For parts of the human body such as the appendix, the term vestigial is often used.

Here is a definition: Used to describe something, especially a part of the body, that has not developed completely, or has stopped being used and has almost disappeared

Note that the definition does not exclude its usage for things that are not parts of the body.

Here are a couple of examples of its non-medical usage which definitely carry the meaning that they no longer have a purpose: As it turns out, these vestigial urban remnants that serve absolutely no purpose have a name.

They’re called “Thomassons” - 6sqft ..

a doorway like an ancient castle narrowing to a sort of stone tunnel as if for defense — one of those vestigial architectural features which Lanny had explained to Leutnant Rörich at the Château de Belcour Presidential Agent

The first article also proposes the term Thomasson for architectural features that serve no purpose yet are still maintained.

The term “Thomasson” has its roots in Gary Thomasson, an American baseball player who was traded to Tokyo’s Yomiuri Giants.

Thomasson was paid a fortune for a two-year contract, but eventually lost his luster and was benched for most his contract.

For Akasegawa, Thomasson was both “useless” and “maintained.”

At first, I saw no problem calling it a vestigial ring , or a vestige an ornamental ring , or an ornament a remnant .

However, after searching around, I found this:

According to Brooklyn Brainery , who asked themselves the same question, those tiny handles are remnants from a time when maple syrup jars came in large five-pound earthenware containers, when the handles clearly served essential functional roles.

But over the years, due to the fact that we associate that container shape with maple syrup, the handles have been retained as a design element in the shrunken version we now buy, even though they don't serve any real function.

In fact, maple syrup handles are a classic example of a skeuomorph , a "retained but no longer functional stylistic feature."

( Source. )

From Wikipedia,

A skeuomorph is a derivative object that retains ornamental design cues from structures that were necessary in the original.

Skeuomorph is not a widely known word.

A quick search for some idea of the comparison gives the following.

So although skeuomorph has the definition we seek (and apparently it was precisely the word you were looking for), your audience is more likely to understand what you mean if you call the ring a vestige , or vestigial .

They'll get the idea that the ring is left over from a previous design or purpose, but that it is no longer necessary.

ornamental (adjective): serving or intended as an ornament; decorative. "Ornamental" conveys the basic idea that the handle is not functional, and would be appropriate for all audiences.

vestigial (adjective): forming a very small remnant of something that was once much larger or more noticeable.

"Vestigial" conveys that the ornamental handle was functional in an earlier incarnation of the object.

This term would be appropriate for an educated audience.

skeuomorph (adjective): an ornament or design on an object copied from a form of the object when made from another material or by other techniques "Skeuomorph" is a delightfully precise term, indicating that the vestigial feature is an intentional design cue.

However, since its introduction circa 1890, it has not been widely used by laypersons.

As such, this jargon is best employed when speaking to an audience specializing in design, marketing, engineering or a related field.

Also, most definitions of skeuomorph require the traditional object to be made from another material rather than simply a larger scale.

That said, this is still a very young word and could benefit from expanding usage.

As @oerkelens noted in his comment on the question, obsolete may be a useful descriptor, but it often refers to a whole object that is outdated and may have a newer version available.

I also thought of deprecated , but I think this word is primarily used in programming to refer to properties or algorithms that should not be used because newer versions exist that should be used instead.

Speaking more generally - superfluous is a good word to describe something extra but unnecessary

Question: As an example the small ring in the maple syrup bottles: now too small to be usefull but still present

What is the word for a property no more necessary but still present in a object?

Vestigial conveys that the ornamental handle was functional in an earlier incarnation of the object. A  skeuomorph   is a derivative object that retains ornamental design cues from structures that were necessary in the original. However, vestigial is likely to be more widely understood. Ornamental or superfluous could also be used in this context.

The word "skeuomorph" is the exact word to describe a derivative object with design elements that were necessary in the original, which were copied to the new form although they no longer have a practical purpose. However, since it is not widely used, perhaps "vestigial" would be more clear to the target audience. "Vestigial" is often used for the human body, but in its broader sense it means a small remnant of something much larger in the past, so it would work for the ornamental handle that was essential in an earlier form of the object. "Ornamental" could also work, since it is a widely used word that describes something decorative and conveys the idea that the element it refers to is not functional. Finally, in more general terms, "superfluous" also signifies something additional but unnecessary.

"Ornamental" is a widely used word that describes something decorative and conveys the idea that the element it refers to is not functional.

In more general terms, "superfluous" also signifies something additional but unnecessary.


If you simply want to say how big a file is, then is is fine.

This video is 770 megabytes If you want to emphasize how much space it is taking up, you can use occupy in the sense fill, exist in, or use a place This video will occupy most of the free space on my phone.

What is wrong with take up ?

The file takes up four megabytes.

Example :

One kilobyte (KB) is a collection of about 1000 bytes.

A page of ordinary roman alphabetic text takes about 2 kilobytes to store (about one byte per letter).

A typical short email would also take up just 1 or 2 kilobytes.

Text is one of the most naturally compact types of data at about one byte required to store each letter.

In non-roman alphabets, such as Kanji, the storage takes up 2 or 4 bytes per "letter" which is still pretty compact compared to audio and images Definition ('take up') to fill or use an amount of space or time The table takes up too much room.

I won't take up any more of your time.

Her time is fully taken up with writing.

( Oxford Learner's Dictionary )

I think most English speakers say "is" or "takes".

"This file is 4 MB" or

"This file takes 4 MB."

We sometimes say "requires", especially if we're discussing whether the person has sufficient room on their device to hold it.

