Technically it seems like they should be used interchangeably but

in common usage you wouldn't normally hear "prepared" to mean "ready".

In fact, in British English we use the word "preparation" more to describe the early stages of a task.

Recipes may describe chopping of vegetables prior to cooking as the "preparation" stage before the cooking "method".

Consider these examples: The food is prepared in the kitchen.

This does not

mean the food is ready.

It doesn't even mean that the preparation is underway.

It simply means that food is prepared in the kitchen.

The food is ready in the kitchen.

This means that the food is fully prepared and is in the kitchen.

If you wanted to use the word "prepared" then it would be better as: The meal has been prepared.

This confirms the preparation has been completed.

But your question is specifically about which is more natural

and so I have to say that " ready " is the word you would most likely hear in English.

Both sound natural, as long as you change "prepered" to "prepared", which I assume, was just a typo.

The meal is ready.

might be seen as less formal, but otherwise both examples are the same.

As a British English speaker, I'd expect either The meal is ready.

or, more formally, The meal is served.

The phrase "the meal is prepared" feels more like it's been translated from German.

I think the difference is that "is ready" describes a current state, whereas "is prepared" (in relation to food) describes something that happens to the food over a period of time.

To confuse this, saying "I am prepared" means almost exactly the same as "I am ready".

For reasons I can't fully explain, "I am prepared" works very differently from "the meal is prepared".

My two cents: When the preparation is done, the food is cooked.

In other words, you are done with cooking.

But since you mentioned that it is on the dining table, waiting for people, you better use ready.

On the market too, we have food that are ready-to-eat not prepared to eat!

I may also take it this way

- I prepared a burger

but then after garnishing and decorating (making it presentable) with veggies around, it's then ready (to eat).

So, in short, prepared food is done with cooking, ready food is done with cooking as well as presenting to the eaters.

As a Dutchman I learned in school that the English sentence "The food is prepared" means that someone is preparing the food now, so this means explicitly that it is not yet ready.

So the two sentences would mean very different things.

This is a trap for Dutch speakers as a literal translation to Dutch ("Het voedsel is klaargemaakt") would mean that the food is ready.

This should in English be said as "The food has been prepared".

Question: Which choice sounds more natural when talking about meal or foods that are already on the table waiting for their diners.   Should it be    The meal / food is  ready .    or   The meal / food is  prepared   ?

The meal / food is ready or is prepared?

One would normally expect to hear "The meal is ready" rather than using "prepared". However, another mor formal option is "The meal is served".

Normally you would say "the meal is ready" or (more formally) "the meal is served". "The food is prepared" is usually used to describe the way that it is prepared, rather than stating that the preparation is complete.


As a speaker of American English, the following sentences are idiomatic to me.

Don't go breaking my heart.

Don't break my heart.

The following has a different meaning from the above:

Don't go break my heart.

It is difficult to paraphrase nuance.

The results are usually very wooden and stilted.

The simple imperative isn't nuanced.

It is an admonition not to break my heart.

However, don't go breaking my heart

means something like "Now that I have become vulnerable, don't proceed to break my heart."

The progressive, go + participle , draws subtle attention to the fact that an enabling circumstance exists from which the action might readily proceed.

Consider:

Don't point that shotgun at anybody, you hear me?

Now that I've let you hold it, don't go pointing that shotgun at anybody

, you hear me?

Grandpa isn't really likely to say to his grandson

"Don't go pointing that shotgun at anybody" if grandson doesn't even have his hands on the gun yet, or if Grandpa is still on the fence about whether grandson Johnny is mature enough to go a-huntin'.

If grandpa says to Johnny, "Don't you point that shotgun at anyone", an eager Johnny might not know that Grandpa has decided to let Johnny use it.

But once he hears the words "Don't you go pointing that shotgun at anybody", Johnny knows the decision has been made.

The circumstance that will enable him to go pointing that gun is already here, or right nigh.

Until that point, Grandpa is more likely to use the simple imperative, "

Don't you point that gun at anybody.

" And that isn't to say he couldn't use the simple imperative beyond that point.

The third one, Don't go break

my heart uses go in a different way.

It doesn't mean "proceed to" or "set about to" but is the literal meaning of go .

When you go where you plan to go, don't break my heart by what you do there.

I'm a native British English speaker, and your second sentence... Don't go break my heart ...

sounds completely incorrect to me.

I've never heard it said, and it doesn't make grammatical sense.

Don't go breaking my heart

This isn't something anybody would say , either, but it is a song lyric, and it makes sense in a sort of colloquial, slightly Americanised, poetic kind of way.

That said, the other sentence may be okay in American English.

Americans use the verb "go" differently in casual speech to the British.

For example: British English "Let's go and get something to eat"

American English "Let's go get something to eat" Americanisms have crept into English, more-so in song lyrics than speech.

But thanks to the far-reaching influence of Hollywood movies nearly everybody in the UK understands Americanisms even if we don't use them while speaking.

In my opinion, the correct way to say and not sing this statement would be: Don't go and break my heart.

"Don't go doing something" is a phrase used in spoken English for telling somebody not to do something.

For example: Take your time and don't go rushing into anything ( Macmillan ).

So, "Don't go breaking (-ing form)

my heart" is correct.

I think you need to consider an implied difference.

don't go (around) breaking my heart which is in the present and ongoing.

vs.

don't go (and) break my heart anticipating a sudden future event.

Bear in mind that pop music is never a good starting point when looking at grammatical rules.

It tends to be quite informal, and sometimes a lot of artistic licence is used.

Both of the expressions you suggest are used in informal English, however the go break

version is probably a lot more likely to occur in US English than UK English: see this NGram graph for a similar usage go get .

The graph also shows go and get , which is more formal and is used equally in UK and US.

I don't think that there is any significant difference in meaning:

the progressive form after go suggests informality, rather than any progressive meaning.

Question: What is the difference between:    Don't go breaking my heart   and     Don't go break my heart   I can only think "breaking" to me might be speaking to a pattern of behavior - and so the ongoing sense. But grammatically I think both could be one event or ongoing. I'm interested in learning from others if there is a strong consensus or historical convention. This is motivated by use in music, on the occasion of the new Backstreet song.

"Don't go breaking my heart" versus "Don't go break my heart"

"Don't go breaking my heart"   is in the present and ongoing.  "Don't go and break my heart" is  anticipating a sudden future event. In general , "Don't go doing something" is a phrase used in spoken English for telling somebody not to do something.

"Don't go breaking my heart" or "Don't break my heart" are correct. "Don't go ___ing" is an idiomatic way of telling someone not to do something. The two sentences could be understood as shortened forms of "Don't go (around) breaking my heart" and "Don't go (and) break my heart".


In British usage, this is one of those situations where there is not one word.

A person who works in a copy shop is just that.

They might say "I work in a copy shop" or possibly describe themselves as a "copy shop assistant".

A person who runs their own shop might say "I run a copy shop".

Most copy shops here do other things as well, e.g. print posters, business cards, print or copy photos

etc, so they might be called 'copy and print shops'.

Also, very few jobs in offices involve only operating a photocopier.

There are "general administration" jobs which involve data entry, photocopying, mail distribution, franking and dispatch, scanning, etc.

Also, the term "Xerox" to mean "any photocopier" is mainly American; where I work the copier is made by Kyocera and is just called 'the copier'.

I've never heard the term xeroxer , and I think it would be confusing to most native English speakers if you used it to describe someone who works in a copy shop.

The verb to xerox was common when photocopiers first became popular, probably because Xerox invented the photocopy machine.

But I would say the verb has become less popular in the last few decades, as many companies now produce and sell photocopy machines.

Instead of xeroxer , you can call a copy shop employee a clerk or an associate .

New occupational (and avocational) nouns can be formed by analogy as the need arises: photographer , programmer , coder , blogger , gamer , snowboarder .

The natural choice here, photocopier , was already used for the device itself.

I'm a xeroxer at a print-shop would certainly be understood by most native speakers of American English who are adults (little kids and even some teens might not recognize "xerox")

but most people would probably say a desk-clerk at a print-shop or something like that.

The term 'xeroxer' mentioned in one of the other answers actually does follow the standard rules in English for describing a job.

However, it has three issues: 'Xerox' as a generic verb was really an American English thing, but even here in the US

it's not widely used anymore.

'Xeroxer' is essentially unused.

So on top of the base word not being widely used, you're likely to have to explain the word to people.

Even if you get past the first two issuses, the term is more likely to be interpreted by most people as 'a person who makes copies', not 'a person who works in a copy shop', because the term 'xerox' refers to the copying machine (not the shop) or the action of using it.

As stupid as this may sound, I would actually advocate just saying a person who works in a copy shop' .

While it's not short and concise, it's completely unambiguous (unless you have to explain what a copy shop is, which you might in some places), and the 'X works in/at a Y' construct is bordering on a fixed phrase in English, as it's quite often the only way to clearly express what a person's job is.

You could go old-school and use the word printer .

Of course, language has evolved to where we now think of printers as the machines that print for us, but there was a time where the printer was the person who operated the printing press.

NOAD defines printer this way: printer ( n. ) a person whose job or business is commercial printing.

a machine for printing text or pictures onto paper, especially one linked to a computer.

Incidentally, I found a job listing for what sounds like the kind of person you are talking about.

It was not for a person in a commercial printing shop, but for a person who would spend their day making copies for a consulting firm.

Qualifications include: Operate digital and color equipment in Print Shop Point of contact to receive, review and electronically log customer jobs Operate office/production equipment (printer, copier, fax, scan) Operate standard finishing equipment (e.g. paper cutters, inserters, laminating, and hole punchers) The job title?

Print Production Level 3 .

That doesn't really work as a name of the person, but I suppose you could say that such a person is a member of the print production staff .

150 years ago,it would have been printer's devil .

