I would write this as: I have four identical books, each in its own bag.

Normally you would say: I have 4 bags, each containing the same book.

Maybe you could write, "I have four copies of the same book, each in a bag."

Of course, this only implies that you have four bags.

If you need to directly mention the fact that you have four bags, you might write something like, "I have four bags, and each has a copy of the same book."

In any case, using the word "copy" might help, since, as @ssdecontrol noted, the construction is pretty cumbersome.

Sorry you can't just leave them as two sentences! :-)

I have the same book in each of these four bags.

(subject)

I (verb) have (DO adjective) the same (Direct Object)

book (prepositional phrase) in each (prepositional phrase) of these four bags

Three notes: First, your original sentence has the wrong article.

Second, your additional sentences aren't using same properly (it's a weird word).

Third, there are a couple ways to make this one sentence.

See below.

First, note that the constructions you're using use the definite determiner/article ( the ) on books .

So, instead of: I have 4 bags.

In each bag, there is a same book.

One would say I have 4 bags.

In each bag, there is the same book.

This is because the books have been mentioned before (in the first sentence of the example).

See the Wikipedia page on definiteness .

Secondly, with your second sentence, the syntax of counters in English can be weird.

For instance, the following is good :

I have 4 books.

But this is not good :

I have 4 same books.

This is because words preceding same require of the :

I have 4 books.

I have 4 of the same book.

I have ten dolls.

I have ten of the same doll.

Note also that nouns modified by of the are singular (book vs books)

Third, as you note, your original sentence sounds weird because it is strange to say something simple like it in two sentences.

As others have pointed out, you could say something like:

I have four bags, each with the same book

However, this is also somewhat weird because you're emphasizing bags without discussing the book much.

The bag sounds more important because it is first, but there isn't much about it.

So, if the book is more important, I would say something like:

I have four copies of the same book in each of these bags.

I have four of the same book with each in a bag.

I have a copy in each of these four bags.

I would expect to hear

I have four bags, each with the same book at a convention or something similar where people are getting free books in bags, and each bag might have a different book.

So, if you're emphasizing you have four bags, but complaining

you have the same books, then this sentence would be used.

As a native (UK) English speaker I would say that you have a number of choices:

I have four copies of the same book, each in a separate bag.

Places the emphasis on the 4 books and clarifies that they are stored in separate bags.

As does: Here are four copies of the book, bagged separately.

While:

I have four bags each containing a copy of the book.

Emphasises the bags and assumes that the specific book is already defined in context.

This might be used at a book launch to describe the door prizes and does not preclude there being other bags that contain other things nor there being other things in each bag.

I would prefer

I have 4 same books each in

bag A, bag B, bag C,

bag D respectively.

or this can be written as

I have four same books each in four different bags.

I have 4 identical books in 4 bags.

I have 4 similar books in 4 bags.

I have 4 bags, each contains the same book.

I have 4 bags, each containing the same book.

Question: I have 4 bags. In each bag, there is a same book.   I tried to rewrite this as one sentence, but I don't know if it is grammatically correct and  if it conveys the same meaning.   I have 4 same books each in 4 bags.  I have 4 same books each in bag A, bag B, bag C , bag D respectively.   How would you normally say it?

Have I rewritten this correctly?

I have four bags each containing a copy of the book. I have 4 bags, each containing the same book. I have four copies of the same book, each in a bag. I have four identical books, each in its own bag.  I have four copies of the same book, each in a separate bag.

Multiple expressions are possible, including 'I have four bags, each contains the same book'.


I'm afraid not.

This is actually a ‘fossilized’ expression with a long and complex history, summarized by OED 1 as follows: In the idiomatic I, we, you, he, etc.

had better , the original construction was me, us, etc. were betere (or bet )

= it would be more advantageous for me, etc.

[...] The dat.

pronoun was subsequently changed into the nominative,

I, we, were better (perh.

because in sbs.

the two cases were no longer distinguished).

Finally this was given up for

the current I had better =

I should have or hold it better, to do, etc.

(Mr. F. Hall has shown that in these changes better followed in the main the analogy of liefer and rather .)

It is really pretty hopeless to try to force this idiom into the straitjacket of conventional syntax, much less try to rephrase it with conventional transformations.

It is what it is.

Mr. F. Hall is the 19th-century philologist Fitzedward Hall , an obsessive scholar of whom the OED ’s first editor wrote that ‘When the Dictionary is finished, no man will have contributed to its illustrative wealth so much as Fitzward Hall’.

His essay ‘On the Origin of “Had Rather Go” and Analogous or Apparently Analogous Locutions” , American Journal of Philology , II.7 (1881) is delightful reading, not merely for the substance and copious documentation but chiefly for its wickedly acid remarks on attempts by earlier grammarians to make sense of this construction.

Did you mean to change it to a question, or to ask if the following is sensible?

I'd be better to get a quart.

If you said that to me I could respond by making a quizzical face and say: "I'd be better to get a quart?

(...as a challenge to the fact that I didn't understand what you just said, because it sounds weird.)

Yet it could pass for old-timey pirate language, as a sort of short-hand for "

I'd be better off if I were to get a quart.

first mate: "Cap'N,

would you like me fetch ye a gallon of skunk whiskey?"

cap'n:

"Arrr, nay!

I'd be better to get a quart of yonder Basil Hayden.

If you spoke like that people would know what you mean (and that you were a pirate).

But it's not normal speech, and you should go with

"I'd better get a quart." ...

assuming you live in a place where people know what quarts are.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/9598/HostileFork says dont trust SE

I agree with HostileFork, especially the pirate comment, but if you feel a burning desire to use "be better" you would say: It would be better to get a quart.

That is, it would be better {for me and all concerned} to get a quart.

Someone who knows how much your friends like to drink might say: You would do well to get a quart, not a pint.

"I’d be better to get a quart" does not sound natural to my (American) ear.

"I'd be better off getting a quart" does sound natural to me.

In both of these examples, "I'd" is short for "I would".

There's a bit of difference in meaning between the 2, and I don't think the 2nd is something you'd be likely to hear.

I'd better get a quart.

It's preferable that I get a quart under the given circumstances (whatever they happen to be).

This may prevent some unforeseen negative consequence in the future that could affect anybody.

I’d be better to get a quart.

It would personally improve me and make me better if I got a quart.

This version doesn't really make sense and sounds incorrect.

I’d be better off getting a quart.

I'd do better to get a quart.

These are both equally acceptable options, though again the focus shifts from the situation to the speaker.

I'd be better off with a quart because of the positive outcome for me, or the aversion of a negative outcome for me personally.

Question: I' d better  get a quart. ( daum.net )   There’s a  had better  usage in the above. I’m not trying to figure out what the original it would have been, but can this construction below be made? (When  I , the main verb, is logically the object of the non-finite verb -  get , it could be thought as a  tough movement . But it's not the case.)    I’d be better to get a quart.

I'd better get a quart

I’d be better to get a quart does not sound natural.  There's a bit of difference in meaning between the 2, and I don't think the 2nd is something you'd be likely to hear. It is really pretty hopeless to try to force this idiom into the straitjacket of conventional syntax, much less try to rephrase it with conventional transformations.

This idiom does not fit with conventional syntax, the two differ slightly.


It's very common to use a get -passive with married :

My wife and I have been living here since we got married .

Most passives use be , but other verbs are possible as well: Pullum lists come, get, go, have, hear, make, need, and see .

Most of these are relatively uncommon and each one has idiosyncratic rules for when it's appropriate.

In this case get is appropriate because of married .

Your active version ("since we married") sounds less common but I think it's also acceptable.

Your perfect be -passive version ("since we have been married") doesn't sound idiomatic to me, and I would avoid it in this case.

Traditionally in the English speaking world, marriages started when a official presiding at a wedding married a couple.

So most people, when referring to the state of being married say 'since we were married' (by the official) rather than any of the forms which imply they were the active party.

Here's an n-gram showing a few variations, which points to 'were married' being the most common.

Yes, you should write " Since we married " because "Since" always followed by the past simple tense or the beginning time of the verb.

Since , when used to indicate a duration, must be followed by a point-in-time reference; something has happened from that point in time until now.

We have been married indicates a duration rather than a point in time, so it is not suitable for being used with since .

Idiomatically speaking, I would suggest the phrase "since the day we got married."

"Since" needs to be followed by an event (something you could describe by a single time and date).

"We have been married" is a period of time (which you'd describe by a range of times/dates).

You need to change the latter phrase to describe a point in time, not a period.

"Since we got married" or "since we married" would both work.

The most natural sounding phrases to a native english speaker are: "

My wife and I have been living here since we were married", and "

My wife and I have been living here since we got married" The phrases with "since we have been married" and "since we have married" are grammatically incorrect.

The phrase with "since we married" is grammatically correct but awkward sounding.

Magooda's answer is the best here.

What I would have said is "since we were married".

"Since we got married" also sounds natural. "

Since we married" is quite unnatural.

It sounds like something only a non-native speaker would say.

The rest just sound wrong.

You could say "since we have been married" with some other kind of phrase, though, e.g.

"My

wife and I have lived here since we've been married".

But not "My wife and I have been living here since we've been married".

Question: I want to make a sentence meaning that "we have been living here since the day of our marriage" but is the latter part of the sentence correct? "My wife and I have been living here since we have been married." Or should I write "since we married."  Thank you so much.

"My wife and I have been living here since we have been married." is the tense correct?