For example when you install new software, you often get a message that says something like, "requires 100 MB, 280 MB available", and then if the "requires" is more than the "available" you get an error message.

Or more casually, you might say to a co-worker, "This file requires 3 GB.

Do you have enough room for it on your thumb drive?"

I've never heard an English-speaker say "weighs 4 MB", though it would make a wonderfully descriptive word for the idea.

If you said "consumes" people would know what you meant and would probably not think it incredibly odd wording, but few would actually say that.

12 megabytes are the size of the file.

In English, sizes are measured .

Some measurements, like weight, happen to have a special verb attached to them, derived from the measurement process.

"This potato weighs 200 grams" means that, when you weigh the potato, the output of the measuring process is 200 grams .

We have never created a special word for the measuring process of information.

Maybe information theorists have one, but it has never made it into common culture.

So, if you insist on using a verb, you cannot go more specific than This file measures 12 megabytes.

As others have noted, this is not typical usage.

Nobody thinks of measuring a file as a process, because the information about the measurement is available without any action on our part.

So we simply use the contraction This file['s size] is 12 megabytes.

And that's all there is to it.

Sometimes the word you are looking for doesn't exist, because nobody needs it.

Generally people use the word size for this.

For example "What size is the file?" or "The file size is 6 megabytes".

There are so many verbs that can be used to convey the sense the OP wants to.

There's nothing wrong with the verb take (up), but the verb occupy is more common and idiomatic.

We can also use the verbs consist of or comprise, but the usage of the comorise is more formal.

The verb be can also be used as a main verb.

So the following sentences are possibe:

This file takes (up) 35 megabytes.

This is a 35-megabyte file.

This file is 35 megabytes.

This file consists of 35 megabytes.

This file comprises 35 megabytes.

However, the sentence

"This file occupies 35 megabytes seems more appropriate than the sentence

"This file takes (up) 35 megabytes".

You can also say: This file has a storage capacity of 35 megabytes.

This is exactly the sort of usage for which the English verb comprise is appropriate: The file comprises 4Mb.

I propose, however, that we standarize instead on the elegant Norwegian expression: The file weighs 4Mb.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/37009/P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica

Question: When I was a kid my dad used to say (in Norwegian):   This file  weighs  four megabytes.   Or maybe one could say   This file  consumes  four megabytes.   Or simply   This file  is  four megabytes.   But somehow I'm not sure.  What are some good  verbs  I can use for this?

Verb for how much space a file takes up?

ell.stackexchange.com/users/26160/Revetahw says Reinstate Monica

Most English speakers say "is" or "takes", as in "this is a 35-megabyte file" or "this file takes (up) 35 megabytes". There is nothing wrong with "take up".  You might also use "this file comprises", "this file consists of" or "this file size is"...

There is no special word for the measurement of information in English. That said, in order to indicate the size of a file, most English speakers use the verb "is", e.g. "This is a 35-megabyte file/This file is 35 megabytes", or the word "size" in this context. Another way of putting it would be "a storage capacity of". The verb "take" or "take up" can also be used, as in "This file takes (up) 35 megabytes", although "occupy" might be preferrable in some cases. "Require" is also an option, especially if there is the question of sufficient storage space on the user's device. "Consumes" could be used, but sounds a little awkward. The verb "comprise" is also appropriate to describe the size of a file, albeit more formal. "Consists" is a good alternative.

In order to indicate the size of a file, most English speakers use the verb "is", e.g. "This is a 35-megabyte file/This file is 35 megabytes".

"Require" is also an option, especially if there is also the question of sufficient storage space on the user's device.

English speakers tend to use the word "size" in this context.

The verb "comprise" is appropriate to describe the size of a file, albeit more formal.


The use of got free does not sound natural to me (American English).

I suggest using became free .

I would also use ago :

The bathroom became free only 10 minutes ago.

As for The bathroom was vacant only since 10 minutes ago.

This doesn't sound natural either.

Here I would use the present perfect:

The bathroom has been free/vacant for (only) ten minutes.

The bathroom was vacant only 10 minutes ago was indicates a state.

This means that 10 minutes ago the bathroom was vacant.

The only gives the impression that it might have been occupied before or since, but the sentence does not say.

It might have been vacant before, it might have been vacant after that, it might still be vacant now.

The bathroom became vacant only 10 minutes ago became indicates a change of state.

This means that the bathroom was occupied until ten minutes ago, and then it became vacant.

It does not specify whether it is vacant now.

back is also possible, but according to this NGram , ago is much more widely used.

You can use "got free" in the sense of "Reach or cause to reach a specified state or condition:" ( http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/get #3) in a sentence like "

The attackers tied up the hostages, but they got free 10 minutes ago."

But that sense of "got" doesn't work in the OP's sentence, because the bathroom didn't take any action to remove the people who exited from it 10 minutes ago.

In the OP's second sentence, "since" may be a wrong translation of a word like "depuis" in French, which is translated as "since" or "for" in English depending on the context.

Il habite à Paris depuis 1990" =

He has been living in Paris since 1990.

Il habite à Paris depuis dix ans" =

He has been living in Paris for 10 years.

(Note: French uses the present tense of the verb in those examples, but English does not.)

"The bathroom has been vacant for 10 minutes" would be the commonest usage, but "The bathroom has been vacant since 10 minutes ago

" is just about possible - a sentence like "The bathroom has been vacant since before lunch" seems perfectly OK (in British English, at least).

I would tend to say this phrase as: The bathroom was freed up only 10 minutes ago.

or (changing the phrasing and subtext only slightly) The bathroom has been free for 10 minutes.