If I had that job, I would love that term.

Question: So far I've found  xeroxer  but I'm not sure if it's a common term and also if the term is specifically used to describe people who make copies in offices rather than running a business independently and having a shop of their own. I need to check it with an English native speaker. Is it a common word? If not, what do you usually call them?

a person who works in a copy shop

"Xeroxer" is not used. One might say "a person who works in a copy shop", or  "copy shop clerk/assistant". An owner might "run a copy shop".

Xeroxer is a neologism deriving from the printing company Xerox. Copy shop assistant would be used as a job title.

Xerox is the company that invented the photocopier, and 'xerox' was a common verb meaning 'to copy', but this job title is generally not used by English speakers.

Instead, you might say that someone worked in a copy shop or was a copy shop assistant.


If you can, start with the living: Carol Smith is a great scientist as was her late husband, Bob Smith

If not, try something like this instead: Bob Smith, until his untimely death (2012), was an astounding scientist as is his surviving spouse , Carol Smith.

If one of the couple is still alive but the other is not, then it's awkward to just use are or were .

Either way would be misleading, and you'd have to follow with some kind of retraction.

Both the Professor and his wife are great scientists, although he died last year.

Both the Professor and his wife were great scientists, although she is still alive.

You see?

Awkward.

Instead you ought to rephrase the sentence.

One way to do this is to talk about their reputation rather than their existence .

It's fine to say what their reputation currently is , even though one or both might be dead.

Both the Professor (who passed away last year) and his wife are considered to be great scientists.

Another way is to avoid the verb entirely and focus instead on their accomplishments: The Professor and his wife, both great scientists , published their latest groundbreaking research last year, a few short weeks before he died of complications from a long illness.

Unless otherwise stated, we can assume the Professor's wife is still alive.

(Edit)

As DonQuiKon's comment points out, you can use the perfect tense considered to have been for past events, but this is more complicated than you might think.

The perfect tense implies a relationship between two events in time, and you would not use it unless you wanted to suggest something changed.

For example, suppose you write: The Professor and his wife are considered to have been great scientists.

This tells us very little.

What has changed?

Maybe they died?

Maybe they are no longer considered great scientists?

Without further information, we don't know.

Meanwhile the infinitive works fine for both the living and the dead: Shakespeare is considered to be the most significant writer of English literature.

The man may have died 400 years ago, but his reputation lives on.

Very good question, this comes up a lot.

I'll get to your example in a moment, but it is also worth considering this one: Example:

If a man named John died leaving a son behind, The son would say: "I am the son of John", because the son is still alive,

so he speaks of himself in the present tense.

But he might also say: "John was my father", because the subject of the sentence is his father, and he is dead so he is spoken of in the past tense.

So when you speak of people this way as individuals, it is straightforward - the living in the present, the dead in the past.

Now to your example.

It should be: He and his wife were great scientists.

This is because you have spoken of them both as a couple, and obviously you would correctly say: He and his wife were a great couple . .. because they are no longer a couple.

Anything they did together as a couple they will no longer do together, so it becomes past tense.

However, while it is correct it does leave some ambiguity - is the living person still a scientist?

If they are, you might need to qualify your statement, if it was pertinent.

Perhaps say: He and his wife were great scientists.

She still is.

or He was a great scientist.

His wife (widow?)

still is.

Both usages of are and were would be wrong without immediate clarification.

And even then, it would be awkward to have some but or although added to reinterpret your phrasing.

So instead you may go with two verbs, was + is : He was a great scientist and so is his wife.

Or rephrase this statement without a verb: He and his wife, great scientists, ...

This depends on what you are trying to say.

If you want to recognize the accomplishments of the dead scientist (say, you are speaking at his funeral), then something like this would be appropriate: Feng Zhou was an accomplished scientist.

He was survived by his wife Qiu Zhou, an equally distinguished scientist.

hopefully in more detail.

If the focus is on their work, follow Mari-Lou A's advice and put the emphasis on the living:

Lilah Abbas is a great paleoastronomer and her late husband Muhammad Abbas was just as well known in botany.

You have more options if they worked together: Carol and the late John Smith

were a unique partnership in topological oceanography.

I like all of the other answers and wanted to submit another option.

He, like his wife a great scientist, did blah blah blah

This option lets you quickly describe what he did to become a great scientist while also acknowledging his wife's greatness, both while not implying the wife is dead.

Question: I would like to make a statement about two people. One of them is dead:   He and his wife {are/were} great scientists.   Are  probably indicates that both of them are still alive.  Were  indicates both are dead or at least are not great scientists anymore. If that is correct, will rewording be better? For example,   He was a great scientist as his wife still is.

Husband is dead: He and his wife {are/were} great scientists

Rephrasing the sentence would help. Perhaps focus on their accomplishments. For example: "The Professor and his wife,  both great scientists , published their latest groundbreaking research last year, a few short weeks before he died of complications from a long illness". Alternatively one might say "Bob Smith, until his untimely death (2012),  was  an astounding scientist as  is  his  surviving spouse , Carol Smith". However, the infinitive can be used for both the living and the dead, as in the following example:   "Shakespeare is considered  to be  the most significant writer of English literature".

The easiest way could be to rephrase the sentence — "The Professor and his wife, both great scientists…" or "both considered to be great scientists" or "a great scientist like his wife". Starting with the living partner could sound better: "Carol Smith  is  a great scientist, as  was  her  late  husband,  Bob Smith"


You can indeed use a determiner with class here if you are referring to a specific class — my class , this class , and so forth.

Class can also be used in a non-count way, however.

Macmillan notes this under sense 2a : [countable/uncountable] education a period of time during which a group of students is taught together - in class:

We had to write an essay in class.

In fact, many nouns referring to some set, scheduled activity which preoccupies your time can be used without an article with have , where have is the sense of experiencing something (Macmillan sense 4b ).

I'm leaving the party early because I have work tomorrow.

The parish hall is closed while the contraltos have rehearsal.

My oldest son has practice until 5pm during the season.

On Thursdays we have therapy with Dr. Wong and then go out for dinner.

We never see the evening games because my family has church.

There are quite a number of nouns (as choster's answer indicates) which can be used with have without a determiner.

To say that we have {such a noun} refers to an item on your schedule, an obligation, a prior commitment.

But I don't think the meaning is "experiencing something" (as in I have a headache ).

I cannot meet you after school, I have soccer.

I cannot join you for brunch, I have church.

I cannot join you for dinner,

I have choir.

I cannot join you on the camping trip, I have community service that weekend.

I cannot join you on your trip to the beach, I have school.

I cannot make it, I have rehearsal.

The listener understands from the locution that what follows have refers to an obligation, a prior commitment, often a regularly scheduled one.

Sorry, I have court.

Sorry, I have rounds.

Sorry, I have kitchen detail.

You could even say: Sorry, I cannot join you.

I have Mary. and the listener would understand you to mean that you had some obligation or commitment involving Mary.

This meaning of have also accepts an infinitive clause as its complement:

Sorry, I have to go.

It's an idiomatic expression.

While "class" (as in "lesson" or "lecture") is not, strictly speaking, an uncountable noun, in this case it's used in the same way as other uncountable nouns like "time" or "space", as in the following examples: I have time to help you with your homework.

I have space for more books on my shelves.

You can say either "class" or "a class".

"A class" would refer to a particular class you need to attend, while "class" by itself refers to the general concept of "classes I need to attend".

As a British English speaker I suppose this sounds incorrect as class isn't commonly used in this context and would generally include the article if it was.

"I have class" sounds more like an ironic boast about how they conduct themselves.

I can't speak to why it is, but "I have class" is a common way to say the phrase in American English.

It is more typical to say it when the person you are speaking with knows about your class, like if you are a high school or college student people tend to know you attend classes.

In the case where the audience doesn't know about your class, it would be more common to say "I have a class" which opens itself up to more conversation like "I have a class on cooking every Tuesday and Thursday night".

"Lesson" is not used the same way in American English, especially as it refers to school.

A class is typically a series of lessons.

Even a class that is one sitting that only lasts an hour could contain multiple lessons.

"I have lesson" is not a common phrase, and sounds funny.

Question: Why do people frequently say:  “Got to run, I have class!” instead of “I have  a  class!”   Why is the article missing? How can this be some “class in general since” since the speaker apparently means some particular lesson he has to attend? Is it acceptable to say “I have lesson!”?

Is it correct to say "I have class"?

You can use a determiner with  class  here if you are referring to a specific class —  my class ,  this class, etc. However, in can also be used as an uncountable - "I have class". This is an idiomatic expression.

Class is a noun that can be used in a countable or uncountable way, and do not always take a determiner. In this case, this is an idiomatic use where it is not strictly an uncountable noun, although it uses the same structure.


Well, the vanilla you see on yogurt and ice cream cups refers to the flavor.

The definition you are asking about talks about something else.

It comes from the basic meaning of "vanilla", namely an ordinary flavor of ice cream or other dairy/bakery products, but has evolved to mean the default option that comes with no extra features.

So for example if someone says It's so hard to pick a laptop.

I think I am going to go with the vanilla version.

They are basically saying: "I will buy the one with no special features or outstanding characteristics.

" This usage has nothing with taste.

It comes from the notion that vanilla is the most common flavor among all the flavors.

Vanilla can be a synonym for plain , but that's not what's happening here.

With yogourt, vanilla is referring to the noun , as described by Merriam-Webster: 1

b : a commercially important extract of the vanilla bean that is used especially as a flavoring

The confusion seems to arise from the fact that in your quote from Merriam Webster, you provided only the second of two adjectival definitions.

The whole definition is: vanilla adjective Definition of vanilla 1 : flavored with vanilla 2 : lacking distinction :

plain, ordinary, conventional In the case of Yogurt, the first is in use.