Idiomatically speaking,  "since the day we got married"; "since we got married" or "since we married" would work. Since should be followed by  a point in time reference. "Since we have been married"  indicates a duration rather than a point in time, so it is not idiomatic and perhaps should be avoided.

You can write 'since we married' or 'since we got married'. Avoid 'since we have been married'.


There is a difference in meaning between “a little” and “little”.

The meaning of “ a little” is positive .

It means some or a small amount, such as, “I have a little money.”

, “He made a little progress.”

, etc.

On the other hand, “little” has a negative meaning.

It means an extremely small amount or an amount that is less than expected or wished for, as in, “I have little money.”, “He made little progress.”, etc.

If we look at these sentences, the difference between “a little” and “little” will come across easily.

The former may be satisfactory for a particular purpose while the latter is not.

Quite different.

"I have little money" implies you have a very small amount of money, and usually less than you'd want to.

For example, when your kid asks you to buy him a toy, and you reply "Sorry, I have little money", it implies you can't afford the toy.

"I have a little money" implies that while the sum in question might not be big (relatively speaking), it's good enough.

When you tell your kid "Well, I have a little money", you're affirming that you can, in fact, afford the toy.

I have little money =

I am not a rich man.

I have a little money can mean: a.

I have some money on my person now (e.g. in my pocket) but not very much.

b.

I have a rather large sum of money available if I should need it (i.e. litotes/understatement)

"little money" means not much as in "I can't afford to buy a new dress.

I have little money."

"a little money" can be positive as in "What about going to the cinema?

I would invite you.

I have a little money I can spend."

Using the article a/an has a subtle effect on the meaning of the sentence.

Below are my thoughts on your question.

"I have little money"

- It means you hardly have money.

"I have a little money" -

It means you have some money.

The other answers are all correct, but they omit one detail that might clarify the usage: "a little" is a shortened version of the full phrase "a little bit of."

Therefore, the phrase "I have a little money" is in fact an abbreviation of "I have a little bit of money."

Hopefully this will make it more clear as to why it is a positive amount: it means you may not have much, but you do in fact have some.

You have a bit (syn.

portion or amount) of money, you just have "a little bit."

So complicated! a little = some little = not much

Question: What is the difference between “I have  little  money” and “I have  a little  money”?  Are they the same?

“I have little money” vs. “I have a little money”

A little = some. Little = not much. "A little" is a shortened version of "A little bit of". "I have a little money" implies that while the sum in question might not be big (relatively speaking), it's good enough.  "I have little money" implies you have a very small amount of money, and usually less than you'd want to.

A little' is positive and means some. 'Little' is negative and means not much.


The use of elder is restricted to compare human beings, mostly in family relationships.

The one who is elder is the one who was born first.

This is my elder sister Betty.

You cannot substitute elder for older at all times.

Elder can only be used for people, when used for things, it is meant as a special figure of speech involving personification, so to be used with extreme care.

You cannot use elder with "than" (even if it is implied, as in sentence b) ): a)

This is my sister Betty, she's older than me.

(and not elder) b)

This is my sister Betty, she's older.

(and not elder)

But:

This is my sister Betty

she's the elder of us two.

We do not use elder after get or grow :

You'll understand when you get/grow older.

The restrictions in the use of the superlative eldest are the same.

It is not used for things.

The eldest/oldest of my six children has already left school.

My eldest/oldest son is in the fifth grade.

But: He's the oldest in the school.

Elder and eldest are considered formal and some people do not use them at all.

I generally agree with most of the quirky rules in the other answers.

However, I'd like to add: in American English, the adjective elder seems practically antiquated.

Eldest is still common, e.g. as in "the eldest son".

Even the noun elder , i.e. when referring to the older people in a person's life ("their elders"), is common.

The adjective elder , however, is generally left out of normal speech and writing in favor of the almost perfectly-synonymous older .

I only ever see or hear elder used as an adjective in fantasy where the word's nature as a nearly-forgotten lingual relic makes it seem almost foreign and exotic, lending to a setting's mystery and age.

Elder can be used to indicate someone or something of higher rank or greater influence.

The elder member of a group may not always be the oldest member of that group.

Older and elder both imply having greater age than something or someone else.

As stated in the other answers, "elder" means "older" but is usually only used when comparing a group of people who are in some way related.

It also comes up in some idioms such as "elder statesman".

There is one slight subtlety: consider the siblings John (15), James (17) and Mary (19).

Mary might talk about "my elder brother, James" to mean "My brother James (by the way, I also have another brother who's younger than him)", whereas James might talk about "My older sister", meaning "My sister Mary who is older than me."

Used as an adjective, "elder" is used when comparing the age of two people.

The person who was born first is elder.

It's used often for siblings, as in, "I have two sons.

Charlie is the elder.

John is the younger."

While this is correct, in every day speech, most people use "older" instead of "elder".

"My older son, Charlie, is coming to visit today."

Older can be used to describe things as well as people.

"My house is older than yours.

" Elder cannot be used in this way.

They are almost completely interchangeable.

They are basically synonyms.

However, 'elder' sounds more formal than 'older'.

The comparative and superlative forms of old are older and oldest.

E.g.:

My sister is older than me.

That's the oldest castle in the city.

I agree with @Michelle, elder generally should not be used to describe things.

"older" is the normal comparative, the use of the variant "elder" is limited to a few cases.

Oald has it very clearly: http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/elder_1?q=elder

Question: What is the difference between "Older" and "Elder" ?  And are they interchangeable ?

The difference between "Older" and "Elder"

Older and elder both imply having greater age than something or someone else. They cannot always be substituted. Used as an adjective, "elder" is used when comparing the age of two people, mainly among relations. Elder can be used to indicate someone or something of higher rank or greater influence. The elder member of a group may not always be the oldest member of that group. However, the adjective elder is quite antiquated and formal.

Elder is a comparative way of saying older. In US English, it is considered antiquated and formal.

Elder is antiquated and formal in US English.


Like Matt Brennan in the comments above, I'd also consider a)

"He always eats like a pig." more natural than your b) "

He is always eating like a pig."

In fact, these two expressions have a subtle difference in meaning.

Specifically, the word "always" generally means "every time" when applied to the simple present tense as in (a), but "all the time" when applied to the continuous tense in (b).

Thus, sentence (a) is simply a statement about the subject's consistently bad eating habits, whereas sentence (b) also implies that he spends a lot of his time eating, which may or may not be what you want to imply.

(In fact, you could even leave out the word "always" from sentence (a) entirely — a simple present sentence that does not, by itself or in context, refer to any specific time is generally understood to describe habitual behavior.

Thus, simply saying "he eats like a pig" is perfectly sufficient to describe someone's typical eating habits.)

Also, as noted by hunter and queeg, the idiom "eat like a pig" carries connotations of both eating messily (which you seem to want) and eating a lot (which you apparently don't).

There is a related idiom, "eat like a horse" , which implies only the latter, but

no common idiom that I'd know of that would only suggest messy eating habits without implying anything about the quantity eaten.

That said, you can certainly clarify the meaning with a subordinate clause, as you've done in your original sentence.

Thus, the following sentence would work perfectly well: a') "

He (always) eats like a pig, scattering crumbs all over the table."

A minor remaining dissonance is that, at least to my ear, "eating like a pig" would usually imply a somewhat higher degree of messiness than merely leaving crumbs on the table — the mental image I get is of someone eating as much and as fast as they can, making a lot of noise and splattering food (not just crumbs) all over the place.

Using such a strong idiom, and then implying that the real issue is just a few crumbs on the table, makes the speaker sound very fussy — which, of course, could be exactly the effect you're going for.

If not, though, you might want to go for something a bit less evocative, like, say, simply "he always eats messily, [...]."

The verb tense is executed exactly correctly (for just the reason that you say); however, "Eat like a pig" might be understood to mean "eat a lot," as opposed to "eat in a sloppy fashion."

(But it's not wrong to use it the way you did either.)

You mean "crumbs," not "crumbles."

There are at least four distinct possibilities here: "He always eats like a pig" means that, when he eats, he always does it messily and/or to excess; "

He is always eating like a pig

" means that he eats all the time and, furthermore, he eats messily and/or to excess; "He is always eating, like a pig" means pigs eat all the time and so does he; "

He always eats, like a pig" means that pigs eat whenever they have the opportunity and so does he.

If you change 'crumbles' to 'crumbs' the sentence would be ok.

Crumbles is what happens, for example, to a dry biscuit that you break and crush.

Crumbs are the mess left behind after eating said biscuit, usually down the front of your clothes.

If, whilst eating, I'm gulping big mouthfuls of food, barely chewing, gasping for breath, eating all that is in front of me, focussing on little else (imagine smudges of food over my face), then saying I'm 'eating like a pig' would be apt.

Think of Mr Creosote from the Meaning of Life.

Pigs eat anything and everything (pigfarms in Snatch).

But if I'm making a mess with crumbs (crumbsies on his jacketsies - Gollum to Sam)

, I'm unlikely to be called a pig.

But I could be called mucky, careless, scruffy.

Another animal 'idiom' would be a muckypup.

I'd be quite offended if someone called me a pig for getting digestives/elvin bread/wafer thin mint down my front.

But I'd probably smile (if I heard) if I was compared to a pig whilst my face was buried into a mountain of food.

(I don't have high enough reputation to comment, otherwise this would be a comment.)

He is always eating like a pig...'

does flow a little oddly, but I'd use a contraction, i.e. 'He's always eating like a pig...' :-) '

He always eats like a pig' flows a little oddly to my ear, personally.