[I would post this as a comment, but no reputation]

I think that something like >

The bathroom only opened up 10 minutes ago.

(I don't feel good about this option anymore)

The bathroom finally opened up 10 minutes ago.

might be what you want.

It changes the meaning a bit though, so I'm not sure.

EDIT: I'll try to explain.

Using "finally" emphasizes that the bathroom was occupied for a long time.

Whether you use "finally opened up 10 minutes ago" or "opened up only 10 minutes ago" depends on whether you're in a situation like #1 or #2:

You're saying that the bathroom was occupied for a long time, and it just now finally opened up.

Maybe in a conversation like this: Me: "Is the bathroom still occupied?"

You: "

No, it finally opened up 10 minutes ago."

You're saying that the bathroom has been open for a short time; you're emphasizing that it has been a short time.

Maybe in a conversation like this.

You: "Bathroom's open."

Me:

"When did it open up?

Has it been open for a long time?"

You: "

No, it opened up only 10 minutes ago."

Question: The bathroom got free only 10 minutes back.   Is 'got free' the right way to say it? What about    The bathroom was vacant only since 10 minutes ago.

Is it right to say, "The washroom got free only 10 minutes back"?

The use of  "got free"  does not sound natural.   You could use "became free". Alternatively, you could say "the bathroom  was freed up  only 10 minutes ago".

"Got free" does not sound natural to native speakers, they would most likely use another phrase like "became free". "The bathroom was freed up" is another alternative.

"Got free" does not sound natural to native speakers.

"The bathroom became free" is something a native speaker would use.


Both are acceptable depending on the meaning.

With won't (will not), the meaning is that you will not need to go out to get some food, because there is already food.

With don't (do not), the meaning is that you do not need to go out at all, for food or any other reason, because there is food.

I think the first sentence is correct, since you used "will" in the first part of the sentence it would be more appropriate to use will in the second part

Neither is good to my ear.

You will find some food so that you won't/don't need to go out when you arrive.

So that " is used to indicate a purpose or to give explanation .

Neither of these definitions are applicable here.

Instead of " so that " you need to use " so " which shows the result (therefore) .

You will find some food so you won't/don't need to go out when you arrive.

In this case " won't " will be better since we are talking about a future time " when you arrive ".

" don't " will be better about a general statement or a statement applicable in the present:

I payed the bill morning

so you don't need to worry about it.

I will hide the sweets so that you don't overeat them.

P.s.

You might try " You will find that I've stuffed plenty of food in the fridge so you won't need to go out to buy it when you arrive. "

I think it is better grammar to use future + future , rather than future + present .

You may use future + present in some situations for some specific meaning, but the broad rule is future + future .

However, I would drop that without blinking - it sounds strange.

Use so instead of

so that in this case.

Extra:

so / so that do(es) not require anything.

It is the verb in the main sentence which requires something.

See same example, past tense:

We found some food so we didn't need to go out when we arrived More: will is future, when you arrive is present, but suggests future, therefore it is natural to use future for the middle verb too.

When the time of a subordinate clause is the same as of the main clause, the verb form in the subordinate clause is usually simplified.

So Michal Swan says in his Practical English Usage (§580.1).

In the OP's example, however, the subordinate clause is talking about further into future than the main clause, so it's easier to digest when it says won't .

Question: You will find some food so that you  won't  need to go out when you arrive       or   You will find some food so that you  don't  need to go out when you arrive.   Which one is the best? I think first one is better.

Do I use present or future with "so that"?

With won't (will not), the meaning is that you will not need to go out to get some food, because there is already food.  With don't (do not), the meaning is that you do not need to go out at all, for food or any other reason, because there is food. You may use  future + present  in some situations for some specific meaning, but the broad rule is  future + future .  Instead of " so that " you need to use " so " which shows the result  (therefore) .   With " so that " you need a purpose (outcome and reason):   He locked us inside  so that  we wouldn't go to the party.  You might try " You will find that I've stuffed plenty of food in the fridge so you won't need to go out to buy it when you arrive. "

While both are acceptable, "won’t" means that the person will not have to go out for food, whereas "don’t" means they do not have to go out for anything. In terms of grammatical rules, when a subordinate clause and a main clause share the same time, the verb in the subordinate clause is usually simplified. That said, in this case it is perhaps better grammar to use future + future instead of future + present, because the latter is reserved for more specific meaning. A solution is to substitute "so that", which needs an outcome and reason, with "so", which indicates a result, because a native speaker could argue that neither option sounds natural.

When a subordinate clause and a main clause share the same time, the verb in the subordinate clause is usually simplified. That said, in this case it is perhaps better grammar to use future + future instead of future + present, because the latter is reserved for more specific meaning.

A solution is to substitute "so that", which needs an outcome and reason, with "so", which indicates a result.


All your examples are grammatically correct.

I haven't collected statistics

but I'd guess "her homework" is most commonly used.

You could certainly say that "her" is not required, as the reader is unlikely to suppose that she does someone else's homework.

I have an intuitive feel that "she does homework every day

" sounds like it's saying that she has a lot of homework, that the emphasis is on the idea that she's doing it every day.

But "she does her homework every day" sounds more like it's emphasizing that she is living up to her responsibilities.

But I'd be hard-pressed to give a logical argument for that interpretation.

Maybe "her" makes it more personal, she's doing the homework assigned to her?

While simply "homework" puts the emphasis on the work itself?

"The homework" would indicate that it is some specific homework.

You wouldn't use it to refer to homework in general.

Like you mean say, "She does the homework from her biology class".

Or, "Did you do the homework

the teacher assigned yesterday?