And in that context "plain" simply means "unflavored" (although anyone who has tasted plain yogurt will tell you, after they stop grimacing and smacking their lips, that it certainly does have a flavor!)

Outside of Yogurt, or food flavoring in general (and maybe the sub-field of botany dealing with Mexican orchids)

"vanilla" is just a synonym for plain; i.e. lacking distinction, ordinary, or, to throw in another example of this kind of thing, "common or garden".

The reason "vanilla" took on that second meaning of plain/ordinary etc, is that in foods such as ice cream, yogurt, and custard, vanilla was by far

the most commonly used flavoring, so much so that it came to be regarded as...well, plain, ordinary, and so on.

Other examples of this kind of thing are the aforementioned "common or garden", and "box, standard" (sometimes mispronounced as "bog standard")

In my experience, vanilla in that sense is not used for food stuff.

As you correctly notice, that would lead to confusion.

In other areas, where no confusion with the actual taste of vanilla is likely, it often means unembellished , without any added stuff.

So a vanilla operating system on your phone means that there are (almost) no pre-installed apps from your provider or other parties.

A vanilla car would be a basic version without any extra options.

To answer the question in the title, vanilla yogurt is sweetened and tastes like vanilla, while plain yogurt is unsweetened and doesn't have added taste.

Question: Merriam Webster  explains  vanilla  (when used as an adjective) as:   lacking distinction : plain, ordinary, conventional   It's not obvious why  vanilla  has such a meaning, and why  plain  is listed as its synonym. As you can find in the grocery store, vanilla yogurt and plain yogurt are two different products:     So I'm wondering what's the exact difference between these two words and how to use  vanilla  correctly so that the salesperson doesn't hand you the wrong yogurt.

What's the difference between "vanilla" and "plain" when talking about yogurts?

This comes from the basic meaning of "vanilla", namely an ordinary flavor of ice cream or other dairy/bakery products, but has evolved to mean the default option that comes with no extra features. This usage has nothing to do with taste, but stems from the notion that vanilla is the most common flavor among all the flavors.

Vanilla, apart from the flavor, is used for something ordinary.

Vanilla used on food refers to the actual flavour.

Since vanilla is generally seen as the most basic and common flavour, the usage has been extended to mean the basic model of something.


You can use " Earworm " which means: a song or melody that keeps repeating in one's mind

You could say the song is "stuck in your head".

I haven't found a dictionary listing the phrase, but here's a Time article on the subject, with the title "Why Do Songs Get Stuck In Your Head?"

For example usage, to express "after listening to a popular song you can't stop repeating it in your head" I would say: I heard [popular song] on the radio, and now it's stuck in my head.

"Earworm" is a very related term.

Essentially, if a song gets stuck in peoples' heads frequently then it can be called an earworm.

On the other hand, the phrase "stuck in your head" is how you talk about a specific time when it happened, such as "it's stuck in my head right now" or "it was stuck in my head when I left yesterday".

The German Wikipedia on "Ohrwurm" lists earworm as a loanword from German.

To be more precise, it is a calque (thanks @PLL), a word for word translation of the two parts Ohr and Wurm (ear and worm).

It also has other suggestions:

sticky music, head music and the English Wikipedia on loanwords calls it catchy tune.

Based on the comments by two native speakers and their up votes - those suggestions are even less used.

Catchy tune is better used for an appealing and memorable tune rather than a song which is stuck in your head at the moment.

Another term I've hear used is " song virus ".

Surprisingly to me, I couldn't find this listed anywhere other than Urban Dictionary , but it's definitely a usage I've heard as an American native speaker.

You can use hook : Catchy part of a song that draws in the listener, not necessarily the chorus.

The word I've heard is " earbug ".

Here's the example there: Person 1

: Why are you acting so weird?

Person 2:

Sorry, I have an earbug.

I can't get this stupid Metallica song out of my head.

Question: Sometimes after listening to a popular song you can't stop repeating it in your head. Is there any term for this in English? You can't say the same in Russian using one word.

Does the English language have a word explaining a song in your head that you can't stop singing?

A song that is "stuck in your head" can be described as an"earworm" or "earbug". A song can also  be described as having a "hook" or beign "catchy".

Earworm, earbug, song virus, stuck in my head.

Earworm' or 'earbug' can be used, or you could say that the song is "stuck in your head".

Song virus' is listed in Urban Dictionary, but is less common.

The hook of a song could refer to the catchy part that draws in the listener.


A very common verb used here is crave :

They really crave a drink.

But one could crave ice-cream as well.

To give anything for : I'd give anything for a drink.

The same meaning goes for die for, as in: I'm dying for a drink.

He's dying for some chocolate cake.

Less strong: I could really use a drink.

I could really use some coffee.

There are, of course, many other ways to say this.

In US English, a strong desire for something, especially something like a drug, is sometimes called a jones , and a person can be said to be jonesing for something.

So you could say He's jonesing for a drink.

or He's got a jones for some booze.

People usually crave chocolate or have a hankering for a hamburger, but whenever we talk about substance abuse or habitually self-destructive behavior, we may say that they are fiending for something.

Slang.

to desire greatly: just another junkie fiending after his next hit; As soon as I finish a cigarette I'm fiending to light another. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fiending

Hanker : to have a strong or persistent desire is a word that could be used in this case.

If you take a look at the synonyms, some similar words are hunger, thirst, and long, but the nuance given to hanker is that it: suggests the uneasy promptings of unsatisfied appetite or desire.

Two ways that you could use it are: He's got a hankering for a bottle of whiskey

He's hankering for a bottle of whiskey

One can say gagging for a drink, in the same way as gasping for a cigarette.

A number of online sources focus on the idiomatic (in the UK at least) use of this to refer to sexual lust, but we equally use it to mean thirst , e.g. see gag for at The Free Dictionary: To have a strong desire for something, especially a beverage of some kind.

Primarily heard in UK, Ireland.

Good lord, I am gagging for a cup of tea.

If someone is gagging for something, they want it very much.

I arrived there late, hungry and gagging for a drink.

Phrases drink like a fish (usually describing others as alcoholics) down a bottle

go for a drink

throw back (as in do a shot) sloshed / sloshed to the gills (be very drunk)

drink happy

(This is the only one that really fits into your desired sentence and isn't really a common phrase but works as an adjective and in the right context could be understandable).

Examples

To fit with your prompt precisely I really could do with a drink today

I'm really drink happy today

Alternatives I'm down to throw a couple back

I'm ready to get sloshed

I'll probably drink like a fish today

"I could really use a drink today." (AmE) - It's generally understood that you mean an alcoholic drink.

From the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary Drink ...2) alcoholic liquid.

Have we got time for a quick drink?

Whose turn is it to buy drinks ?

Here's a colloquial "Australianism" to describe this:

Tonguing

i.e., "Mate, I'm absolutely tonguing for a pint" http://www.slang.com.au/t/tonguing-for-a-beer/ https://becomingaussie.wordpress.com/category/speaking-australian/

There are two very good and more importantly extremely popular expressions that I can think of: to get wasted which, with respect to alcohol, means to get completely drunk and to have a cold one which is most typically understood as having a bottle of beer .

The expression to get wasted is a variation on the idiom wasted which is usually defined as follows: very drunk or ill from drugs Examples: Dude, I really wanna get wasted today!

Let's go to a pub tonight.

It's Friday night!

Guys, let's get wasted !

And here's the definition for the expression a cold one : a cold glass, can or bottle of beer Examples:

There's nothing better than a couple cold ones after a hard day's work.

Pass me another cold one there, Jim.

If you are focused on an alcoholic, as per your edit, the it could be: I'm really going off the wagon today.

Goping off the wagon is a reference to being on the water wagon, ie.

staying sober, not drinking alcohol.

If the focus is less on an alcoholic, but more on a person 'needing' a bit more than a drink you could use: I could really do with a few.

"How dry I am."

This line from a (now rather obscure) 1919 song is still often used ironically to express a desire for alcohol.

"Dry" is a common term for abstinence, as in "a dry tavern" which serves only soft drinks.

Question: Is there any idiom in English describing a strong desire to have a drink or two (or more) of an alcoholic drink?   EDIT:  I am interested more about an idiom describing a case of an alcoholic wanting a bottle of some alcoholic drink (for example, whiskey).  Something like a person would say about himself: "I really ______________ today", especially when the great such opportunity is coming like a banquet or a birthday party.

An idiom describing a strong desire for alcohol

One might say: "He's hankering for a drink", "He's craving a drink", "He's gagging for a drink", "He'd give anything for a drink", "He's dying for a drink", "He could really use a drink, or "He's jonesing for a drink"

Hankering/gagging/gasping/dying for suggest a strong desire. Crave is often used when talking about other people.


To start, the sentences you gave are not how singular they is normally used.

The verb simply takes the normal form for they .

The sentences would be: They can write what they want.

When they need help they get it.

As for Does this come from having any strings leading into deep history of English where this existed?

It is actually explained in the article you linked to:

[W]e tend to miss that English speakers have been using they in the singular since English was anything we'd recognize as English.

Back in Middle English, the Sir Amadace tale includes, “Each man in their degree.”

The Bard has Antipholus of Syracuse in Comedy of Errors chirp, “There's not a man I meet but doth salute me /

As I were their well-acquainted friend.”

Thackeray has Rosalind toss off in Vanity Fair, “A person can't help their birth.”

Whence the idea that all of these people were butchering the language?

So, yes, this use of they is quite old in English.

The article goes on to explain why people started to think it was "wrong":

It was the schoolteacher and writer Anne Fisher

whose English primer of 1745 began the notion that it's somehow bad to use they in the plural and that he stands for both men and women.

Grammarians of Fisher's day tended to believe that real languages should pattern themselves after Latin and Ancient Greek, in which the words for they happened not to have experienced such developments.