I'm a native Australian English speaker, though it's not my first.

Though not a native English, I was taught that always + continuous tense can express a strong dislike or aversion towards the act mentioned.

Question: Does it sound right to say:   He is always eating like a pig, leaving crumbs all over the  table.   (Using Present Continuous, because of always + negative connotation)

Idiom "to eat like a pig"

The verb tense is executed exactly correctly (for just the reason that you say); however,   "Eat like a pig" might be understood to mean "eat a lot," as opposed to "eat in a sloppy fashion."

This can be understood as eating a lot as well as eating sloppily.


There's quite a few that would fit.

He's bitten off more than he can chew.

to try to do more than you are able to do Don't bite off more than you can chew.

Let someone else organize the party.

bite off more than can chew.

(n.d.)

Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed..

Retrieved October 10 2014 from http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/bite+off+more+than+can+chew

He's got too much on his plate.

Fig. to be too busy.

I'm sorry

, I just have too much on my plate right now.

If you have too much on your plate, can I help?

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs.

S.v.

"have too much on plate.

Retrieved October 10 2014 from http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+too+much+on+plate

He's got too many irons in the fire.

Fig. to be doing too many things at once.

Tom had too many irons in the fire and missed some important deadlines.

It's better if you don't have too many irons in the fire.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs.

S.v.

"have too many irons in the fire."

Retrieved October 10 2014 from http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+too+many+irons+in+the+fire

One idiom relates to hats.

When someone has two jobs, we sometimes say they have two hats: When I'm wearing my programmer hat, I'm a programmer.

When I'm wearing my musician hat, I'm a musician.

Macmillan Dictionary defines it this way and gives the following examples: (informal) one particular aspect of someone's duties or responsibilities

She has to wear several different hats

(=have various responsibilities) in her position.

Of course, when I say this, I'm wearing my teaching hat.

So you could say he's wearing too many hats .

He has too many balls in the air, see: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/too_many_balls_in_the_air

Another for you: "He's in over his head."

You could also say that somebody is " spinning too many plates " or "trying to spin too many plates at once".

If you can imagine someone trying to put up wallpaper with only one arm/hand, you'd say "Busier than a one-armed paper hanger".

Or there's always "Busier than a one-legged man in an a**-kickin' contest!"

Or that old-time favorite "Busier than a cheap whore when the fleet's in!" Share and enjoy.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/4943/Bob Jarvis - Reinstate Monica

Question: Something like "His head is in ten different places".

I need a proverb or idiom which can roughly mean "He has taken up more jobs than he can handle"

When someone has two jobs, we sometimes say they have two hats, so you could say he's  wearing too many hats. Alternatively, "he's got too many irons in the fire", "trying to spin too many plates at once", "he's got too much on his plate", "he's bitten off more than he can chew" or "he's in over his head."

Too many hats, too many irons in the fire, too many plates, too much on their plate are all options. Biting off more than they can chew, in over their head are possible.


I'm in the school.

Means I am in the building (but I may not be a student).

I'm in school.

Means I am attending school

(I'm a student).

The is used to refer to someone or something that has already been mentioned, or a context that has previously been established or easily understood.

I'm in

the school This sentence is generally understood to refer to a physical location at a particular school .

"In the school" means you are inside the building, "at the school" means you are on school grounds.

"The school" makes sense if the school's identity is clearly known or obvious.

"The school" difficult to understand (or plain nonsense) if the school's identity is unknown or unclear.

I'm in school

This sentence is not specific to any school, therefore the is not used.

In this sense, "school" is understood to mean schooling , or the process of receiving an education, rather than a physical school.

To be "in school" is to be in attendance at a non-specific school.

One would specify a school this way:

I'm in school at

Which is an informal way of saying:

I attend school at

We do not use the definite article "the" with the words church, bed, college, court, hospital, prison, school, university when we refer to the purpose for which they exist .

e.g. Sally went to school"

(She's a student.)

But: "Her father went to the school to see her teacher yesterday."

(He went to the school as a visitor.)

I am in the school and I am in school are different in meaning.

When I talk about being in school, it means I am a student there.

When I talk about being in the school (school building), it means I am not a student there.

Maybe I am in the school to look around the school building or to see my father who is a teacher there.

As others perfectly explained the differences between the two sentences, I'd like to state when to use which sentence.

When someone asks you, Where are you?

You could say, I'm in the school.

and if someone asks you, What do you do?

You could say, I'm in school.

Question: What is the difference between these two sentences??   I'm in the school.   I'm in school.   Do they have the same meaning or not?

Difference between "I'm in the school" and "I'm in school"

I am in the school and I am in school are different in meaning.  When I talk about being in school, it means I am a student there.  When I talk about being in the school (school building), it means I am not a student there. We do not use the definite article "the" with the words  church, bed, college, court, hospital, prison, school, university  when we refer to the purpose for which they exist .

Being in school means you're studying. Being in the school means you are in the building.


Imagine a fly buzzing in your ear.

It is annoying.

Now imagine you are sitting in your room trying to read, and something is bothering you.

After some time, you notice your neighbor's stereo is on, and you realize the bass vibrations were bothering you.

It was vaguely annoying, but you couldn't pinpoint it.

Now imagine a speaker who is telling you all about how to fix your life.

Some of what they say makes sense.

Some of what they say is good advice.

Some of what they say is helpful.

But for some reason, you find them annoying, and you aren't quite certain why.

They are vaguely annoying.

"Vaguely annoying": annoying but only just noticeably so.

In a [x] kind of way": In a similar manner to [x].

"Over-enthusiastic": enthusiastic to the point that it becomes annoying. "Motivational speaker": someone who gives lectures about how to motivate yourself.

So they are comparing the the way the dancer talks to that of an over-enthusiastic motivational speaker.

"Vaguely annoying" would be understood to mean "annoying, but you cannot say exactly what qualities of the thing are irritating you".

Something about it rubs you the wrong way.

See 2b here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaguely

The sentence in concern has too many adjectives and that might have confused you.

Starting dancing this way could be vague and he invited everyone to join,

that's even strange.

But try to group those adjectives and the sentence might look better.

Okay, that’s [vaguely annoying] in an [over-enthusiatic motivational speaker]

kind of way, but...

Let's not judge

the event

but what it means is the dancing and invitation both was done in a way some over-enthusiastic motivational speaker would do.

Not exact

but this could be something like... You dance in an MJ way.

means you dance the way MJ danced.

Said that, this is vaguely annoying.

How?

In a way some over-enthusiastic motivational speaker would speak.

Edit after OP's comment: Here, vaguely means slightly.

It was a bit strange and so slightly annoying that he was about to dance that way by inviting people.

It basically means that the person was annoying, but there was nothing specifically annoying about them.

Their character was generally annoying.

This is described as being a bit like a motivational speaker, who tend to be overly positive, hyperactive and use too many buzzwords etc.

These habits are tolerable when a person has one or two, but the whole package is often abrasive.

You can easily infer from the choice of words, "vaguely annoying", that it was still pretty minor.

People who're seriously upset, know exactly what they're upset about.

Question: Context is ( source ):   Okay, that’s vaguely annoying in an over-enthusiatic motivational  speaker kind of way, but I’ll permit it – because what this turns into  is genuinely so joyful.   Could you explain to me, what phrase   ...vaguely annoying in an over-enthusiatic motivational speaker kind of way...   mean?  Update.  It seems I don't understand what  vaguely annoying  means...

Could you explain phrase "vaguely annoying in an over-enthusiatic motivational speaker kind of way"

"Vaguely annoying" would be understood to mean annoying, but you cannot say exactly what qualities are irritating you. The person might have been annoying, but there was nothing specifically annoying about them. This is described as being a bit like a motivational speaker, who tend to be overly positive, hyperactive and use too many buzzwords, etc.

Vaguely annoying means annoying for reasons you cannot pinpoint. It may be about over-enthusiasm.


In what/which country is Mount Fuji?

Don't be afraid to end a sentence with a preposition if that's really the most natural way to construct the sentence.

You could certainly ask, "Where is Mount Fuji?", but if you're specifically wanting to know the country, "What country is Mount Fuji in?" sounds most natural.

Where is Mt. Fuji situated?

In what country is Mt. Fuji situated?

Where is Mt. Fuji?In what country is Mt. Fuji?

"What country can Mount Fuji be found?

" Is missing the word "in."

In what country can Mount Fuji be found?

As Kim points out, the original question is explicitly asking for a country.

There is no context that implicitly asks for a country, so the question must use the word "country".

If the question were changed to "Where", someone could answer "Honshu" or "Asia" or "Earth", instead of "Japan".

It is usually possible to convert a full-sentence question into a full-sentence answer by changing the word order.

The original post's question can be correctly answered by: Mount Fuji can be found in what country Japan.

Note that the word in needs to be included in the sentence, in order to make the sentence be grammatically correct.

Changing the word order back to that of a question, we get: In what country can Mount Fuji be found?

Because the list of countries is short enough that we could select the correct country from a list, it is also grammatically correct to use "which country" instead of "what country": In which country can Mount Fuji be found?

To all who are using "Where is Mount Fuji?".

This is NOT correct.

Given that we do not know the circumstances given the question we must be authoritative to the original post.

Example: 2 people are examining a distant landscape painting, named "Mount Fuji Landscape".

If the questioner asks "Where is Mount Fuji?" instead of "In which country is Mount Fuji?" or "What country is Mount Fuji in?", then the answer is no longer guaranteed to match the original question.