" But you wouldn't say, "She does the homework every day" to refer to doing homework in general.

or is the object her required?

I wouldn't call her an object, but rather a pronoun that modifies the object homework .

It's not required for grammatical correctness, but in practice the version with the pronoun has a connotation of all of the subject's homework, while the version without is more indefinite.

She does homework every day.

At least in American usage, one would generally take this to mean that she spends time working on homework, but doesn't necessarily complete all the work.

She does her homework every day.

This generally means that she does all the homework assigned to her, or at least everything she needs to have done for the next day.

The possessive pronoun "her" specifies which homework you're talking about, and the implication is that you mean all of it.

If your mother asks you if you've done your homework and you say "yes," you'll be in trouble if she finds out later that you only completed half of it.

She does the homework every day.

The article

the here makes this version relate to some specific homework, like that for a specific class.

For example: She succeeds in math class because she does the homework every day.

It's worth pointing out that doing your homework often relates to being prepared even for people who aren't students, and in that case you generally mean that the subject is (or isn't) fully prepared, so the possessive pronoun is often used, or an adjective is used to clarify the meaning.

Some examples: To avoid losing money, do your homework before investing in a new company.

She knew he was lying because she did her homework before the deposition.

Do some homework before buying a house

: check prices of recent sales, school quality, etc.

They have different meanings.

She does homework every day.

This means that every day she does at least some homework.

It neither says nor implies that she completes her homework (because it doesn't specify what homework it's talking about).

It's also perfectly consistent with her doing other people's homework.

(For example, she might be a nanny who, among other tasks, helps with homework every day.)

She does her homework every day.

This means she does the homework that has been assigned to her, as opposed to doing other people's homework or helping others with their homework.

It also strongly implies that she completes her assignments, and doesn't just work on them for a bit.

(Because "does" implies completing and "her homework

" implies all of her homework.)

She does the homework every day.

This means there's some homework that both the speaker and listener are referring to, and she does that particular homework.

For example, "Mary is assigned math homework regularly.

She does the homework every day."

Which would mean she does that math homework.

It would be confusing to use this when the listener would not know what homework you are talking about.

They are all correct but can create slightly different implications.

Some examples:

She does homework every day, can't the teacher give them a break?

She does her homework

every day, she's such a great student.

She does the homework every day while her sister writes the book reports.

Both sentences are correct, I personally like more the first one "She does homework everyday" - the shorter the better.

Nonetheless if what you are looking for is to be more precise, the second one would be more detailed but in any case both are clear.

Question: Can I use the first example?    She does homework every day  She does her homework every day  She does the homework every day    Or is the object  her  required?

She does homework every day vs She does her homework every day vs She does the homework every day

They are all correct but can create slightly different implications.  You could certainly say that "her" is not required, as the reader is unlikely to suppose that she does someone else's homework.  It's not required for grammatical correctness, but in practice the version with the pronoun has a connotation of  all  of the subject's homework, while the version without is more indefinite.

All sentences are grammatically correct, but can have slightly different implications. "Her" is not required, but in practice it helps make the sentence more definitive.


The most common form of the question, in both British and American dialects is "Do you have...

" Using "Have you" is a non-typical use.

It sounds old fashioned.

For example there is a nursery rhyme which goes: Baa baa black sheep,Have you any wool?

There is a similar form "

Have you got a map".

This is quite common in some British dialects, but is frowned on by some teachers.

The syntax of have you something ?

gets used in BrE and possibly formal and literature situations.

It is a direct syntax copy from the French avez vous?

Many things French had great influence on the English as they are neighbours.

A couple contemporary examples of the phrase which are often used Have you any thoughts...

Do you have an opinion about...

Have you got the time?

Do you know what time it is

Other equivalents "have you" might be

Do you have?

Would you have?

Might you have?

(BrE)

This form of question is using non-auxiliary "have" with an auxiliary verb syntax .

It is somewhat dated, but is still used in some occasions, mainly in formal speech.

A well-known example is the phrase "Have you the ring?"

used in wedding ceremonies.

It is also more common in some dialects.

According to Google ngrams , this form was dominant in writing in the past. "

Do you have" became dominant very quickly since the early 20th century.

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

Both are correct except no. 2 is a little more old-fashioned or fancy because it doesn't use the auxiliary "Do".

I disagree somewhat with BillJ insofar as I do not think "Have" is acting as an auxiliary verb in your example above; I just believe the writer is using an old-fashioned way of forming a question by way of inversion without the periphrastic "Do": "How much spent he ?"

= "How much did he spend ?"

"How much knows he ?"

= "How much does he know ?

I would agree with BillJ that "Have" is acting as an auxiliary verb if it were written in question form using the present perfect: " Have you ever had an English book?

In this instance, one could not use a periphrastic "Do" since the present perfect construction already uses an auxiliary verb in "Have", but that's not the case in, "

Have you an English book?

", wherein it is clear that it is merely inversion of a lexical verb to form a question—a process that is a wee bit outmoded these days, but is still used from time to time, particularly with the verb "Have" as used in the question above.

I hope that might have helped you out.

Take care and good luck!

There are two forms to express possession in English.

Have or Have gotDo

you have a car?Have you got a car?He

hasn't got any friends.

He doesn't have any friends.

She has a beautiful new home.

She's got a beautiful new home.

While both forms are correct (and accepted in both British and American English), have got (have you got, he hasn't got, etc.) is generally the preferred form in British English while most speakers of American English employ the have (do you have, he doesn't have etc.)

Have you got a map? =

Have you a map?

"Have you a map?"

This is an example of subject-verb inversion that was more common in older forms of English than it is today.