Like so many nonsense-rules in English, that sadly have been taught to generations of students, the whole notion came from the misconception that English should be some form of Latin or Greek.

Never end a sentence with a preposition" is another example of those grammatical fancies that were drilled into the heads of unsuspecting students without any good reason.

I think the title Call Them What They Wants was chosen for a joke, to emphasize the fact that the singular they is not used everywhere and is even rejected in some style manuals in favour of 'he or she'.

The verb used with the singular they actually doesn't take (e)s in the 3rd person Present, and remains grammatically adjusted to plural (same as with 'trousers', as suggested earlier in the related forum .

It should be "

They get what they want" and

"When they need help, they get it."

They has a singular case, but that shouldn't change the rest of the sentence.

The key here is to recognize that you don't know who or what they is.

They could be congress, or Steve from accounting.

"They get what they wants" is just poor English.

No amount of teaching it that way will ever fix change that, and if you leave the "s" on the word "wants" when using "they" in the singular case, you're going to sound awkward and grammatically incorrect at the most basic level to native speakers.

Firstly, as per other answers, the sentences still need the correct verb forms: They can write what they want .

When they need help they get it.

There's nothing particularly new in using 'they' as a singular.

What it denotes is that the person in question is an unknown or unspecified person.

It is therefore often used in conjunction with words like 'someone' or 'whoever': Someone who writes a diary

can write what they want.

Whoever it was that wrote that rude message on the wall, I think they need help.

The word "they" could refer to "him" or "her".

You could refer to "what he or she writes", "what he or she wants", or wants", or "the help that he and/or she needs".

Eventually some people tried to shorten "he and/or

she" to "they".

Note:

In JoeTaxpayer's answer , the same phrase could have been, "Whoever left his jacket in the library..." (instead of "their jacket").

Even for people who don't like "he and/or

she" being replaced with "they", enough people have talked (and written) this way that most people will understand it easily.

JoeTaxpayer's sample is a great example of how something can be wrong (really, "his jacket" would have been a better way of saying it), but sounds tolerable enough that many people may not even notice the issue.

Some people liked that.

Some people didn't.

The shortened version was liked by some people, and disliked by others.

I believe the fair consensus is that this has is considered to be controversial.

In other words, there is a lot of disagreement.

So, if anybody tells you that this is definitely "good English" that is widely accepted by most speakers, that is wrong.

However, if anybody tells you that this is definitely "bad English" that is widely rejected by most speakers, that is also wrong.

This "rule" of English is currently in a state of being questionable.

If you are thinking of using such a phrase yourself, the safest approach would be to think of another way of phrasing things, thereby avoiding the argument altogether.

English is fluid, and often, 'proper' follows usage.

It make take time, but there's no ignoring this.

I recall, in the late 70's, an announcement came on the PA system in my high school.

"Whoever left their jacket in the library, please stop by to pick it up.

" It was an all boys school, no need for the polite gender blurring 'they.'

I work in a HS now, and so far, it's less a matter of being 'taught' as 'accepted'.

People are choosing their pronouns as a statement of their own self-identity.

And in an age of acceptance, this verbal choice process is taken as a sign of not being against those who make such choices.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/516/JTP - Apologise to Monica

Question: I've read  this article in  The Atlantic  saying that in English schools in Europe, teachers have started teaching pupils the new "they" used as a gender-neutral or genderless singular he/she/it.   They can write what they wants.  When they needs help they gets it.   Is it true? Does this come from having any strings leading into deep history of English where this existed?

Are some schools teaching "They" as genderless singular?

The verb would simply take the usual form of "they", as in "They can write what they want.". However, the use of they as a singular is not new and is accepted.

They' can be used as a singular pronoun, but it should be used as for the third person plural. This is not a new construction, but the idea that it is wrong comes from the misconception that English should follow the rules of classical languages. It is more commonly accepted now as a way to refer to people without specifying gender.


You might be referring to a wheelie or a stoppie

This trick is called a wheelie : A trick or manoeuvre whereby a bicycle or motorcycle is ridden for a short distance with the front wheel raised off the ground.

Example: A boy cavorted around on a dirt bike doing wheelies .

Here's a picture of a motorcyclist performing a wheelie: And riding on the front wheel, apart from being called a stoppie , can also be referred to as a nose wheelie .

This was suggested by the user Matt Menzenski in the comments section.

Noun:

wheelie: the only term I use wheely: An alternate spelling according to Wiktionary wheelstand: A synonym according to Wiktionary.

mono: Listed on Wiktionary as UK and Australian slang.

For a verb or a verb phrase: pop a wheelie: the only version I use wheelie:

according to Wiktionary do a wheelie:

according to users wheelstand:

according to Wiktionary.

perform a wheelie: seen on the Wikipedia page You can also use the verb phrase in the plural if you're doing the stunt multiple times.

Wiktionary lists these nouns for a wheelie on the front wheel endo stoppie nose wheelie: I'm guessing on the meaning of this one based on an image search.

Example sentences from various parts of Wiktionary:

I learned how to let the clutch out slo-ow-ly

so my tractor wouldn't pop a wheely and go hauling over backward.

Jim fell off his bike when he was trying to do a wheelie.

Popping wheelies with your bike was really cool as a kid.

You can also feather the clutch to keep from wheelying over, as wel as using throttle control.

The other possible problem with uphill, downhill and crested roads is that bikes tend to wheelie over them.

I'd recommend reading the Wikipedia page, too, because that shows a whole vocabulary of technical distinctions that I never imagined.

Most fun you can have on your computer.

In addition to the various terms already given, mountain bikers refer to this as a manual (see, e.g., British Cycling , REI , Red Bull ).

"Manual" can also be used as a verb.

The person is doing a "Wheelie"

Perhaps out of date, but: Doing a mono , or Mono-

ing Mono being a prefix

meaning "one" or "single", eg monopod - a camera support having just one foot (mono=one pod=foot) - c.f. a tripod

In Australia you are 'doing (or pulling) a mono'.

Interestingly, the meaning of 'wheelie' now depends on whether you are on a bike or in a car.

It used to be that if you got the front end of a car in the air it was a 'wheelie' (short for wheel stand), but this required tremendous amounts of power. '

Wheelie' eventually came to mean spinning the rear wheels-

something much tamer.

On a bicycle, however, you can still do a legitimate, old-style wheelie, or mono.

When talking about the trick in BMX for example: Manual , a bicycle technique similar to a wheelie, but without the use of pedal torque . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual

Question: What do we call it when someone rides a bicycle or a motorcycle and suddenly  stands on only one wheel  (usually on the back wheel) for a short period?

A word or a phrase for "riding a bicycle on only one wheel"

This is known as a wheelie or a stoppie.

This can be called a wheelie/wheely, but less common terms are 'wheelstand' or 'stoppie'.


To me, this seems like an unusual usage of phrasal verb get after :

get after 2.

To pursue something that is a problem or menace: If you don't get after those termites, your house will be destroyed.

(TFD) You get after [someone/something] (with something) .

Wareheim's usage strikes me as a (US) Southernism, and the article does state that the man has a home in North Carolina.

The usual construction would be Nothing you need to get after with a chainsaw yet.

(complete sentence) → [There is] nothing you need to get after with a chainsaw yet.

In other words, there is nothing yet that needs to be handled, cleared, or destroyed with a chainsaw.

So far [ yet , before some more severe destruction] there's nothing to go [get] after with a chain saw.

P. S.

Anyway, after points here at the source of trouble needing a chain saw to be applied.

Go after means 'to try to find' (e.g. to go after gold), to aim at something needing application of that instrument here.

As the other answer shows, the original get after expression has an even more direct meaning addressing something troublesome (with that instrument here).

Another way of wording that sentence: So far there has been nothing that needed a chainsaw used on it before it could be removed.

After is being used in the sense of “applied to”.

We can get after something that needs tending or requires our action.

That is, we see that the thing gets done.

We tend to the matter.

I need to get after the backed-up laundry now that the washing machine has been repaired.

We can also get someone after something:

We need to get the dog-catcher after these packs of stray dogs.

And, in an extended, somewhat joking sense, we can get something after something:

I need to get the rake after those dead leaves.

That is, I need to rake those leaves.

The rake, being an inanimate object, cannot be given an assignment or a task to complete as the dog-catcher can.

And we can get after something with something.

You need to get after those tall weeds with a sickle.

A lawn mower won't do.

I think it looks like an unusual usage of the word after .

It looks like it could simply be substituted with a for .

Nothing you need to get a chainsaw for yet.

In other words:After the winds as of yet, theres nothing you can't take care of without a chainsaw.

Question: Wareheim said so far the wind has only knocked down branches and limbs small enough to be carried. "Nothing you need to get a chain saw  after  yet," he said by phone.   As I understand, the sentence is saying that:  Nothing you need to get a chain saw  after the hurricane is gone  yet .  But I'm not sure if my understanding is correct?  The  full source .

Help to understand the usage of "after" in "Nothing you need to get a chain saw after yet"

"Nothing you need to  get after  with a chainsaw  yet" would mean that there is nothing yet that needs to be handled, cleared, or destroyed with a chainsaw.

This is an unusual usaage of the verb 'get after', which in this case means to apply to. You can get after a thing or person with something, so the sentence means that a chainsaw was not necessary to remove the small branches.


Both questions are OK but they could be slightly clearer.

If you want to know the meaning of the word, it's better to ask: What does the word bleach mean?

This makes it clear that you are looking for the significance of the word - what it denotes.

To ask: what is ....?

might bring up a more scientific answer or philosophical answer.

For example, there's a difference between asking what is life and what does the word life mean?

If you want to know what the substance itself is: What is bleach?

If you want to know what the word means, you would emphasize the word typographically, or intonationally when speaking, to show that you're asking about the word: What does bleach mean?

What does "bleach" mean?

What does the word "bleach" mean?