I.e. The responder could just point to Mount Fuji in the landscape painting and say "There!"

Question: I want to ask the question:   What country can Mount Fuji be found?   Is there a better way that I can ask this question using correct grammar?

Better way of asking "What country can Mount Fuji be found?"

Options include: "In what country can Mount Fuji be found?", "What country is Mount Fuji in?", "In  what/which country is Mount Fuji?", "In what country is Mt. Fuji situated?" or "Where is Mt. Fuji situated?"

You can say 'In what/which country is Mt. Fuji situated?'


When describing the people or things which appear in a picture, we use "in".

If you were to use the phrase "on the picture", it would most likely be to describe something that was not part of the picture originally, but is now on it.

"Your coffee cup is sitting on the picture!""I left out the crayons, and my toddler drew on the picture you left.

So sorry!"

ETA:

In North American English, the example you gave would be ungrammatical.

I see the book was published in England, though.

Perhaps it is considered an acceptable construction there.

I have never heard the phrase "on the picture" to mean "among the things|persons captured by the camera here".

For that meaning, it is always "in the picture".

Who is this person in the picture?

One can say " shown on the picture" to mean "which appears in this image".

Point to the strange growth of foliage, shown on this picture, which you believe to be the gangster's camouflaged hideout.

One can write an essay about a painting or photograph or movie, and say that one was writing an essay "on the picture", i.e. "about the picture".

This is the same in British English as in North American English, so the example sentence is ungrammatical - the explanation given by michelle applies equally to both.

As a native speaker, I would assume that this is not strictly a grammatical error (meaning the author believed it was correct), but a typographical one (meaning the author did not notice their mistake).

Since you mention seeing it more than once I would suspect a copy/pasting error.

(It may seem odd for this to be missed by the editor, but these things do happen.)

Unit 8 Describing people the instructions reads Warm-up 1

Give each pair of students an envelope containing a set of picture cards and ask them to spread them out in front of them.

Choose a picture and pretend to be the person on the picture .

Describe yourself in five sentences without mentioning your name.

E.g. I have fair hair, not dark hair.

I am a woman.

My hair is short, not long.

I am wearing __ , etc.

After five sentences, ask students to guess who the person is.

[...] Main activity Give each student an envelope containing a set of picture cards .

Students then play in their pairs.

Student A puts all their pictures face up on the table.

Tell Student B to choose one picture from their own envelope and look at it without showing it to Student A. Student B pretends to be the person on the picture.

The phrase “... on the picture” as it is used is grammatical in its context.

It is short for on the picture card .

The author has omitted card from the sentence because it was mentioned in the instructions: a set of picture cards There are other cases when using on with picture , or image would fit in a teaching environment.

Focus students' attention on the picture.

Student B should focus on the image, and describe it to their partner.

Student A sticks the animals where they want on the picture.

Student B secretly draws a house on the image.

(Although " in the picture" would be more idiomatic)

The normal thing is "in the picture" as In the picture we see Edinburgh Castle.

In English a picture is seen as a space; and a landscape, in fact, depicts a space and consequently you say: "In the picture we see a hilly countryside with a river and green meadows with sheep and in the background there is a little village."

In other languages a picture or painting may be seen not as space, but as an area, and "on the picture" is used in German.

In the picture could be an idiomatic phrase.

It simply means that someone/thing was/wasn't concerned at all.

Say...

Do you think I'm responsible for their break up?

It is not so.

I was not in the picture at all.

On the other hand, on the picture means someone has drawn or there's a photo of a person and Student B has to be that person.

Question: What is the difference between the above adverbial modifier of place and "IN the picture" if any?   In "Games for Vocabulary Practice" by Felicity O'Dell and Katie Head (Cambridge,2003) I have come across this phrase more than once reading the guidelines for running activities, e.g. "Student B pretends to be the person ON the picture".

Is it grammatically correct to say "ON the picture?"

When describing the people or things which appear in a picture, we use "in the picture". For example:  In the picture we see Edinburgh Castle. If you were to use the phrase "on the picture", it would most likely be to describe something that was not part of the picture originally, but is now on it.

On the picture' would refer to something not originally part of the picture. 'In the picture' is more idiomatic.


It's a tricky question.

Generally, we travel by vehicles.

Thus, "I came by car" , even though you are in the car.

For most public transport such as trains and buses, we do things on them.

That is - '

We read books on trains/planes'

In your question, the medium of transportation is a train and thus, it'd take on as a preposition.

She has been oversleeping on the train and missing her stops.

However, in is possible if you further describe the location in the train.

She has been oversleeping in the train

compartment and missing her stops.

In British English we travel/go by most vehicles (train, bus, car, plane)

but we sit, stand, read books, etc, on the train, bus or plane (but in the car)

[see Swan, Practical English Usage (2005.81)].

We would therefore normally (over)sleep on the train.

Thinking about aircraft, I fly on a large aircraft, in a small one.

The difference is whether I can stand up inside; equivalently, whether I walk aboard or seat myself from a standing position on the adjacent ground.

The same is applicable to boats.

Trains have room to stand up, so one is always on them, even when asleep.

These are the usages that feel right to me.

As long as you use "on" for a bus, train, plane to travel, it means in/into.

It doesn't necessarily mean its roof.

(Keep it in mind that you get on a bus, plane or train; similarly, when you are travelling, you are on it).

(Please see Macmillan or Oxford in this connection).

So the correct sentence is "She has been oversleeping on the train and missing her stops".

In addition to the other answers, as a native speaker (of American English), the preposition "on" in this context makes me think of travel, as in "on a journey".

If I was sleeping in a train car that was sitting on some land, rather than train tracks, for example, I would use "in".

I believe the reason is because it wouldn't be a vehicle in that case.

Question: She has been oversleeping  on  the train and missing her stops.  She has been oversleeping  in  the train and missing her stops.   Which is the correct  preposition  in the sentences above?

She has been oversleeping on or in the train and missing her stops - which is the correct preposition?

The correct sentence is "She has been oversleeping on the train and missing her stops". The medium of transportation is a train so it takes  on  as a preposition.

On' is the correct preposition as the medium of transport is a train.


The most idiomatic and common way to phrase this would be “I use Linux.”

If you need to keep the “Work ... Linux” phrasing, you would say “I work with Linux.”

But without more context, this sounds like you are a programmer who modifies the Linux operating system.

It would be an unusual way to say that you just use Linux on a regular basis.

It could be understood that way if you are having a conversation about whether Windows or Linux is better, for example.

I want to say that i work using OS Linux.

The answer is in your question!

It's just a matter of phrasing: "I work

using bananas" would normally be said

"I work with bananas" , or "my work involves bananas" .

I'm a sysadmin and would introduce myself with "

I'm a Linux sysadmin" , but

if I want to draw attention to Linux, I say "I work with Linux" , but it's important to note that's all

I do, 40 hours a week.

I also use Windows to support my Linux work.

At home, I use MacOSX.

And there's the distinction: what is your actual role?

I work with software and electronics engineers who work on Linux:

their main claim is "I'm an electronics engineer" or something like that.

They might add "

I do my work on Linux" , or more simply

"I use Linux" .

Say what your role is, and it might be easier to answer your question!

Perhaps your intent is: I use Linux for work.

This would indicate that when working you use Linux.

It conveys the idea of a Linux user (not a system's programmer, etc.) and that the usage is work related.

You would likely say I use Linux at work if you work at a location (not from home).

"I work on Linux".

You run your applications ON top of the Linux kernel, so in-effect you are working on Linux.

At the same time this might imply that you are working on developing the Linux kernel.

So the grammatically correct statement would be "I work with (the) Linux (OS)".

I think the most unambiguous and still ok for spoken English is:

I use Linux at work.

We would say work with when referring to a complete product, such as an operating system or application, for example: I work with Linux

I work with Photoshop

This is comparable to someone saying they work with children, or work with animals.

But, idiomatically, we say work in (or write/program in) when referring to a programming language, for example: I work in Java

I work in SQL

This is comparable to an artist saying they paint in oils.

Question: I want to say that I work using OS Linux. In Russia we say "I work UNDER Linux" or "I work IN Linux". What is the corresponding phrase in English?

How to say that I'm using Linux?

The grammatically correct statement would be "I work with (the) Linux (OS)". "I use Linux at work" is an option, but the most idiomatic and common way to phrase this would be “I use Linux.”

I work with/on Linux can work, as can I use Linux for/at work.

I work with/on Linux can work.
I use Linux for/at work is appropriate.


This principle is called parallel construction : The [more/less]

X you Y

The more information you have

The less uneasy you feel Sentences with two clauses work better, and sound more natural, if they are of parallel construction than if they are of asymmetric construction.

In your sentence, less qualifies the adjective uneasy , so putting these two words next to each other does make good sense.

There is also a nice symmetry between the structures of the two clauses: more information and less uneasy .

However, there is another pattern where there appears to be no noun or adjective:

The more you think the less you feel. which may have led you to say the less you feel uneasy .

However this pattern is best understood as The more [stuff]

you think the less [stuff] you feel.

so again more and less are qualifying nouns.

That said, what you originally wrote is 100% understandable, and would pass unnoticed in ordinary conversation.

"less"/"more" can qualify an adjective like "uneasy" or a quantifiable noun or "information".

However, it's not possible to use it with a verb construction such as "feeling uneasy".

Here, "(to) feel" gives the term its meaning, and actions cannot as such be quantified or qualified.