I still sometimes say, "Have you the time?" to mean, "Do you have the time?"

but many people in Modern English find it stuffy or pedantic or archaic.

Last week, I said to my brother in a text message, "

What said he?

" to mean, "What did he say?

" I was being lazy and didn't want to type out the periphrastic way that we write it now, but it caused confusion because my brother replied, "Huh?"

I just rolled my eyes and typed it the normal way for him.

We still see this subject-verb inversion in questions when people say, "What say you?" to mean, "What do you say?"

In French, this is also pretty old-fashioned, but still heard from time to time?

"Que sais-tu?"

("What knowest thou?"/"What know you?") "Qu'est-ce que tu sais?

("What dost

thou know?"/"What do you know?")

I use "thou" above to show that the French that I'm using is in the second-person singular form of English "you" and not the plural "you".

Also, these inversions were more common during Shakespeare's time when the pronoun "thou" was prevalent in speech still, so one would hear, "What knowest thou?"

way more often than a periphrastic form using "do/did" in questions.

Notice that the French have gone to a periphrastic form as well.

For instances: "Qu'est-ce que tu sais?

(literal translation: "

What is it that thou knowest?" or "What is it that you know?")

As you can see, this is relative to our periphrastic "do/did" in questions.

"Have you"when the word 'have' expresses a helping verb, (for example: I have made it.)

we can make it question just by replacing 'have' before the subject (Have I made it?).

And whole the rest sentence will remain same.

In the sentence "I have made it" , 'made' is the main verb where 'have' is just helping it.

"Do you have"when

the world 'have' is used as main verb, (I have a pen)

we use 'do' before the subject to form question (Do I have a pen?).

Question: I've seen it on TV that a guy asking another man, "have you a map?"   If I were him, I would probably say, "do you have a map?"   I would like to know what grammatical rules it followed in this case.

Use of "Have" in questions "Do you have" or "Have you"

This form of question is  using non-auxiliary "have" with an auxiliary verb syntax. Both are correct, although "have you a map" is a little more old-fashioned or fancy because it doesn't use the auxiliary "Do".

Both questions are correct, but no.2 sounds more old fashioned because it doesn’t use the auxiliary "Do". In this question,  non-auxiliary "have" is used with an auxiliary verb syntax .


An apt English idiom in this context is: The pot calling the kettle "black."

The Dictionary.com entry tells us: Criticizing others for the very fault one possesses: “I wouldn't call him lazy if I were you, Andy; that would be the pot calling the kettle black.”

ell.stackexchange.com/users/37009/P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica

Throwing stones in a glass house or Live in a glass house One who is open to criticism should not criticize others, as in "It's stupid of Mike to mention his opponent's accepting donations from lobbyists — people who live in glass houses !"

This proverb is so well known that it is often shortened.

Source: Dictionary.com

(emphasis mine)

Criticizing other people for bad qualities in their character that you have yourself.

Source:

Cambridge Dictionary

Criticizing other people for having the same faults that you yourself have.

Source:

The Free Dictionary Complaining about others if we are as bad as they are.

Source: Dictionary.com

ell.stackexchange.com/users/26160/Revetahw says Reinstate Monica

Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Although this would indicate that the one who points out somebody else's weakness, not only has the same weakness, but has it with an even greater magnitude.

The generic term for that is hypocrisy .

hypocrite (noun) - 1.

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

It actually has a couple of definitions but this is used to term the person considered in practice.

If a person states weakness in others which he/she actually possess, then conversely he/she is giving a false impression of a strength that he/she does not possess.

The Mote and the Beam

The Mote and the Beam (also called discourse on judgmentalism) is a proverbial saying of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount.[1] in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7, verses 1 to 5.

The discourse is fairly brief, and begins by warning his followers of the dangers of judging others, stating that they too would be judged by the same standard.

Question: Is there a term or an idiom for something similar to pointing at somebody else's weakness when that person has the same weakness?

Term for making fun of somebody else's weakness when you have the same?

An apt English idiom in this context is:  The pot calling the kettle "black."  "Throwing stones in a glass house" is another saying in this context, as well as "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?". The Mote and the Beam is a bible entry on this kind of subject. However, a generic term may be "hypocrisy".

The pot calling the kettle "black."' is an appropriate English idiom, as well as "Throwing stones in a glass house" or "Live in a glass house" and "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?". A more general but usual term is "hypocrisy". Finally, there is also a Christian parable called "The Mote and the Beam" that refers to this concept.

The pot calling the kettle "black."' is an appropriate English idiom.

"Throwing stones in a glass house" or "Live in a glass house" is an idiom that works in this context.

"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" is a similar idiom.

There is a Christian parable called "The Mote and the Beam" that refers to this concept.


It is acceptable to say something like, "My plane/bus was late" or "My company was sold" without sounding as if you own them.

It would be considered unnecessary and cumbersome to say, "The plane/bus I was on was late.

" or "The company I work for was sold.

Typically, people will know you don't own any of those things, and if there's any question, people will ask.

Addressing the more general case, it's important to note that possessive pronouns don't necessarily imply ownership, possession (nor does the Saxon genitive 's , despite what it says in that link).

Often, it just implies some kind of relationship, connection .

For reasons that aren't clear to me, teaching materials for non-native speakers frequently over-emphasize the "ownership" relationship ( and make too much of the fact that we're slightly less likely to use 's after "inanimate" nouns - despite clear evidence that the car's engine , for example, is far more common than the engine of the car ).

Regarding OP's specific context, I'd say it's a "non-problem".