I want to ask about the definition of a word.

Are both sentences OK?

As a native speaker I would consider both sentances ok, but (depending a bit on the context) I would interpret them differently.

"what is x" implies that x is a mass noun (for a countable noun it would be "what is a x").

"what does x mean" is more likely to be used with a verb.

The word "bleach" can be both a mass-noun and a verb.

So one might answer those questions as.

What is 'bleach'?

A chemical, most commonly sodium hyperchlorate used for disinfection and bleaching.

What does 'bleach' mean?

To whiten something, usually by the application of bleach though sometimes also by other mechanisms such as exposure to UV.

Either sentence is fine, and the difference between them is very small.

The second sentence is very unambiguous, and it works with essentially every word in the English language (though it would be weird if you used it for one of the words already in the sentence):

What does "_____" mean?

Put any word you want for the blank and it will be a reasonable way to ask for the definition of that word.

Sometimes you will not get the desired definition because some words have multiple definitions and without sufficient context someone could give you a different one than you wanted.

In writing using quotation marks to indicate that you are talking about the word itself is traditional, but there isn't usually any need to do so in speech and the sentence is unlikely to be misunderstood without them in writing either.

Your first sentence also makes sense and would be interpreted almost identically, but would typically be applied to a much smaller subset of words, specifically nouns referring to a substance or inanimate object.

That restriction allows the sentence to be grammatically and semantically correct without quotation marks.

Bleach works: "What is bleach?"

Other words also work, but can sometimes require an article, and that article could require its own comprehension.

For example, if someone tells you "Hand me the wrench."

a (potentially) appropriate response could be "What is a wrench?"

whereas "What is the wrench?

" would be unusual.

In this phrasing, the concept you are asking about should fit in the sentence grammatically, which is why quotation marks aren't needed.

Part of the reason to avoid that wording unless you know that the word refers to an object or substance is that it overlaps with a different sentence with the same words but different meaning.

If you use the phrase with an adjective instead, there's a good chance you will be interpreted differently.

For example, the sentence "What is disgusting?" should be answered with one or more things to which the adjective "disgusting" is applicable, and would typically not be answered by a definition for "disgusting".

In spoken English this would typically involve noticeable emphasis on the word "what", and you could encourage the other interpretation by emphasizing the word "disgusting" instead.

Finally, a third phrasing can sometimes sound more fluent than the others and better suits some contexts.

In particular, it's recommended if somebody uses a word you do know, but the definition you know for it doesn't make sense with how they used it.

For example, if you hear that someone "bleached their hair" but are only familiar with bleach as a household cleaning chemical, the best way to ask for clarification would be "

What do you mean by "bleached"?

I can't give an intuitive explanation for why that phrasing works, but it is (in my experience) the best way to get an answer like "Bleaching hair is a cosmetic procedure that lightens hair color dramatically."

rather than "Bleach is a household cleaning chemical."

which doesn't necessarily help understand the context.

It's important to only use this in a context where you are speaking to someone who also heard the same phrase you are asking about, but doesn't exclusively require you to ask the original speaker.

If you are asking a friend about something that was said during a speech or lecture which just ended you could ask "What did

he mean by "_____"?"

No

"What is bleach" directly references the substance bleach.

If you ask me this, I will explain to you how bleach works and what it is used for.

You're asking about the substance here.

"What does bleach mean" will lead me to explain what "to bleach" is because bleach is sometimes used as a verb.

i.e. "Just bleach it.

" They're not the same thing.

I don't think they're synonymous.

Here you're asking strictly for a word definition.

If you don't mind an awkward conversation following either of these questions, then you could use them interchangeably, though you're going to sound strange doing that.

Question: What is 'bleach'?   What does 'bleach' mean?    I want to ask about the definition of a word. Are both sentences OK?  I don't know why I sometimes think that it is not suitable to use the word 'mean' or 'meaning' for some words like some materials, or places etc.

"What is 'bleach'?" or "What does 'bleach' mean?"

If you want to know the meaning of the word, it's better to ask:   What does (the word)  bleach  mean?   If you want to know what the substance itself is, it is better to ask:  What is bleach?

"What does "bleach" mean?" would often be understood as a question about the word and its definition, and it could be made clearer by saying "What does the word "bleach" mean?". "What is bleach?" would usually be understood as a question about the substance itself.


I would just call them "thick glasses", but I vaguely remember something with the word "bottle".

I found "Coke-bottle glasses".

Here is a link to an entry from Urban Dictionary, and here's an excerpt from the Coca-Cola Company:

In different regions of the world, eyeglasses with very thick lenses in the frame are called "Coke bottle" glasses -- named after the thick bottoms of Coca-Cola contour bottles.

( Coke bottle eyeglass )

Coke-bottle glasses and beer bottle glasses are both American-English expressions.

However, if the OP is writing a story set in the British Isles, I would suggest thick glasses , and for a more informal expression, jam-jar glasses .

People with high prescriptions and complicated vision problems – especially those who have worn their glasses for a very long time – may well remember “jam-jar” or “coke-bottle” glasses as an object of embarrassment from their schooldays.

Practical, yes – but fashionable?

Check Google Books for more examples of usage.

But being short-sighted has its more serious problems.

Whoever heard of an airline pilot wearing jam jar glasses ?

As I jumped out of the car I was met by a man wearing jam jar spectacles , a lab coat and carrying a clipboard.

“So, which one is mine?”

I asked the egghead.

“ ( source )

She should really be asking forgiveness for those hideous jam jar glasses

she wears @Michael

Harvey in the comments, notes that pebble glasses used to be common in British English.

Collins

Dictionary says spectacles with round thick lenses with a high degree of magnification Pebble, also known as Brazilian pebble and rock crystal are transparent colourless quartz crystals and were once used to make lenses for glasses.

In the UK I have heard the version 'milk-bottle lenses', similar to the previous two answers but referring to the reusable milk bottles that were previously commonly delivered in the morning.

Here's a recent headline from the Daily Mail using that version.

In Finland, such eye-wear is colloquially known as 'bottle-bottom-glasses'

In South India, they're 'soda bottle' glasses.

Soda refers to soda water, not pop

There are many great answers here already which are variations on the same theme.

I just feel I should say that as a native British English speaker living in England all my life of 43 years the most common and frequently used term I have heard is bottle-bottom glasses .

I have never heard "Coke bottle glasses", which sounds like an Americanised version of the same expression to me.

But obviously the imagery conjured by all of the answers to this question is similar, and in creative writing they would surely all be instantly recognised and understood.

Not to be dogmatic, but if you are looking for the most familiar expression, my personal opinion is to go with bottle-bottom glasses or glasses with bottle-bottom lenses .

To make it even more colloqiual, perhaps substitute "glasses" with " specs ".

But really, if you are looking to be creative, any of these could be great.

I particularly like " jam-jar glasses " which I haven't heard before but makes me laugh because jam jars are much wider than most bottles

so it conjurs up the idea of huge oversized lenses.

Question: What do we call glasses with  thick lenses  that people use when they are very near-sighted? Here is a picture of what I mean:

What do we call glasses with thick lenses

Glasses with thick lenses can be referred to as "thick glasses", but also as "coke bottle glasses", "milk/beer/soda bottle glasses", "jam jar glasses", or "bottle-bottom glasses"

Many terms used in different parts of the world refer to glass bottles — Coke/beer/milk/soda bottle glasses, although 'lenses' and 'specs' can also be used. In the UK, many people have heard the term 'jam jar glasses'. The most familiar term will depend on the regio, but most draw from the same idea of a glass container, and would be generally understood.


Whatever happens.

Whatever what is is is what I want.

Only that.

But that.

Whatever "what is" is, is what I want.

(Second cup of coffee to the rescue.)

Although is appears three times in a row, it is copular only once, in is what I want.

In "What is", is means exists .

And the second is (Whatever what is is ) means happens to be .

Whatever that which exists happens to be is what I want.

Grammatically, this can be summed up neatly by some ungrammatical use of parentheses: (Whatever (what is) is)

is what I want.

Each phrase in parentheses is a noun phrase and can be substituted by any other noun, e.g., (Whatever (infinity) is)

is what I want.

Another way to disambiguate is to rephrase with a demonstrative: (Whatever (what is) is), that is what I want.

The author of the poem italicizes what is in the original to indicate that it should be regarded as a noun phrase.

It could just as well have been quoted: Whatever "what is" is is what I want.

Or to rephrase with the subject of the main clause in parentheses: (Whatever "what is" is) is what I want.

Hope this helps.

Whatever what is is is what I want.

Let's replace some parts of the sentence with equivalent parts of speech Chicken is what I want.

This is a rather unusual sentence structure, but it is grammatical.

But say I didn't know what "Chicken" is.

"Whatever 'chicken' is" then becomes the noun describing the item you want.

Whatever 'chicken' is, is what I want.

But in this case, the mystery item is not identified as 'chicken', but instead it is called 'what is' Whatever 'what is' is, is what I want.

Put altogether

it makes a lovely garden path sentence .

Whatever what is, is is what I want.

That sentence is not in the poem.

The actual sentence, which the question quoted correctly in context, was Whatever

what is is is what I want.

Without the division into lines of poetry, but retaining the italics:"Whatever what is is is what I want."

I believe the intended effect of putting words what is in italics in this poem is similar to the effect that could have been achieved by putting quotes around the words

"what is": it allows this two-word phrase to be treated as a noun.

Unlike the effect of italics or quotes in this paragraph, however,the noun in question is not the phrase itself, but rather is the thing described by those words.

I might unpack the elements of that sentence in the poem as follows: That which exists and occurs in this universe is what is.

Whatever that is, that is what I want.

I hope you agree that the two words what is were a much more fitting way to express the same thing I tried to express in the first eleven words in the previous paragraph.