They happen, or they don't.

So

The less uneasy you feel is correct because "less" can actually have an influence on the adjective "uneasy".

The less you feel uneasy is not grammatically correct, but as a colloquialism, it implies that you can quantify the act of feeling.

My guess would be, by regarding it as equal with the feeling itself.

It is understandable, but it leaves this tiny notion that something is not quite right here.

Too tiny to make it an issue in a normal conversation ...

That's just how colloquialisms work, I guess.

"The more information you have, the less you feel uneasy".

I think the PO should accept his friend's advice.

I'll not say that his sentence doesn't make sense, but it doesn't even seem correct grammatically.

We can not say "Less

I feel uneasy instead of

I feel less uneasy".

It's unjust to divorce less from uneasy.

Actually, we use such phrases when we want to refer to an event or action that happens continuously or repeatedly, with a particular result at the same time.

When we use such expressions, we must see to it that the word forms should be parallel in each of the expression.

So the correct sentence is "The more information you have, the less uneasy you feel".

Your original sentence can definitely be improved.

Whether the suggested improvement is optimal depends on what you are trying to say.

It is usually best to put modifiers as close as possible to the words they modify.

This reduces the odds of misunderstandings about which modifiers go with which words. "

[T]he less you feel uneasy" in your original sentence leaves some ambiguity as to whether you refer to a lessening of the intensity of each instance of uneasiness, or if there's an implied word (such as "often") missing right after "less" meaning that the frequency of your bouts of uneasiness will be reduced, but the intensity of them is unchanged.

Closing the gap can be done either by rearranging the words as suggested, or by including the implied word.

Which one to choose depends on which meaning you originally intended.

"The more information you have, the less you feel uneasy." -> for what it's worth, this would be considered 100% incorrect where I come from and to me it sounds very awkward.

There are lots of references to "parallelism" in the answers above

but this is a specific form called (amongst other things) the comparative correlative - link .

I'd recommend you stick with the second form, especially if you use English in a formal business setting i.e. "The more information you have, the less uneasy you feel."

Question: When I wrote:    "The more information you have,  the less you feel uneasy ."    I was advised to use:    "The more information you have,  the less uneasy you feel ."   I would like to know which is the correct position of "uneasy." To me both are okay.

"Less you feel uneasy" vs. "Less uneasy you feel"

I'd recommend you stick with the second form, especially if you use English in a formal business setting i.e. "The more information you have, the less uneasy you feel."  In your sentence,  less  qualifies the adjective  uneasy , so putting these two words next to each other does make good sense.

The first option is incorrect, the second works better.


I see what you mean!

You are using himself as an object of didn't care .

One alternative option that came to my mind is: He didn't spare himself for us.

That is, in order to cater to our needs, he was ready to be very strict to himself.

He was selfless , self-denying in caring for us.

We have a similar expression in Russian: Он не жалел себя для нас. - he did not care himself for us (in literal, word-for-word translation) - he had no mercy on himself for our sake (in a less literal translation)

You wanted to use the verb in the sense of "to take pity, to have mercy, to consider one's own needs".

As to why himself can't be used in the sentence, SoItBegins provided a good answer.

'Care' isn't a reflexive verb, and so does not take a 'self' (a reflexive pronoun) after the verb.

A verb like 'wash' can be used reflexively, e.g. "wash himself", but 'care' can only be used similarly to 'care for (object)' or 'care about (object)'.

And you're right

— the correct version of your sentence is, He doesn't care for us.

He doesn't care himself for us.

Removing himself does makes it correct grammatically, but it changes the meaning to state that he does not care.

What could be used instead...

He cares selflessly for us.

or He cares for us above himself.

I think we should not object to the use of "himself" in the sentence.

Instead, we should object to its wrong place in the sentence.

As the saying goes, practice what you preach.

He asks others to care for us, but he himself does not care for us.

I have used the reflexive "himself" to emphasize "he" in the sentence.

However, the sentence "He does not care himself for us" does not sound correct.

I think it's not easy to answer the PO's question as we don't have a clear idea as to what she means in her sentence.

My answer is just a correct version of her sentence, which expresses her father's attitude in a negative sense.

If she wants to express her father's sacrifice in a positive sense, she will have to forget the sentence and rephrase it completely.

For example, she may say that "He cares for us selflessly, he denies himself for us/our sake (maybe, to care for us), he denies himself every comfort for us/our sake, he sacrifices every comfort for us, etc.

I am not sure whether it's OK if she says that "He does not care for himself for our sake.

It's an awkward construction as worded, but I don't think it's technically incorrect.

Consider the sentence without it: "He doesn't care for us."

Depending on context, that could mean that he is unconcerned about our welfare, as in, "He doesn't care what happens to us", or it could mean that he doesn't provide care, as in, "He doesn't feed us or wash out clothes."

In the second case, what if "he" has some indirect role in providing for your care, but doesn't personally do the job?

In that case you might say, "He doesn't care for us himself, but he pays the nursing home bill."

Or if you mean the first case, lack of concern, you may want to emphasize that it is "he" who doesn't care, and not just people in general, of whom "he" is just one example.

This would be another case where you could add "himself".

"He doesn't care for us himself."

The only problem with the original sentence is the odd placement of the word "himself".

In cases like this, we typically put it immediately after "he" -- "

He himself doesn't care for us" -- or at the end of the sentence -- "He doesn't care for us himself."

I think the sentence as written is valid, just unusual.

To answer only the part about what you are trying to express, I think He puts our needs ahead of his own is reasonable and idiomatic.

(That is, providing us with the things we need is a higher priority for him than providing himself with the things he needs.)

Your sentence, the way it's worded, sounds like, "He, himself, doesn't care for us," which is the opposite of what you intend to express.

Does this work? "

He cares for us above his care for himself."

Question: I'd like to know why it's necessary to remove  himself  from the following sentence to make it correct.   He doesn't care  himself  for us.   I'm trying to express a father's sacrifice, but I'm having trouble finding the correct phrasing in English.   Update: As I thought, It will be better to change like this.  "He doesn't take care of himself he only care for us."I wonder Is there some more improve point?

Why remove "himself" from the following sentence?

"He cares for us above himself" or "He cares selflessly for us".

The sentence corrected reads 'he doesn't care for us'. Alternatively you could say 'he cares for us above himself'.

Alternatives include 'he cares for us above himself'.


It does not mean the same thing.

Most can be used as a superlative, but it can also be used to indicate that something or someone possesses a property very much instead of the most .

By calling him the most talented writer, the author would exclude the possibility of any other writer being better.

That is quite an impossible claim to maintain and will probably only end up in endless and useless discussion!

A most talented writer means roughly the same as an incredibly talented writer.

I think this use of most may be a bit dated...

examples I can think of are sentences like: Thank you ever so much, Charlotte.

It was a most pleasant evening!

most as an adverb has two different meanings : 1: to the greatest or highest degree —often used with an adjective or adverb to form the superlative ( the most challenging job he ever had ) 2: to a very great degree ( was most persuasive ) Here, the meaning is the second definition.

If it were the first definition, the definite article would be required: the most visible star in the night sky (there can only be one single most visible star).

However, the second definition of " most " is merely an intensifier like " very " and does allow the indefinite article ( a most delicious cake ).

Swan's PEU (Third Edition) has this entry as 356.7 It says...

most meaning 'very' Most can be used before adjectives to mean 'very' in evaluating expressions, especially in a formal style.

The examples follow: Thank you for a most interesting afternoon.

That is most kind of you (where even indefinite article is not placed) .

As mentioned, most can be used as an intensifier ( ≈ "very" "quite" "exceptionally")

IF it is preceded by something other than the .

It is much more often used as a superlative when preceded by the .

( the [only] most ... because there can be only one).

The intensifier "a most pleasant" is considered very formal, as "ever so much" , mentioned above.

However, there's an exception to this rule: "the most...

" is used as a highly informal intensifier, and is considered " Valley Speech "-type slang.

Often used in reverse fashion along with "literally" used to mean not literally.

This could be considered a mistaken use of both words, or as ironic slang (dialect, not ungrammatical — especially if no "literal" superlative could possibly exist).

But it's the opposite of the formal usage mentioned above.

And hence you're more likely to encounter it as an intensifier in slang form, with heavy emphasis placed on "the most " to indicate sarcasm.

But it's the most likely context you'll see for

the most as referring to anything other than the most.

He was the most stellar singer I've ever heard.

" — "the most ... (ever)" is standard and always indicates superlative (the single most) "

[Like, ...

] he was literally the most annoyingly sympathetic person.

" — Highly informal and possibly sarcastic.

Note the lack of any possible literal superlative, so this is dialect, not grammar, but still, only in an informal setting.

"valley speak intensifier" "The scene outside the Opera was most upsetting.

I almost dropped my monocle .

Thank you ever so much for retrieving it." — Highly formal, rarely used outside of formal situations

"The scene outside the Opera was the most upsetting.

I demand to be taken back to the Embassy now!"

— Borderline case.

When used as a superlative (the...), it must always refer to the (single) most of anything.

It may be used as deliberate bad grammar in fiction to indicate a non-native English speaker, as (obnoxiously) in "The Very Best Exotic Marigold Hotel".

Then again, "the very best" can also be used as a slang intensifier, like "literally", "definitely", and "the most", to mean something other than the absolute best.

But "the very best" has more wide acceptance in this phrase.

When paired with a class description, "the most" and "very …est" are always definite superlatives.