Native speakers don't simply assume My company went bankrupt implies the speaker owned the company, unless context favours that interpretation (as opposed to it just being the company the speaker used to work for).

But in the unlikely event that both interpretations are possible in a "non-interactive" (written) context, a considerate writer could easily disambiguate by using the company that I owned / that I worked for .

Possessives -- words like "my" or "our", or use of apostrophe-s -- do not necessarily indicate ownership.

They just indicate a close relationship.

No fluent speaker assumes that it means ownership.

If you say "my boots", yes, you probably mean that you own them.

But it's quite common to say, for example, "my country", and no one takes that to mean that you own the country.

Rather, you mean the country where you live.

A slave will refer to "my master".

He certainly doesn't think that he owns the master.

It's rather the other way around. :-)

If you said, "My plane was late", listeners would normally understand you to mean the plane that you were riding on, not that you own the plane.

Unless you had just been discussing the fact that you owned an airplane.

There are cases where it could be ambiguous.

If you pointed to some clothes and said, "this is my uniform", do you mean that you own the uniform, or that the organization owns the uniform and has directed you to wear it?

If you say, "my company", do you mean that you own the company or that you work for the company?

Etc.

Usually it will be either be clear from context or irrelevant.

"I get a lot more respect when I wear my uniform": it probably doesn't matter whether you own it or not, the point is just that you wear it.

If you say, "My company fired me yesterday", you almost surely don't mean "the company that I own".

But, "I have decided to sell my company", you presumably own it.

"My company produces widgets": without some context to make clear, that could mean you own it or it could mean you work there.

It may or may not matter to the listener.

As others have pointed out, "my company" will usually be interpreted the way you intend based on context.

If you don't feel that that's clear enough, then the other usual way to phrase this is the company I work for I regularly use this phrase, rather than the ambiguous "my company", but not always.

"The" works for transport: "the plane was late, I missed the bus".

I think it works for "company" in most circumstances.

"The company sent me to Alaska".

"Careful with the car seats, it belongs to the company".

Some dialects go further in this direction and use "the" where "my" would be unambiguous.

There are people who will refer to "the wife", although this feels a bit antiquated and working-class.

Never "the husband", perhaps "the old man" instead.

And Myles na gCopaleen had his great series of anecdotes in the Irish Times about "the brother", meaning his brother.

But that usage feels very Irish-specific.

"Our" company/bus/plane?

I use "our" to describe such things.

Eg: "Our" company is hiring engineers

"Our" bus was late There were snakes on "our" plane

This car is "ours" (my dad's car; the family uses it)

It's a simpler way to say that you are somehow related to the thing/object/whatever, but it doesn't belong to you

(or you aren't the sole owner of the thing).

Try a substitute, such as: "My employer.." "The company..

" "The company I work for.."

If speaking, rather than typing, intonation is key.

If you slightly stress "my", it will sounds like you own the company.

Both words equally stressed is ambiguous, and will tend to be interpreted by the listener depending on their perspective.

Stressing the word "company", though, is more likely to give the impressions you want.

It's not guaranteed, as there are many factors.

But consider intonation and stresses when you respond.

Question: How do I say something like "my company," "my plane," "my bus", etc. without making it sound like I own the company/plane/bus/etc?  "Our  company" makes it seem like both me and the person/people I'm talking to own the company together.

How to say something like "my company" without sounding like I own the company?

It is acceptable to say something like, "My plane/bus was late" or "My company was sold" without sounding as if you own them. Possessives -- words like "my" or "our", or use of apostrophe-s -- do not necessarily indicate ownership.

Using "my company" is acceptable, because native speakers won't just assume the person saying that owns the company and possessives don’t always indicate ownership; context is very important and helps with the correct interpretation. "Our company" would also do, or the method of substitution: "My employer", "The company", etc. Finally, if it is oral speech, the correct intonation could clarify the meaning.

The method of substitution can work: "My employer", "The company", etc.

If it is oral speech, the correct intonation could clarify the meaning.


The key to the question is the meaning of refer to.

We often just think this means linked to or corresponds with and people often use it like this.

So logically, such as connects to both public transportation and train or bus.

There is, therefore, no clear "correct" answer.

The most careful and thoughtful answer is train or bus because the definition of refer to we'd expect to be operative here

is alludes to, and such as alludes to the examples: trains or buses.

Smartest action: Maybe don't correct your teacher!

'Such as' can be used in two different ways: 'Quadratic equations such as 3x^2+2x+1=0 can be solved using the quadratic formula' means all quadratic equations can be solved using this method, and the sentence is only giving an example for illustration.

'People such as him are very evil' means people like him are very evil and not all people are evil.

You need to determine from the context which case it is.

Hence without further information, 'public transportation such as train or bus' could mean public transportation in general (first sense above) or specifically trains and buses only (second sense above).

Such as means for example in this instance.

The example sentence is not a sentence, since at a minimum, it is missing a verb.

Regardless, we can still examine the phrase with for example : Public transportation for example train or bus

So trains and buses are examples of public transportation.

As for what such as refers to, I believe it is unclear.

One could argue that such as refers to public transportation since the examples are about that.

But such as also indicates what the examples are, so it could refer to the examples as well.

"Such as" is a phrase meaning "for example" or "like".

Another way to write the sentence would be: "Public transportation, like trains or buses,"

The phrase such as train or bus is, in effect, an adjectival phrase modifying public transportation .

The nouns train and bus are subordinate to such as .

The only way the question makes sense to me is as asking what these words modify.

I wouldn't use "refer to" in this sense (I'd probably use "apply to"), but it's not impossible; I can readily imagine such a question being asked about a Latin sentence in which (as often happens, especially for poetic effect) an adjective is separated from its noun (but linked to it by gender and case).