I believe this can be understood by adding some missing punctuation.

what is, is This is roughly expressing the idea that things are what they are.

In other words, que sera, sera or whatever will be, will be .

What is is may also be a restatement of happens from the first line.

So: Whatever happens.

Whatever (what is, is) is what I want.

Only that.

But that.

If this interpretation is correct, then I believe the author is trying to express that they want to have the ability to accept things as they happen.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the Serenity Prayer (Wikipedia), which starts as follows: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.

Question: Here is the poem:   Prayer, by Galway Kinnell  Whatever happens. Whatever  what is  is is what   I want. Only that. But that.   I came across this poem as an interesting example of English grammar and how it is actually possible to have three "is" in a row. Can anyone explain the poem's  syntax , especially the sentence:   Whatever  what is  is is what I want.

Grammar behind "Whatever what is is is what I want."

It could just as well have been quoted:   Whatever "what is" is is what I want. Although  "is"  appears three times in a row, it is copular only once, in  "is  what I want".  The author of the poem italicizes  what is  in the original to indicate that it should be regarded as a noun phrase.

This is known as a garden path sentence, which is difficult to  understand without conscious parsing. 'What is' can be understood as  an unknown reality, and the poet is saying that they accept this reality whatever it may be.


"Recharge myself" is a good phrase, but it has the wrong meaning.

"Recharge my batteries" is perhaps more common than "Recharge myself."

The Oxford dictionary gives "recharge" with no object , -i.e.

"I need to recharge," not "I need to recharge myself", as well as "recharge my batteries."

However, the meaning is "I am mentally or physically exhausted and need to take some time out to recover," not "I am lacking some skills and need to learn them."

Recharge myself is not a phrase I've ever encountered, but it's a nifty metaphor.

However, I would take it to mean "do things to get myself more motivated and energetic":

I need to take a vacation to recharge myself.

When we speak of fundamental training or re-training to acquire new skills or roles the current catchphrase is re-invent myself : I need to re-invent myself as a teacher.

And if the skills you do have are not as relevant now as they once were, there is the phrase to retool , that is, to acquire a different set of skills than the ones you have now.

She knows all there is to know about Microsoft Windows but because the market is shifting away from desktop applications to mobile apps, she really needs to retool.

P.S.

This manufacturing term has been "co-opted" for general use in AmE.

It is used figuratively in a wide variety of contexts from golf swings to school course offerings to football team rosters to the set of legal skills a law firm has to offer to software and tech skills, as in my example.

It's a phrase not very likely to be said by a native speaker.

It sounds like a direct translation of a non english analogy.

I need to rest, to have a rest, take a break, get my energy back, to chill out, are far mor common.

Charge is from latin and is mostly the same in all latin languages, it vaguely means to load.

If you are lacking in skills

and you need to learn something

, you would say: I need to learn, to study, to do a crash course, to refresh my knowledge on.

As other answers have pointed out, "recharge myself" IS a phrase, but it means something else.

To say what you are asking for (in a way that sounds like the phrase you used), that you want to gain skills that you are lacking, you may want the phrase " refresh my skills " or that you " need a refresher. "

That implies that you already KNOW the skills, and you just need to relearn them, or expand on them.

To learn NEW skills, especially if you are "desperate"

like you said, you could say that you need a " crash course.

Which would be a quick way to learn skills, albeit more of an overview of them.

"I've got to recharge myself" =

"I've got to go recharge myself" =

"I've got to recharge" =

"I've got to recharge my batteries"...

Meaning:

Eat, sleep rest; as in rejuvenating oneself.

Being desperate to learn something is quite different than that; though resting is part of the process of learning.

Recharging oneself", could be physical and/or mental.

If you wanted to express "desperation" to learn; it's ok, but not the best.

Many people equate "desperation" with weakness; though not so much when your expressing a desire to learn.

A more positive way to express this may be to say, "I am very interested in learning more about...".

I'm desperate to learn something, can I say "I need to recharge myself"?

You charge a battery with what it's supposed to be charged with (chemical energy), not something new.

That's because the prefix re- means "again".

a prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with the meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition , or with the meaning “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or backward motion: Thus, as mentioned in an earlier answer, you recharge yourself with something that you need again:

enthusiasm, determination, love, etc.

@StoneyB's answer of using "reinvent" is correct in that when you learn something new to change the course of your life, you are "inventing (creating) yourself again " (since you invented your current self at a younger age).

Question: If I feel I'm lacking some kind of skills and I'm desperate to learn something, can I say "I need to recharge myself"?

Does a native speaker say "recharge oneself"?

One might say "I need to recharge", not "recharge my batteries."  However, this means "I am mentally or physically exhausted and need to take some time out to recover," not "I am lacking some skills and need to learn them."  When we speak of training to acquire new skills or roles the currently used phrase is  "re-invent myself", or you may use the phrase " the phrase "refresh my skills " or that you "need a refresher".

You would say "I want to recharge" (not 'recharge myself') if you were mentally or physically exhausted, not lacking skills. You could say 'reinvent myself' or 'refresh my skills' to mean gaining skills.


According to the wikipedia page for Singapore , the proper demonym in this case is "Singaporean".

Admittedly, you see plenty of patterns emerge for demonyms but there is no guaranteed rule, which means you simply must check if you're unsure.

Just know that the proper term for what you're looking for is "demonym."

Singaporean is a nationality.

Singapore is a country.

It wouldn't be grammatically incorrect to answer "Singapore", but it wouldn't fit the question as well as "Singaporean".

The correct response in the example case would be both technically, "Singaporean" and "Singapore" are both correct but preferably and more understandably, "Singaporean" would be the most common one for use.

It's both.

Both "Singapore" and "Singaporean" are incomplete sentences, that is, they lack a verb.

(Incomplete sentences are widely used in English; using them is not an error.)

To make them complete, we would add a subject and a verb to know for sure what's coming on there: I am from Singapore.

I am Singaporean.

Both are perfectly fine responses, and in this case, you are just making them incomplete by throwing away unnecessary information.

A single word can't be grammatically incorrect.

The correct answer to the question though, would be any of the following:

My nationality is Singaporean.

I am from Singapore.

I am Singaporean.

Question: Which of these is grammatically correct in response to  "What is your nationality?" ;  “Singapore”  or  “Singaporean” ?

What is the word for your nationality if you are from Singapore?

Singaporean is a nationality. Singapore is a country. One may say "My nationality is Singaporean" or "I am from Singapore".

Singaporean is the nationality, Singapore is the country. You could answer 'Singapore' to this question, but it would be a short form of "I am from Singapore" rather than "I am Singaporean".


Neither you nor your teacher are correct, as neither "in" nor "since" would be grammatical (at least not without a lot of background information).

The problem is with the present perfect has graduated , which is an awkward conjugation of the verb.

There are few cases where it makes sense, as it indicates an action recently completed.

For example: He has recently graduated from college

He has graduated from college, but he's considering going back for a graduate degree

Some people might use it to talk about the school where you graduated from: He has graduated from Harvard.

However, in this case I would simply use the simple past "graduated" -- which is also what I would use when talking about the time frame:

She graduated from Harvard in 1990.

Graduating is a single event, that does not normally continue over time, so you would never use "since" -- except perhaps ironically: Our lazy son has been "graduating" since 2015.

Maybe this year it'll actually become official.

(Edit)

As Daniel Roseman points out I last saw her in 1990, when she had not graduated; she has graduated since then.

is grammatical, although in a very specific context.

You could just as easily say something like:

She had not yet graduated in 1990, which was the last time I saw her, but I heard she eventually did graduate .

It depends on what information you want to emphasize in the sentence.

I almost agree with Andrew's answer (edit: Andrew has now edited his answer to include this point).

Certainly "she has graduated in 1990" is not grammatical, and "she graduated in 1990" is what I would expect a native speaker to say.

That should be an option, and then it would be correct.

However, I think "she has graduated since 1990" is grammatical, but wrong in this case because it means something different to what is (presumably) intended.

It suggests that you don't know exactly when she graduated, but it was sometime between 1990 and now.

Out of context, it is not very idiomatic (why not say "She graduated after 1990"?), but you might see the same construction more naturally in sentences like "She has graduated since 1990, when I last saw her."

It is quite possible that different educational establishments refer to graduation in slightly different ways.

In those establishments (in England) that I know about the usual form would be :"she graduated in...".

Using the word "since", as in "I graduated since five years" is a common mistake made by non-native speakers of English when the correct form is "I graduated five years ago."

"She has graduated in 1990" to me [native English speaker, general American dialect] would be correct only if the sentence was uttered in 1990.

If the year of her graduation was 1990 and you are speaking after 1990

then you have to say "She graduated in 1990".

If the year of her graduation was later than 1990 then you could say "She has graduated since 1990".

In this case it implies there is something especially relevant about the year 1990.

For example, imagine you are talking about some rule about how student loans are handled during bankruptcy, which applies differently to students who graduated in 1990 or earlier than it does to students who graduated after 1990.

Then it would be correct to say, "She has graduated since 1990.

Especially Lime gave another great example with "She has graduated since 1990, when I last saw her."

If there is not some event that happened in 1990 which is providing context for the statement, but you are just saying that the year of her graduation was later than 1990 you would say "She graduated after 1990."

If there is evidence ca.

1990 that she had not (at that time) graduated

, you could say, "She has graduated since 1990", meaning after that date.

It's not the phrasing I would use, but I believe it would be acceptable and - in that context - generally understood.

Since implies an ongoing state or process which started at the point in time stated.

So you might say '

she has been a graduate since 1990'.

(this is actually a bit clunky but is the closes expression to your example).

Has or have plus

the past participle indicates a habitual, repetitive or ongoing action or state.

While graduated is to single discrete action.

Even if she has graduated several times in that period you would hardly call graduation habitual without more specific information.