You'll sometimes see formal or informal use of other …est as an intensifier as well, always without a class description to indicate the superlative.

("we had the happiest time!"

is usually informal or polite; not as strong a statement as "we had the happiest vacation in 5 years" which is a more formal statement of fact).

Note that the emphasis is always placed on the "…est" when using it as an informal intensifier.

"It is simply the most gracious gift!"

(The most of what?

nothing

— It's an intensifier, as the emphasis indicates.)

"It is the most gracious gift…" suggests an incomplete thought; perhaps the speaker forgot to get you something.

A most important one - there can be several of these because most means very here.

The most important one - there's only one of these because this is a superlative.

Question: Example:   Just because he does not say very much is no reason to sell him short. Actually, he's a profound thinker and  a most talented writer . People tend to underestimate him and not give him the credit he deserves because they think he's shy.   How do you understand it grammatically? If it means the same thing as  the most talented writer , then what's the difference?

a most talented writer - why not "the most talented writer"?

"Most"  can be used as an intensifier (as in "very" or "exceptionally").


You may use this in both situations, and indeed in others; the context will make it clear which meaning is intended: If you ask before you start preparing the coffee, you are asking how your hearer prefers their coffee to be prepared—Do you like it strong or weak (or possibly boiled to a black sludge)?

If you ask before or as you serve the coffee, you are asking how your hearer 'takes' their coffee—Do you want cream or sugar with your coffee?

If you ask after your hearer has started drinking the coffee, you are asking about the taste of the coffee—Is the coffee OK?

As for your answers, both are possible, as are many more:

It's terrific!

It's horrible!

It's coffee!

It's Blue Mountain, apparently from St Thomas Parish; rather underroasted, to my mind, and a coarser grind should be used with that press.

This phrase does have two meanings in US English, as agreed by other posters.

For the sake of completeness, I feel compelled to add that in British English, this is a phrase that would only be used when offering coffee.

Using it as a question to affirm how much someone was enjoying their coffee would probably be understood, but would sound extremely odd.

Instead, British people might say: "Are you enjoying your coffee?"

"Is that coffee OK for you?" Or something similar.

Divided by a common language and all that.

Beyond the answers given by other contributors, I would also add another parse:

If asked at a bar at night, when the other party is clearly not drinking coffee, the individual who asked may be implying that they will be making coffee for the other party the following morning; that is, it could also serve as an implicit pick-up line.

Context depends greatly on whether I ask: before I give it to you , where it's equivalent to "

Would you like milk/sugar/etc.?

" after I give it to you , where I'm asking "

Do you like it?"/"Is that coffee ok?"

As the other answers suggest, "How do you like your coffee?

can indeed have either meaning, depending on context.

If you're looking for unambiguous versions, you could instead ask: How do you take your coffee?

Meaning: Milk?

Sugar?

Or How is your coffee?

Meaning:

Do you like the coffee you're drinking?

Be careful of emphasis There are 2 ways of emphasizing the question: How do you like your coffee?

How do you like your coffee ?

The first is equivalent to 'how do you take your coffee?', so I would expect it in that context after someone has agreed to or requested some coffee.

The second is equivalent to 'how are you enjoying your coffee?', so I would expect it in the context of someone having tasted some coffee they have received.

To this, any answer about the quality or my enjoyment of the coffee is fine, but it is not a

yes/no question ('how' requires a full answer).

Good question -- in addition to the answers concerned with the various contexts in which this is asked:

The ambiguity is as much a question of contrastive focus: How do you like your coffee?

How do you like your coffee?

How do you like your coffee?

How do you like your coffee?

How do you like your coffee?

How do you like your coffee ?

Even context-free, emphasis on the words in bold (or any combination of words in this sentence) affects the meaning.

See Wikipedia:

Focus (linguistics) for a more technical description of contrastive focus.

The sentence looks ambiguous and hence, it can be used for both the situations.

And thus...

If I want to ask about the 'quality' of coffee, I'd use...

How was your coffee?

~ Ah, it was good!

OR Did you like the coffee?

Yeah, I liked it!

If I am asking for a choice , I'd say it this way - Which coffee would you like to have?

Black or with sugar?

Note that I'd prefer using

would and not do !

I'm offering the guest and coffee

hasn't come yet!

It's easier to see the meaning if you expand the two sentences to avoid the ambiguity: How do you like your coffee [to be]?

And the second definition:

How do you like your coffee [in front of you]?

The latter is usually instead said without the "how" (in fact, I have a feeling including the "how" is grammatically incorrect), just as: Do you like your coffee?

Or even more clear:

How is your coffee?

One other possible interpretation is if it's being said by someone who doesn't like coffee, in an incredulous manner: How do you like your coffee??

I hate it!

(This is me. :))

Question: How do you like your coffee?   Can I use the above sentence either on an offering situation that I ask if they like it black or with sugar, or during having situation that I ask if the coffee tastes good?  When the latter is possible, can next both answers be possible?     I like it a lot.    It's good.

Does this have two meanings: 'how do you like your coffee'?

This phrase does have two meanings in US English and can be used in both situations. The context will make it clear which meaning is intended.   For example, if you ask before you start preparing the coffee, you are asking how someone likes their coffee to be prepared.

There is amibiguity and the emphasis can be placed differently.


"Marked absence" maybe? "striking" as suggested above also seems to work. "

Complete" absence seems good for situations where there's a continuum from present to absence ("Complete absence of calories")

but less so for say whether an extroverted friend comes to a party ("strong presence") or not ("marked absence").

The first thing coming to mind after complete absence was conspicuous absence , and Google ngrams seems to support my instinct that it is more common than other solutions (besides "complete"): Though "complete" is more common, it seems to me that it is also more neutral.

If I wanted to emphasize the obviousness or strikingness of an absence, I would use "conspicuous."

"Marked" and "noticeable" could be considered of the same flavor.

If I wanted to emphasize the completeness of an absence, I would pick "complete" or "total," or even "utter."

A "complete absence" sounds natural to my (American) ear.

A noticeable absence also works.

I have seen the phrase "A palpable absence" used in various contexts.

It is somewhat figurative, since the literal meaning of palpable is "able to be touched or felt".

A sound can be weakly or strongly present, but it can only be absent in one way.

'Strongly present' describes the sound; if there is no sound, I think you need to be describing people's reaction to the lack of sound, or the remaining scene.

In my example, the silence isn't strong , but it might be remarkable , or enveloping , or notable or surprising or unexpected or unbelievable or unbroken or all-encompassing .

Geoff had a strong presence; the group strongly felt his absence.

Company A put in a strong presence at the trade show, Company B was totally absent .

Glaring.

A glaring absence.

It sounds natural to me, though Google doesn't return that many results.

How about...

A telling absence?

The word 'absence' already has some impact when used in a narrative.

Remarking on the absence of someone or something offers a wealth of meaning, don't you think?

So, the absence may be telling, noticeable, significant, marked, so on and so forth.

Question: What would be a good collocation to emphasize the absence of something. A 'strong absence' sounds a bit oxymoronic to me.  I want to talk about the absence of certain important aspects in someone's critique of something. Sorry, the context is kind of complex. I think 'striking' may do

'Strong' presence, but ________ absence?

Suggested words include palpable, glaring, telling, complete, conspicuous, marked, and noticeable, as well as striking.

Glaring, telling, palpable, total, conspicuous and complete are options. You can also use marked or noticeable.


I'm a teacher because that's my job.

That's precisely what makes me a teacher, I do it for a living [or for free, but nevertheless I do it daily/weekly etc].

I became a teacher through education & specific teacher-training

So, I'm not a teacher because of my education, although I couldn't have become one without it.

I'm a teacher because of my career-choice, enabled by the relevant education & training.

Had I gone from teacher-training college to a job in gardening & home improvement, I would be fully-qualified as teacher

but I would not be a teacher.

I would suggest one of two choices.

The first option, as suggested by Jim Reynolds in the comments above, would be: I'm a teacher by training.

This is the standard idiomatic way to say that you've studied (and, typically, by implication, completed your studies) for a particular occupation.

You could substitute "by education" for "by training" here, if you really wanted to, but at least to my ear, that doesn't sound quite as common or natural.

(I decided to check my intuition with Google Ngram Viewer, and it seems to generally agree , ranking " X by training" above " X by education" over the last 100 years or so.

Interestingly, refining the query shows that the this idiom seems to be most often applied to a few specific professions, the top two being "a lawyer by training" and "an engineer by training".

As these are both well-known examples of professions where a formal degree is an essential and often legally mandated requirement for practice, this is perhaps not so surprising.)

As Jim points out, using this expression can sometimes carry the implication that you have not actually yet worked, or do not currently work, in the profession that you studied for.

This does not really have anything specifically to do with the idiom as such — it's simply that, with the explicit qualifier "by training" included in the sentence, the reader may assume that the qualifier is actually necessary, and that therefore, by implication, you are not (currently) a teacher in some other sense.

Generally, you don't need to worry about this too much, since the intended meaning should be clear from context, anyway.

That said, if you wish to make it absolutely unambiguous that the reason you're stressing the "by training" part is to put emphasis on your formal degree in the subject, I would suggest simply rewriting the sentence to explicitly say so:

I have a degree in pedagogy.

Of course, you should substitute the specific official (English) name of the degree you have, and perhaps include the name of the institute you received it from

To address the phrases you asked about, any of the following is grammatically correct:

"I am a teacher by education" "

I am a teacher by my education

" "I am a teacher according to my education" "

According to my education I am a teacher" (although "according to my qualifications" would be more on the mark)

"I am a teacher based on my education" "Based on my education

I am a teacher" You can put a comma before "I" in each of the cases with reversed order.