In the absence of commas, the use "such of" would refer to both of the following items.

Adding commas, could change the meaning, e.g. "He usually arrives via some form of public transportation such as a train, or a taxi."

The meaning of the latter may be enhanced by repeating the preposition, e.g. "He usually arrives via some form of public transportation such as a train, or else via a taxi."

Question: Example Sentence:    Public transportation such as train or bus.   Question: What do the words "such as" refer to?  Do the words "such as" refer to "public transportation" or to "train and bus"?  I had this question in my exam.

What does “such as” refer to in "Public transportation such as train or bus"?

Although it is unclear what such as refers to, logically it connects to both  public transportation  and  train or bus.

It is not clear what "such as" refers to. Due to the absence of commas, it could refer to both terms.

Due to the absence of commas, "such as" could refer to both terms.


I speak Chinese as well as Spanish is "ambiguous", in that it could mean either of...

I speak Chinese and also I speak Spanish 2: I speak Chinese as competently as

I speak

Spanish Context will normally make it obvious which sense is intended.

#1 above is probably more likely , but you can easily force the sense of #2 using something like just as well as, for example.

To announce that you speak both languages, you can simply say: ' I speak Chinese and Spanish '.

But to announce that you speak them equally well, the construction alters to: ' I speak Chinese and Spanish equally well '.

To native English speakers, the latter is still ambiguous, but for a different reason.

It can mean 'I speak them both well', certainly; but it can also mean 'I speak them both, equally badly'.

The fact that a person has equal ability in each language tells us nothing about his level of competence, only that it is equal in each case.

An unambiguous construction is ' I speak Chinese and Spanish fluently '.

Avoidance of the comparative term equally is a way of avoiding a comparison between the two: by substituting an absolute term, fluently , in place of a comparative term.

In English, comparatives are a common cause of ambiguity.

This is especially true of written English, where there are no verbal clues of stress and intonation to clarify what the intended meaning is.

For example, "I speak Chinese as well as I speak Spanish" can be interpreted as meaning "I speak Chinese about as well as I speak Spanish", because the phrase 'as well as' can mean 'as (in)competently as'.

It does not solely mean also , it can mean at what level of competence ; and in point of fact it is just as ambiguous as equally .

What you're saying now technically does communicate what you want to say, but you should say: I speak Chinese as well as I speak Spanish.

or, I speak Chinese and Spanish well.

What you're trying to say now can - and probably will - be interpreted as: I speak Chinese and Spanish.

"I speak Chinese as well as Spanish.

" Is a perfectly acceptable construction.

You could even add "I speak Chinese as well as Spanish fluently" or any other adjective besides 'fluently' really.

You could even say "I speak Chinese and Spanish" without the 'as well as'.

Your original suggests more that you speak them both than that you speak them equally well (though it's ambiguous).

With the right timing/emphasis/tone on "as well as" would help to convey the intended meaning (to convey it via something more like "as well-as Spanish" rather than "as well ... as Spanish").

However, I'd say it this way:

"I speak Chinese

as well as I do Spanish" (which is true for me, since I speak only a few words of either

-- I speak them both extremely poorly)

How about next phrase.

My Chinese and Spanish are at the same level.

My Chinese is at the same level as my Spanish.

As a native English speaker, I understand you if you were to say "I speak Chinese as well as Spanish."

Personally, it is easier and more natural to say "I speak both Chinese and Spanish." to demonstrate competence in the languages, or "I am fluent in both Chinese and Spanish." to demonstrate mastery of them.

Generally, shorter sentances are better, and "As well as" is longer than "Both".

I think it's good to use "as good as",

So you could say:

I speak Chinese as good as Spanish.

Question: I speak Chinese  as well as  Spanish.   I want to say that my Chinese and Spanish are equally strong. So please help me out with this. I think it's weird to say speak "as well as". I don't know if there are other better expressions.

Can I say "I speak Chinese as well as Spanish"?

It may be easier and more natural to say "I speak both Chinese and Spanish." to demonstrate competence in the languages, or "I am fluent in both Chinese and Spanish." to demonstrate mastery of them.   However, to express that you speak them equally well, the you may say:  'I speak Chinese and Spanish equally well'.

The original sentence makes sense but is ambiguous. In order to show that you speak both languages equally well, use "I speak Chinese and Spanish equally well". "I speak/I am fluent in both Chinese and Spanish" or "I speak both Chinese and Spanish fluently" also sounds natural, as well as "I speak Chinese as well as I speak Spanish". "I speak Chinese and Spanish" works, too. Another way of saying it is "My Chinese and Spanish are at the same level" or "My Chinese is at the same level as my Spanish". The sentence "I speak Chinese as good as Spanish" is another good alternative.

"I speak/I am fluent in both Chinese and Spanish" or "I speak both Chinese and Spanish fluently" also sounds natural.

Best to use "I speak Chinese as well as I speak Spanish".

The sentence "I speak Chinese as good as Spanish" is a good alternative.


A common metaphor for this is to say you've been " thrown in the deep end ", referring to the (supposed) practice of teaching someone to swim by throwing them into a swimming pool at the deep end, where they'll drown if they don't figure out on their own how to swim.

Another idiom is baptism by fire : A phrase originating from Europe that describes an employee that is learning something the hard way, like being immersed in their field of employment.

Baptism by fire has its roots in battle terminology, describing a soldier's first time in battle.

Thus this usage seems to match the subject matter of your own military idiom.

Read more: Baptism by Fire (Investopedia).