So you have several options :

She graduated in 1990 :

a specific action completed in the past.

She has been a graduate since 1990 : an ongoing state which began in 1990.

She has graduated since 1990 : she graduated at some unspecified time after 1990.

This is a bit contextual and just as a statement of fact it would be more usual to say she graduated after 1990 .

In this context since is more likely to be used in the form of a question 'has she graduated since 1990?'.

even then there are only a few contexts where it would be an appropriate usage.

You tend to see it on things like official forms which are asking for very specific information.

Normally the present perfect tense (she has graduated) is not used when the time is specified.

For example

Q

: Is she still a student ?

A :

No, she has graduated.

or Q

: Is she still a student ?

A:

No, she graduated in 1990.

Question: She has graduated  [in / since]  1990.   This sentence is in my homework and I don't know which answer I should choose.  Choosing  since  doesn't make the sentence meaningful I think the correct answer is  in  even that my teacher says  since

"In" vs. "Since" in "She has graduated in/since 1990"

Graduating  is a single event, that does not normally continue over time. Therefore, you would not use "since" in this context,  unless "She has graduated since 1990", means that she graduated after that date.  You may also say "she has been a graduate since 1990": an ongoing state which began in 1990.

If you mean that she graduated in that year, neither form would be correct and "She graduated in 1990" would be the proper form. "She has graduated since 1990" could be used to mean that she graduated at some time after that date.


You can put the animal out of its misery .

It means to euthanize.

I suppose you could say the same of a failing business enterprise, figuratively, and even of a dysfunctional relationship, when speaking with a sort of grim humor, where you're casting the relationship as a badly injured or terminally ill and suffering creature.

Put to sleep and put down are common euphemisms for euthanizing an animal - "put Fluffy to sleep", or "have Fluffy put to sleep", or "have Fluffy put down.

I've heard both used in other contexts such as bad relationships or failing businesses.

A coup de grâce is a death blow to end the suffering of a severely wounded person or animal.(Wiki)

I'd use take it behind the barn and shoot it for putting an early end to something instead of having it drag on.

A similar saying is take it out back .

Tᴚoɯɐuo gave the best answer for killing an animal mercifully.

In the case of a business or investment, while we might use that as a metaphor, some common phrases are cutting your losses and don't throw good money after bad .

'It would be better off dead', 'I'd be better off dead!'

is a common UK and US idiom, in speech and writing.

It sounds very strong unless we are already talking empathically about death.

'Flogging a dead horse' ie continuing with a hopeless endeavour.

Hastening the inevitable' clichéd but appropriate.

" pull the plug " Literally, this means to pull the plug of life support equipment and let someone die.

Or less morbidly, unplug a bathtub and let the water drain out, ending the bath.

Metaphorically, it means to put an end to something:

We've been more like roommate than lovers for the past 6 months.

It's time to pull the plug on this relationship.

I hate to pull the plug on this party, but it's midnight.

I've gotta get some sleep.

There's also " pull the trigger " which has multiple connotations depending on context, but the same basic meaning of ending a period of waiting: Pull the trigger to kill/stop something

"She's suffered long enough.

You've just gotta pull the trigger and get it over with."

Pull the trigger to initiate/start something (like a starter pistol at a race)

"We're ready--just waiting on the boss to pull the trigger so we can start." Commit to a decision/action "Dude!

It's not that complicated!

Just pull the trigger and pick one!"

Question: The thing in question can be a wounded animal or a dysfunctional relationship. In mild sense, it can be an object or idea that requires a lot of investment for it, and when it turns out that it not working you want to cut it down to avoid further loss.  Is there an idiom, proverb, or common saying that describes this situation?   Related:  Is there an idiomatic way to say "go to the path of no way out"?

Is there an idiom about how humanely killing something is better than letting it live in pain?

To put something out of its misery, to put something to sleep, or to pull the plug are suggested terms in this context. A  coup de grâce  is a death blow to end the suffering of a severely wounded person or animal. Flogging a dead horse means continuing with a hopeless endeavour.  Hastening the inevitable is also used.

Putting an animal out of its misery, putting them to sleep or having them put down has this meaning, while 'pulling the plug' may refer to removing someone's life support. A coup de grâce is a final death blow to end the suffering of a severely wounded person or animal. 'Flogging a dead horse' suggests the futility of continuing a hopeless endeavour, while 'Hastening the inevitable' could be an appropriate idiom.


This sentence is not talking about money in general.

It is talking about a specific set: "all the money in the world ",

as if it was a specific quantity you could receive: Suppose I gave you a box with all the money in the world .

How would you choose to distribute it?

Other examples talking about a specific set of money:

Do you still have the money I gave you for your birthday?

The money donated to charities should be included on your tax forms, if you want to take the deduction.

It is possible to talk about money as a concept , in which case you would not use the definite article.

Examples of this:

I don't care too much for money , and money can't buy me love --

John Lennon /

Paul McCartney A wise person should have money in their head, but not in their heart.

--Jonathan

Swift Money is a terrible master but an excellent servant.

--P.T.

Barnum

It is possible to say "all money in the world" to reference the global concept of money, rather than a specific quantity .

All money in the world , in whatever form, relies on the collective agreement that it is worth something.

Even a brick of gold has no value to a starving man, unless he can exchange it for food.

[Edit]

With regard to FumbleFinger's objection: I would claim "money donated to charities" is either a kind of ellipsis, or else refers to a conceptual subset of the concept of money.

In my example, it makes little difference whether I'm talking in general about the practice of donating money, or of a specific instance of some quantity donated.

The second half of the sentence applies either way.

Conceptual example :

Money (which has been generally) donated to charities should be declared.

Ellipsis example : (The specific quantity of) Money (which you have) donated to charities should be declared.

I think a more in-depth exploration is out of the scope of the question, as OP asks only what the definite article means in this context, and not whether the definite article is required .

You have misunderstood what was meant in that book by "in general".

In this sentence, we are speaking of money and water in general terms:

Money is an alternative to barter.

Water is necessary for life.

But here, even though we are speaking of "all", we're still speaking of the thing in particular : All the water in the watering hole dries up during the summer dry season.

All the money in the world couldn't get me to do that.

I don't know what book told you that, but it's not the truth.

1 Fact is, there are several reasons we might use the definite article.

Macmillan (definition 1b) says: used when you are referring to familiar things that people deal with

regularly I looked up at the ceiling;

suddenly all the lights went out Many familiar adages and expressions use the definite article even though they talk about things in general.

Consider: The lion is king of the jungle.

Top of the morning to you!

It hit me right between the eyes.

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

All the news that's fit to print.

1 See what I did there?

Ditto Andrew's excellent answer, let me just add: Don't get confused by the difference between how something is in the real world, and how it is grammatically.

Yes, in real life, "all the money in the world" is, well, all the money that exists.

Logically, you might say that it's the same as "money" as a general concept.

But GRAMMATICALLY, "all the money in the world" is NOT all money that exists, it's a specific set of money, namely, the money that is "in the world".

While in real life that may be all money, grammatically it is not.

The big, fancy language scholar term for this particular use of the definite article, "the", is " modadic "—

the as in the one and only .

From your example, rephrased: There is only one collection of all money in the one and only world.

Reference: 8.

Monadic ("One of a Kind" or "Unique") The Article

All the money in the world would not make you happy.

We only have one specific world, and all the money in it is very specific.

Having money in the bank is a good thing, if its yours.

[non-specific] And: The money I have in the bank is none of your business.

[specific] Please note: for certain expressions such as money in the bank, a the is used with bank.

There is a word elided which will make parsing the phrase easier: All of the money in the world "Of money" is wrong for different reasons -- the preposition requires more than just a bare noun.

Question: "All the money in the world " , in this sentence we talk about money in general , right ? I've read a book that says if we're talking about  things in general we do not use "the".So why "the money" ?

Why does "money" take "the" in "all the money in the world"?

This sentence is not talking about money in general, but about a specific set of money: "all  the  money  in the world ". It is possible to say "all money in the world" to reference the global  concept  of money, rather than a specific  quantity.

This is not talking about money as a general concept, but rather as a specific amount (all of the money existing in the entire world). A general usage could be "All money in the world, in whatever form", where it refers to anything called money rather than the sum of all money.


Wing and department are both acceptable.

"Wing" suggests a physical building that is next to the main part of the hosptial.

Department suggests part of the organisational structure.

At my local hospital the buildings are named "Jubilee Centre", "Canadian Wing", in which there are multiple "Departments", each has its own name.

The Canadian wing houses the "Ross Tilley Ward", "Day surgery" and the "Diet and Nutrition Department".

It is possible for a building to house just one department.

There is the "Burns and Reconstruction Department", which is both a building and a department.

There are many other words that could be used, and sometimes no word at all.

One of the departments is called "Outpatients" another is called "Cardiology".

A specialist section in a hospital is sometimes referred to as a unit as in "the maternity unit" or "the burns unit".

Taking the definition from Collins : any group or individual, esp when regarded as a basic element of a larger whole So the maternity unit is the group within the hospital that deals specifically with maternity matters.

You can see from the ngrams graph that "maternity ward" is more popular than "maternity unit", but that is more popular than "maternity department"

(the order still holds if you switch the search to British English).

That said, it is also normal to simply omit the specifier (ward/department/unit) and say something like "Send these results through to cardiology".

If you attend hospital for a specific reason, you are very likely attending a "clinic".

A clinic can be a specific building/location but it can also be a specific session.

That is, a "baby clinic" can be held in a rural community centre, or it can be a specific part of a hospital building.

Have you considered the word "ward"?

That's how I've heard it mostly commonly referred to.

I am in the UK, if that helps.

A wing is a large section of a building.

It may contain multiple departments or wards

but it's a term common to all buildings large enough to have them.

It's not hospital specific.