Whether these statements are true or not depends on your definition of "teacher" as discussed in other answers.

I think all of these cases automatically imply that by "being a teacher" you must mean "being qualified as a teacher", not necessarily that you currently work in the profession or ever did.

But a pedant or an actual practising teacher might well disagree with that meaning.

Because it's unclear whether they can be true, i.e. that education alone makes you a teacher, I don't think any of them is a particularly natural way of putting it.

To my ear "I'm a teacher by education" is best of these options.

The phrasing directly suggests that a "teacher by education" is a different thing from "a teacher".

Next best is something like, "

According to my education, I am a teacher, but in fact I never worked as one".

In your circumstances it would be more natural in English to say "I trained as a teacher", since this avoids the whole business of the slightly unusual (and arguably inaccurate) meaning of "teacher".

Or specifically in a job interview, say, "I qualified as a teacher" to emphasise that you do have all the certificates!

It's also a bit more natural to talk about "training as a teacher" (or doctor, or philosopher, or brick-layer) rather than "being educated as a teacher", because "training" implies a bit more active use of skills.

You might say "I was educated in medicine", and "I trained as a doctor".

For teaching, this results in the confusing phrase, "I was educated in education", probably best avoided :-)

I'm a teacher by virtue of my education.

I think the simplest way to express this is to say, "I studied teaching, but now I am a/an x " or

"I have a degree is in 'x', but now I work in 'y'."

For example, "I have a degree in teaching, but I work in IT."-or-"I studied literature, but now I work in merchandising."

If you say that you are a teacher because of your education, that means that you didn't want to become a teacher, otherwise you'd say you became a teacher because it was your dream, or it seemed like a sensible career choice or whatever.

Since you got an education which left you no alternative but to become a teacher even though you didn't want to, that then has unfortunate implications.

Where you forced into the study?

Didn't you think things through before you started?

Were you misinformed about the career opportunities granted by the study?

Is this really what you want to say?

Question: Imagine you're being interviewed for a job and you're asked to tell about your profession. You're a professional, let us say a teacher, because you studied in a pedagogical university. What is the right way to say that?  I'm a teacher by/according to/based on my education.  What preposition should be used while using exactly this word order?  Thanks!

How to say that you are a teacher because of your education?

"I'm a teacher by training", or "I'm a teacher by/according to my education". You could also say "I studied teaching, but now I am an  x".

You may say 'I studied teaching' or 'I am a teacher according to my education'. Additionally you could say 'I am a teacher by (virtue of) education/training.

You could say 'I am a teacher by (virtue of) education/training.


There are too many antonyms to count!

It depends on how you want to use the word: The cola is not flat, it's bubbly .

The tire is not flat, it's full .

Her lecture was not flat, it was exciting .

His humor isn't flat, it's wry .

The earth isn't flat, it's round .

Business is not flat, it's booming .

That roof is not flat, it's sloped .

Our piano is not flat, it's sharp .

His feet are not flat, they're arched .

The tax scale isn't flat, it's graduated .

His denial of the allegations were not flat, they were wavering .

You made the classic "mistake" of asking for an antonym without furnishing a context!

I'm guessing you had something more like this in mind:

The countryside isn't flat, it's hilly .

but that might not work near a valley.

If you're talking about the surface of a colony of fungus, and it is not flat, there are many different terms you could use based on the level of "not-flat-ness" (patent pending):

Rough - Think like the texture of sandpaper or jeans Ribbed - Like corduroy pants

Varied - Like rolling hills.

Areas are flat, and others sloped Sloped - Like a round hill, or the top of a mushroom Cracked - Has cracks in it Creviced - Like cracked, but deeper Undulating - Marked by steep rolling hills Pockmarked - Filled with small holes, like a sponge Fissured - Similar to cracked, but stronger Craggy - Like the rocky face of a cliff Cleft - Split in the middle, like a cleft chin Mountainous - Mountains

Severe - Steep Pitted - Like pockmarked, but

deeper holes Not flat - Exactly what it says, something's not flat.

They all have subtle meanings, implying different levels of "not-flat-ness." Also, as others have pointed out, you would not usually say that something is both flat AND rugged.

In English, rugged is typically used to amplify the adjective describing how unflat something is.

So mountains are rugged, but a flat plains land probably wouldn't necessarily be, unless you're trying to imply that at first glance the prairie looked flat and easy to cross but it turned out not to be because it was full of danger.

I would go with: "Undulating".

The problem here is that asking for a generic antonym for "flat" is rather like asking for an antonym for "neutral" or "plain", or perhaps "silent" or "odorless" — they're all words that describe the absence of any features of a certain type, and so any informative antonym would need to describe which features are actually present.

Or, to misquote

Leo Tolstoy :

all flat surfaces are alike, but all non-flat ones are different.

That said, if you do really need a generic antonym for "flat", e.g. to present a binary choice between flat and non-flat, some possible choices could be: "textured" ( as suggested by BM- ): Tends to imply the presence of small-scale variation; sometimes used as an antonym of "smooth", or as a milder near-synonym for "rough".

Common in certain technical fields; for example, a graphic artist might describe the color of a surface as either flat/solid or textured. "varied" : A generic word for "not all the same".

May be used synonymously with "textured", but with a slightly broader sense.

"elevated" : An antonym of "flat" in a somewhat different sense than either "textured" or "varied".

Could be applicable if "flat" is being used in a sense of "lying close to a surface".

"not flat" :

This really is the most generic possible antonym for "flat".

In fact, many general English antonym pairs, like "colorful" / "colorless" or "visible" / "invisible", are of this type — the word "flat" just doesn't happen to have a regular suffix like "-ful" that could be inverted to "-less", and doesn't customarily accept a negative prefix like "un-" or "in-", so it has to be negated somewhat more awkwardly.

(That said, *"unflat", while not a commonly used word in contemporary English, would certainly be an understandable construction.

I'm not really advising you to use it, but you could do it and get the meaning across.

"Non-flat", as I've used earlier, would be a somewhat better compromise.)

Possibly "textured" might work, if further description of the surface is not required.

Question: The surface of the colony* is flat and rugged.  The surface of the colony* is  not flat  and rugged.   *(a colony of fungi)  Flat  is in this case refers to the elevation of the colony. From the side view, it's flat, like a computer disc.   What is the opposite of flat, for this context? Is it non-flat?

what is the opposite of the word 'flat'?

There are many antonyms for flat, including textured, hilly, varied, wavering, graduated, undulating, sloped, craggy, rugged, cracked, and creviced.

Elevated, textured, undulating, hilly, sloped, rugged refer to terrain. Wavering, exciting, wry, round, booming, sharp, arched, graduated, bubbly and full are possible variants.


It is possible to use the present progressive (present continuous) tense to give instructions, but not in the ordinary sense.

Instead, when we use the present continuous to give instructions, we do so only to give a very strong command or order--or a humorous parody of such.

(However, it is also possible, and more common, to issue strong commands or orders with the simple present.)

The logic with the present continuous goes something like:

It is so certain you will do this, (or since you have no choice but to do this) I am going to describe it as an arranged act of the future.

You are walking in there

and you are telling her that she's fired!

Is that clear?

We commonly use the present continuous to refer to future time, and we especially use what we can consider a special instance of the present continuous form-- be going +

[full infinitive]

--for

this "strong command or order" purpose, with the logic being something like:

I am so certain you will do this, that it is the arranged future.

You are going (to march) up those stairs immediately, young lady, and clean your room like I told you to do yesterday!

One can say "You are to be waiting outside the bank" to give an instruction, but not simply "are waiting".

You are not to be driving home in the snowstorm, do you understand?

That depends what you mean by "instructions".

When you tell someone what to do -- whether it's an order or friendly advice -- you use an "imperative sentence".

Imperative sentences use the simple present.

"Run away!"

or "Insert knob A into hole B.

" This is what we normally think of when we talk about "instructions".

But you can use the word "instructions" in a broader sense to mean describing what someone should or will do.

In this case you are not using imperative sentences, but ordinary declarative sentences.

In real life, people giving instructions often mix the imperatives, which actually tell the person what to do, with declaratives, where they explain something.

Usually such declaratives are in the future tense.

Like: "Turn left into the parking lot.

You will see a gate in front of you and a metal box with a button.

Press the button.

The gate will open."

Note the first and third sentences there are imperatives but the second and fourth are declaratives.

Sometimes people use present continuous in such cases.

"Go through the third door.

You are standing in a big empty room.

The lights are flickering.

Etc.

I think this is relatively rare, but it's done.

The only scenario I can imagine where present progressive would be appropriate would be when the speaker is encouraging the listener to visualize the scene and mentally "act out" the instructions as they are given.

Even then, I would expect that only the first instruction would be presented this way.

Example: "Imagine your workplace.

You are standing outside your office door.

Turn right, then walk down the hallway past three doors on your left."

Even this is kind of a cheat, since the sentence with present progressive tense is not giving an instruction.

It's just establishing the precondition for the following instructions.

There are a couple of examples I can think of where the present progressive is very effectively an instruction:

The instruction "Go to London", which is also voiced like an order.

If your job involved travel your boss may say "You are going to London today".

That is not an order

but I think this is clearly still an instruction.

The instruction "Eat your greens" which, again, is also voiced like an order.

