taller than me ( = ...than I am )

The only difference is that in our sentence, the comparative does not depend directly from the verb, but rather from a noun and it is that noun that depends from the verb (it is verbal object).

Question: I found this sentence reading. But I didn't get the meaning. Could you explain it to me?  The sentence is:    It takes  a bigger man to walk away from a fight  than  it does to stay and fight   It takes what? And it takes more or less? Because we have "than" so more than or less than ... I need an explanation because it seems like something is missing in this sentence. Thank you.

It takes a bigger man to walk away from a fight

"It takes a bigger man to walk away from a fight" means that the man who can walk away from a fight is superior in morals, judgment, intelligence, etc.

“It takes" is part of the idiom and refers to the quality required to achieve something.


We use "by" when we talk about the agent that infects us with the disease.

We use "with" when we talk about what we are infected with (i.e., the disease).

Jason's comment and Michael's answer explain this quite well.

However, there is a distinction between the names of the agent and the disease in regards to COVID-19.

According to Mayo Clinic: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) In 2019, a new coronavirus was identified as the cause of a disease outbreak that originated in China.

The virus is now known as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) .

The disease it causes is called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) .

Also see CBC News: What we know (and don't know) about the coronavirus outbreak.

The virus that causes the illness is now known as SARS-CoV-2. The initial symptoms of the illness, called COVID-19 , are ...

So, it is SARS-CoV-2 that infects you with COVID-19.

I should probably point out that this distinction is not something that the average person really pays attention to (or may be even cares about?).

As Kat says in comments, they may even use the terms interchangeably.

With HIV / AIDS, HIV is the agent and AIDS is the disease(s), so you would say I was infected by HIV and infected with AIDS.

The difficulty (so far) is that coronavirus is both the agent and the disease.

Perhaps there will be a separation later - maybe coronavirus for the agent / virus and COVID-19 for the disease?

Edit (in response to a comment from Jason Bassford):

Jason said the same thing as this at the same time in his comment.

Since my own comment has gained so much attention in other answers, I thought I'd turn it into an actual answer myself.

The Prepositions With and By Here are the definitions of the senses of the prepositions in use, per Merriam-Webster: With : 6

a —used as a function word to indicate the means, cause, agent, or instrumentality hit him with a rock pale with anger threatened with tuberculosis

she amused the crowd with his antics By : 4

a : through the agency (see AGENCY sense 3 ) or instrumentality of //

a poem written by Keats // death by firing squad // taken by force // happened by luck

I had used agent in my original comment when describing by ; however, that can get confusing because of the multiple senses of that word.

(And note that the definitions here actually use one sense of agent in association with the definition of with , while agency is used in association with by .)

It's perhaps better to express it differently.

When you use with , you are talking about an object or effect that is applied as a result of an action.

→ I was poisoned with arsenic.

When you use by you are talking about the subject or cause of an action.

→ I was poisoned by a criminal.

Putting the two together: I was poisoned with arsenic by a criminal.

The Coronavirus Forget the technical distinction between the virus SARS-CoV-2 and the disease COVID-19 .

Let's just assume that when people talk about the coronovirus they are talking about a single thing.

Going back to the difference between with and by .

Statement:

"I was poisoned with arsenic by a criminal."

Question and answer: "

Who or what poisoned you?" "A criminal.

"What type of poison was it?

" "Arsenic."

But coronavirus actually does double duty, playing both semantic roles at the same time.

Statement:

"I was infected with the coronavirus by the coronavirus."

Question and answer: "

Who or what infected you?" "The coronavirus.

"What type of infection was it?

" "The coronavirus.

This means that both of these are grammatical:

I was infected with the coronavirus.

I was infected by the coronavirus.

Even though the nature of the word coronavirus allows the sentences to often be used interchangeably, there is still a subtle difference between the two upon careful analysis.

One more distinction in use: in addition to referring to the contagion itself, infected by in the passive voice could refer more broadly to how the person was infected.

Infected by means of (something).

This secondary meaning isn't there for infected with .

Julie hadn't left her house for weeks, but was infected by her boyfriend who was an "essential worker" at the local supermarket.

The lab researcher always took extreme care when drawing samples from the test subjects, but was infected by a needle accidentally dropped by her lab assistant.

Over 200,000 people infected by coronavirus worldwide

This is just passive voice.

To make sense of it, flip it around:

Coronavirus infected over 200,000 people worldwide

So, once coronavirus infected these people, they had coronavirus; you can now say they were infected with a virus.

I think Jason Bassford's comment is a perfect explanation.

Question: I found both these two versions are being used   Infected with coronavirus     Infected by coronavirus    Cambridge Dictionary  gives different definitions for them:   to pass a disease to a person, animal, or plant   for "infected with" and   If a place, wound, or substance is infected, it contains bacteria or other things that can cause disease   for "infected by".  However, I can't distinguish those two meanings. Could someone please give a hint?

Difference between "infected with" and "infected by"

We use "by" when we talk about the agent that infects us with the disease and we use "with" when we talk about what we are infected with (i.e., the disease).  With HIV / AIDS, HIV is the agent and AIDS is the disease(s), so you would say I was infected by HIV and infected with AIDS.  When you use  with , you are talking about an object or effect that is applied as a result of an action but when you use  by  you are talking about the subject or cause of an action.

“By" refers to the cause in this context and "with" refers to the disease in this context.

“By" refers to the cause in this context. "With" refers to the disease in this context.