A ward is a room where patients sleep in a hospital, it may or may not be bound to a specific department.

A specialist ward may be, but many wards are general and will take patients from multiple departments A department is probably the word you're looking for.

This covers the likes of cardiology, physiotherapy, ophthalmology etc.

They may have the word department in the name, but will often just be referred to by their 'ology' or sometimes as a unit.

Generally 'department' relates to an administrative division which isn't necessarily located in one specific place while 'wing' tends to refer to a large area of a building or complex of buildings.

For example you might say that the cardiology department is based in the east wing of the hospital.

Of course if one part of the building is dedicated to one department it might well be called the cardiology (or whatever) wing.

There is also 'ward' which refers specifically to a (usually large) room or suite of rooms where patients are housed and/or treated.

You often also see the term 'unit' which tends to be used for a composite collection of staff, equipment, space and other resources intended to work together for a specific function or specialism.

The implication often being that it is able to draw on a wide range of resources and coordinate them effectively.

Question: What's the common name in usage in the UK for the part in the hospital that specializes in one field only (for example neurology)? I saw two different names 'wing' and 'department'. But both are in non native English speakers country,  so I'm not sure what it reflexes and if it's correct also in context of medicine.

A word describing a 'part' of UK hospitals (departments?)

Wing, department, unit and ward are all terms that are used in this context.

A wing or department could both be used, but wing normally refers to a building section and department refers to an administrative section. 'Unit' is another commonly used term for a department, and these may include several wards.


It is a reference to the Iliad , in which a lady leaves her husband

but she was so pretty that he was willing to launch a thousand ships full of Greek soldiers to get her back.

So you get the saying "beautiful enough to launch a thousand ships" to mean "very pretty."

And now there is apparently a bloke who is so boring his voice will sink a thousand ships, that is, he is very boring.

While the underlying reference, as Quuxplusone stated, is to the Iliad , the specific expression is a play on a famous line from Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus :

Was this the face that launched a thousand ships And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?

The context is that the main character, Faust, has made a deal with the devil and gained special powers, including the ability to talk with the spirits of the dead.

Here, he has summoned the spirit of Helen of Troy.

He asks if this is really the spirit of a woman so beautiful that her abduction motivated her husband to launch a huge naval invasion to get her back.

It means that his voice was so boring that a thousand ships decided to sink themselves.

Compare it with the expression to talk someone into doing something .

talk into ( phrasal verb )

If you talk a person into doing something they do not want to do, especially something wrong or stupid, you persuade them to do it.

It's basically the same idea.

(answer transcribed from comment)

It is a clever pun that plays on the idea of "the face that launched a thousand ships".

This phrase is a reference to the launching of a fleet of ships to rescue Helen of Troy, a woman of the most astounding beauty who eloped/was abducted by Paris.

The launching of the ships to bring her back sparked the start of the Trojan war (the Iliad).

It is such a poetic phrase that it is in common usage in English to describe someone of exceptional beauty ("she is beautiful enough to launch a thousand ships")

.The phrase "has a voice that bored a thousand ships into sinking themselves" plays with this idea to suggest that Stan's voice has a level of boredom that is as exceptional as Helen of Troy is beautiful, and does it in a clever way.

Rather than launching a thousand ships to rescue the most beautiful woman ever, this guys voice is so dull that a thousand captains would rather sink their own ships than listen to it.

As well as what the other answers have said, the sentence is a pun.

The term "bore" can mean 'drill a hole in something', or can mean 'induce boredom', so the sentence has two meanings.

The second is that Stan's voice makes holes in ships and causes them to sink.

Question: Still a line from "The Marvelous Ms. Maisel"  The character said:   And Stan...  who has a voice that bored a thousand ships into sinking themselves.   I was totally lost about this phrase.

"[A] voice that bored a thousand ships into sinking themselves"

This is a pun, that refers to the Iliad. Rather than launching a thousand ships to rescue the most beautiful woman ever, this man's voice is said to be so dull that a thousand captains would rather sink their own ships than listen to it.

This is a humorous reference to the Iliad, where a woman's beauty was enough that a thousand ships were sent to bring her back. In the quote, the man is so boring that he caused a thousand ships to be sunk, either scuttled by their captains or as a pun on the word 'boring'.


I would not use that combination.

While technically not wrong it a very uncommon way to say this.

To me "twisting a door" sounds like someone used magic to turn a door into rubber and twisted that like a rubberband.

I would any synonym of pushing or pulling, or words like slamming/kicking if you want to denote force.

The rules of a language are based on what its speakers actually say.

That you can find a handful of examples is more or less meaningless in face of the millions of examples where the verb is pushed open or pulled open or yanked open or kicked open or flung open or burst open or threw open.

You twist open a jar or something with a screw-cap.

P.S.

It isn't a matter of logic but of the behavior of speakers.

TL;DR "twisted" is probably wrong and "wrenched" is probably right.

To me it depends on how strong the subject of the sentence is.

Twisting the door open" could theoretically be an appropriate action if the subject is literally grabbing the door/doorframe and twisting so hard that the door is torn off of its hinges.

In certain fantasy or sci fi contexts, this could be accurate.

Given the mechanical difficulty of grabbing the edges of a door and forcefully twisting, this seems unlikely, especially when comparatively easier options like kicking a door down exist.

If this is the case, an effective writer should provide some more illustration around the action itself like: "

The enraged troll grabbed the edges of the door and twisted with such force that the hinges were torn from the frame."

As other posters have said, the best word for more standard contexts would be "wrenched", which could easily be mistranslated or erroneously taken from a thesaurus.

In many contexts, "wrench" and "twist" are synonymous, and a "wrench" is a tool used for twisting things.

If you need a description of a forceful action, "Wrenched the door open" is a very valid phrase, and wrenching could be mistranslated as twisting.

That being the case, since doors swing on a hinge, not around a central axis, doors are therefore not generally twistable.

Anecdote: twisting is generally applied to a rotational movement about a central axis, usually where that axis is the longer part of the object.

This is not dictionary definition, by any means, but observationally about what types of objects "feel right" being described as twisted.

(Like a doorknob, twisting around the handle's axis)

If you want a door that twists open

I suggest you search online for the Evolution Door .

It is very ingenious.

I wouldn't say that a normal door twists.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/21249/chasly - reinstate Monica

To me it sounds very odd.

As you said, twist a doorknob is good here.

You don't "twist" a door, as twist implies an axis of rotation within the object or aggregate object.

Consider opening a jar, where the lid rotates in one direction while the jar itself does not (or rotates in the opposite direction).

That is a twist.

A door does not exhibit such a motion at any point in its opening or closing.

You could maybe say "twist a door on its hinges ", but that is also a somewhat unnatural construction.

Merriam-Webster's first definition for the verb " to open " gives the example of a door.

I argue that the default English verb to move a door to the open position is simply "to open".

Preceding the adjective "open" with another verb provides more detail to the act of opening.

Most of the examples given ("wrench", "push") emphasize how this act differs from normal, in direction or intensity.

But "twisting", as you use it, is the normal action of the door.

At best it is redundant, at worst it is confusing.

I highlight the answer of mix3d: in the English I've heard, twisting is usually along a central axis rather than along an edge (as with door hinges).

I also highlight the answer of Tᴚoɯɐuo: language is about usage, not logic.

Question: Example sentence:   I twisted open the door.   Some people argue that you can't twist a door. You twist a doorknob.  However,  some people  have used this construction.  What's the real answer? Or there isn't one?

Is it wrong/illogical to say ... twisted open the door?"

Given the mechanical difficulty of grabbing the edges of a door and forcefully twisting, this seems unlikely. However, one may twist a doorknob. One may also, push, pull, swing or wrench a door open.

While language is based on usage rather than logic, twisting a doorknob is commonly used rather than twisting a door. Other words like pushing/pulling, kicking, wrenching and others could be more easily understood.


catch up works fine in this case as well, but with a different preposition: on instead of with .

See e.g. the examples given by The Free Dictionary : To do a task that one has neglected.

If you haven't done any biology homework in weeks, you better spend this weekend catching up on it—it's due on Tuesday!

I'm trying to catch up on work after being out sick, but my inbox alone might take all day!

Yes, "to catch up" means "to make up a difference."

Although the verb is based on the verb "to catch," which primarily has a physical sense, and although "to catch up" in the sense of pulling even after having been physically behind is a meaning in common use, "to catch up" is also commonly used in a more figurative sense.

"Your daughter is behind due to her having been ill and missed so many classes, but I am confident that she can catch up if she does some extra work" is a perfectly good sentence in American English.

... to work more than usual ...

We will have to work overtime to meet the deadline.

We will have to put in some long hours to meet the deadline.

Less succinct than catch up is make up for lost time .

From Dictionary.com : Also, make up ground .

Hurry to compensate for wasted time, as in They married late but hoped to make up for lost time , or We're behind in the schedule, and we'll just have to make up ground as best we can .

The first term was first recorded in 1774; the variant dates from the late 1800s.

Elucubrate is a related-but-advanced word that roughly means 'produce after burning the midnight oil [to catch up]'.

Nobody but the most advanced literature majors will understand you though.

"Working double time" is a one saying I use, don't know of any exclusive verbs.

Question: Imagine one is behind schedule and then decides  to work more than usual to compensate the delay, or the difference between where he is and where must be . Do you have a word or expression or phrase equivalent with the italic part?  In a hiking group, those who fall behind try and  catch up  with others. It looks as though  catch up (with)  is typically used with people, can we use it with plan, schedule, lessons etc.?

Verb meaning "compensate for falling behind schedule by working more"

"To catch up with" is commonly used in this context. "To work overtime/double time" or "to put in long hours" could also be used.

Catch up with/on' is a valid phrase in this context, meaning 'make up a difference'. Other common phrases include 'work overtime', 'put in long hours' or 'work double time'.