A parent, familiar with the behaviour of a fussy child could easily be heard to say "You are eating your greens today young man".

In this context it is an instruction and also perhaps a disguised order.

Question: M.swan PEU says "we often use  present tenses  to give instructions." Other grammar books say "the  simple present  is used to give instructions".   My question is, Can we use  present progressive  to give an instruction?   for example , 'You  are waiting  outside the bank until the manager arrives. Then you' re speaking  to him....

Is it possible to use 'present continuous' to give an instruction?

It is possible to use the present progressive (present continuous) tense to give instructions. For example,  if your job involved travel your boss may say "You are going to London today", or a parent may say "You are eating your greens today young man" to a fussy child. You may also say "You  are to be waiting  outside the bank" to give an instruction.

You can do this when encouraging visualization. Examples include 'you are going to London today' and 'you are eating your greens today'.


Here's how I'd say the first one: The absolute value of S minus the sum from 1 to n of f of t sub

i times delta sub

i is less than epsilon.

Key: (1)

The absolute value of (2) S minus (3) the sum from 1 to n of (4) f of t sub

i (5) times

delta sub

i (6) is less than epsilon Note: Some mathematical expressions can be read aloud in more than one way.

For example, someone might say: sigma instead of the sum of the function instead of f of delta

i instead of delta sub

i t sub

i delta sub

i instead of t sub

i times delta sub

i

The absolute value of the difference between S and the sum from i equals one through

i equals n of the function f evaluated at t sub

i times the width of each i is less than epsilon.

If it is clear that i and n are one-indexed, then "the sum from i equals one through

i equals n" can be replaced by "the sum of the first n terms".

"The width of each i" is an interpretation of "delta i".

The function is one divided by the quantity x plus one close quantity, all divided by the square root of x.

The integral from zero to infinity of the function d x equals the limit as s goes to zero of the integral from s to 1 of the function d x plus the limit as t goes to infinity of the integral from 1 to t of the function d x.

"Goes to" can be replaced by "goes toward", or (as Damkeng suggests) "tends to", or (as J.R. suggests) "approaches".

I often use a notation like "integral from x equals a to x equals b" instead of "integral from a to b".

I also often say "to positive infinity" instead of "to infinity".

I "factored out" the definition of the function in the first sentence.

If the function were easy to say (such as "x squared"), I would not "factor out" the definition of the function.

Instead, I would include the "x squared" in the statements of the integrals, a la Damkeng's answer.

Absolute value of s minus sum

i equals one to n, of f of t

i times delta

i, is less than epsilon.

Integral from zero to infinity of dx by x plus one times square root of x is equal to the limit of integral from s to one of dx by x plus one times square root of x as s tends to zero plus the limit of integral from one to t of dx by x plus one times square root of x as t tends to infinity.

Please note that this is a casual reading.

It's practically impossible to avoid ambiguity when reading mathematical expressions aloud.

We might try to add more words such as "left parenthesis", "right parenthesis", and so on, but that wouldn't help much.

There are several possible alternatives, but this is how I normally read them.

Although not a direct answer to your question, here are a few references on how to read mathematical symbols and expressions.

As a non-native English speaker who has to read mathematical formulae, I've found them pretty useful.

Handbook for Spoken Mathematics , Research and Development Institute, Inc

: This is probably the most complete reference.

Not of easy consultation, though.

H. Valiaho, Pronunciation of mathematical expressions (pdf):

A short list divided by topic (e.g. Logic, Sets, Functions etc.).

Reports also variants.

K. Kromarek, Mathematics Pronunciation Guide

: This is a guide on how to pronounce mathematical symbols and names, but not on how to read expressions.

The simple answer is "you don't".

Complex mathematical expressions like those become ambiguous when read out loud because you lose a lot of the structure.

If you ever need to communicate the expression exactly, you'd write it down and point to it.

The only exception I can think of is if you were dictating something over the telephone, for example because you were working on a paper with somebody and you were trying to point out a mistake.

Then, you'd read out literally every symbol.

(Or just the part with the mistake, e.g., "The sum should be from

i equals 0 to n minus 1, not 1 to n.")

As a mathematician, a physicist and a uni lecturer, I would read the two expressions above as follows: (1) the absolute value of S minus the sum of "f at t sub

i" times "delta sub

i", where i changes from 1 to n, is less than epsilon.

(2) the x integral from zero to infinity of the function "1 over '(x plus 1) times (square root of x)' " is equal to the limit of x integral from s to 1 of the function as s tends to zero, plus the limit of x integral from 1 to t of the function as t tends to infinity.

At a class, you point to the relevant positions of the expressions while you read them.

Note that clarity and simplicity in statements are important in teaching.

Question: (both above are from  Wikipedia.org )

How do you read these mathematical expressions aloud?

The simple answer is "you don't". Complex mathematical expressions like those become ambiguous when read out loud because you lose a lot of the structure.

Mathematical expressions become ambiguous when read aloud and this should be avoided.


There's nothing wrong with in Tokyo in Koganey , except that it might be confusing, particularly if people are not familiar with the place names and their relationship.

I would say either I live in Tokyo, in Koganey where the comma indicates that the last phrase is an afterthought, making the sentence more precise; or I live in Koganey in Tokyo where it does not make any difference to the meaning whether it is parsed as [in Koganey in Tokyo] or [in [Koganey in Tokyo]].

Even clearer is

I live in Tokyo, in the Koganey district.

or I live in the Koganey district of Tokyo.

There is no rule that dictates which preposition follows another.

In the case of "nested" prepositional phrases, use the word that best fits the context .

That's the easy part of the answer.

The hard part is helping you understand when to use "in" vs. "at".

These little prepositions typically have around one or two dozen different meanings and usages, some of them overlapping, making them notoriously easy to spell but difficult for learners to use.

(For example, this site recently had a lot to say about in the park vs. at the park – neither of those is "incorrect;" they say sort of the same thing in two different ways.)

In the context of describing a physical location, the word in means, roughly, inside the confines of .

Generally speaking, in the building means inside the building , while in the city means within the city limits .

In the context of describing a physical location, the word at means at the location of .

Think of it as a point on a map.

Your examples gives a location within a location.

When talking about a neighborhood, suburb, or district, in most cases, I would use in both times, perhaps separated with a comma:

I am living in Tokyo, in Koganey.

He is staying in Sydney, in Camden.

She is working in New York, in Manhattan.

However, when talking about a hotel or other building, I would use at instead of in : I am living in Tokyo at my friend's house.

He is staying at the Four Seasons hotel in Sydney.

She is working in New York at an upscale restaurant on 44th Avenue.

If I have understood your question correctly, the confusion is between in and at while describing city as a living place.

True, I'd use in to mention 'living' in open spaces such as cities here.

But then, I have observed (though rarest cases) that the preposition in is used to mention larger cities .

And, for small places like towns, villages and small cities, using at is also evident.

But anyway, standard practice is to use 'in' and not 'at' because when you use 'at', you describe some 'point' and city, by large, is an open space.

Koganey is a small city in Tokyo and Camden is a small town in Sydney. .

at is proper to mention some place in a city.

Good read here (note in New York ).

The BBC on prepositions , clarifying all doubts here.

And yes, do mark Colin's suggestion of putting two commas to have a better construction.

I am staying in Tokyo at Koganey.

He is staying in Sydney at Cameden

Usually, when we refer to two locations/places in a sentence one after the other, we use the preposition "in" before the main/larger location and "at before the location which is smaller or shows a point in the main location.

So the use of the "at" and "in" in the above sentences is correct.

However, it's also correct if you use the preposition "in" before both locations but you should put a comma after the location mentioned first.

in and at are used for similar things in regards location.

Sometimes they can be more or less freely interchanged, but other times one is used more typically than the other.

For example, you generally use in with cities, states/provinces, countries (regions) I live in London

He used to live in California

She spent a summer living in France

None of these would typically have at in them.

at is used for general locations

He is at home

She is at work

It is also used for buildings and other smaller locations (points)

He is at the movie theatre

She is at the Empire State Building

It is more ambiguous or at least either could work in between these two extremes.

Regions within a city or country could be in or at, partially dependent on whether they are thought of more like a point or a region.

He is staying in Sydney at Camden in comparison to

He is staying in Sydney in Camden

The first sounds more natural to me, but it also treats Camden more as a single point.

The second one implies Camden is a region; however, it also seems to imply Sydney is part of Camden (rather than the reverse).

This nesting doesn't happen with at ; It would be more natural to express the second sentence as He is staying in Camden, Syndey at doesn't have this nesting effect.

That is, He is staying in Sydney at Camden does not sound like Syndey is a part of Camden.

This would be because at is like a point and thus can't really contain another region.

Question: I am new to English language. I have seen many times when the word "in" is used to explain an area "at" is also used following it.  For example:   I am living in Tokyo at Koganey.   He is staying in Sydney at Camden.   I want to know that why it can not be written as:    I am living in Tokyo in Koganey.   Is there a rule to follow when writing like this?  I would be grateful if you could give a clear explanation about this.

is it a rule to put "at" after "in"?

There is no rule that dictates which preposition follows another. In  and  at  are used for similar things with regards to location. Usually, when we refer to two locations/places in a sentence one after the other, we use the preposition "in" before the main/larger location and "at" before the location, which is smaller or shows a point in the main location. There's nothing wrong with  in Tokyo in Koganey , except that it might be confusing  if people are not familiar with the place name.

There are no set rules, you can use either.