Note that this military usage ultimately originates in the concept baptism by fire found in the Christian Gospels.

See Wikipedia .

A similar idiom is thrown to the wolves , which is what we say when we assign someone to a job with very little assistance or training.

The "wolves" in this case are people who depend on the job being done, and are accustomed to it being done up to a certain standard.

Much like a person who's been sent to war, a person who has been thrown to the wolves needs to learn to survive in a hostile environment.

They'll either learn very quickly or fail miserably.

I saw the question in the sidebar and came, a day too late, with "thrown in at the deep end".

A few relevant expressions came to mind.

After I think of each one I searched to see if it was here and in more cases than not, some variant had already been suggested.

Where my versions seem usefully different I've still included them, with comment on their "duplicity" :-)

" Out of his depth " — similar but not identical in concept with "thrown in ..." Related if not quite apposite:

Up to his (or your) neck in alligators " (or other).

Related related:

" When you're up to your neck in alligators it's hard to remember that you came to clear the swamp.

More if the crowd you are placed with are dangerous to you because of your innocence or newness: " Sheep among wolves ".

Conveniently "sheep" can be considered singular or plural there, or you can add a leading "A " for singular.

(Some similarity with Patrick's “thrown to the wolves.”)

I thought of " sink or swim "

but I see Nigel also did 21 hours before me — in his comments to StoneyB "

Up the creek without a paddle " - a more common form of what I see user3169 commented yesterday.

A not uncommon somewhat crude variant is the “shit creek” .

"Coffee break's over.

Back on your heads.

" More relevant than it may sound :-).

Joke's a bit long to explain well, so many of these explain it or a short text version here .

In this context - you get into a new situation and THINK you know what its all about, until the door opens and ....

Oh No !!! :-)

Related to this is the Peter Principle - The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated by Laurence J. Peter and published in 1969.

The theory is that the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role.

Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and managers rise to the level of their incompetence.

Question: I'd like to know an idiom that let me express the idea of being assigned to a job/task you have no clue at all. My first language is Spanish, and we have a cool idiom for this situation (rough translation: I was sent straight to war!), but  I don't know if there is a similar one in English...

Assigned to a job I know nothing about it - is there an idiom for that idea?

Thrown in the deep end, baptism by fire, thrown to the wolves, being up to your neck in alligators, sink or swim, sheep among wolves, or up shit creek are all suggestions in this context.

Metaphors for this are "thrown in the deep end", "baptism by fire", "thrown to the wolves", "Up to his (or your) neck in alligators" (or other) and "Sink or swim". If the environment is hostile due to your newness,  "Sheep among wolves" would work. "Shit creek" also conveys the meaning, albeit more crudely.

A metaphor for this is "thrown in the deep end".

A similar idiom is "thrown to the wolves".

Another phrase for this is "Up to his (or your) neck in alligators" (or other).


There is a slight, but meaningful, difference.

Once a [time period]

" implies frequency observed over a range of time greater than [time period].

"Once in a [time period]" implies an observed frequency of 1 in a single [time period].

If somebody were to say something occurred once in a month then he means he is talking about an event with a time of a month.

If someone says something occurs once a month then he definitely has data larger than a month.

Example: My last boyfriend, Eric, would buy me flowers once a month!

But John has only bought me flowers once in a year.

Does John hate me or is he just less sentimental and thus will only buy flowers for year anniversaries?

Another example: During the first year of our relationship, Phillip bought me flowers once a month.

Why would he now only buy me flowers once in a year?

As FumbleFingers brings up in the comments, the "once in a [time period]" could instead be an application of figurative speech and not based on technical data.

The following example shows a usage of the phrase that indicates exaggerated speech is at play.

Wow!

That's rare; it only happens once in a blue moon!

This is perhaps more indicative of a common idiom but still important to bring up.

To slightly elaborate on what was established above, it may not be obvious that the phrase "once in a [time period]" can be used to establish a cap on repetitions in a [time period].

See below.

Alice:

"So, he goes to Mexico 10 times a year?"

Bob: "

Yes, but never twice in the same month; he only goes once in a month."

The main reason they're "not the same" is because of this huge difference in frequency of use ...

I don't think there are any many 1 contexts where you need to include in , so

the easiest option is never to use it (because in most contexts it will sound odd to native speakers if you include in ).

But as often happens in English, where one of two different versions of an expression becomes dominant, the less-favoured alternative may nevertheless survive, and start to carve out its own "semantic territory" and associations.

Take, for example... 1:

It doesn't snow here often.

Usually not more than once in a year.

She doesn't go out much.

Probably not once in a month.

There's nothing "unidiomatic" about those usages (though they'd be fine without the extra preposition).

I think the reason they're acceptable is because they stress the infrequency of the event (it's rare, uncommon ).

Another important factor is that the occurrence rate being referenced has to be somewhat imprecisely measured, unpredictable, irregular .

So (for me at least)...

I've always had regular checkups.

I see my dentist once in a year ...

doesn't work at all.

1 Note that in has semantic significance in constructions like

I haven't seen him once in a year , where it means once in the past year (i.e. - the twelve months immediately preceding time of utterance).

There are also closely-related usages such as once in a lifetime, once in a blue moon where in is idiomatically required.

As with the examples above, all these contexts imply infrequent / sporadic .

It's important to remember: the word a can be used as a preposition, meaning per .

See this screen shot focusing on just a few of the many definitions found on Wordnik :

Therefore, the phrase once a year is perfectly grammatical, acceptable, and idiomatic.

Once a year is considerably more common: here is an NGram .

It implies that something takes place once in every calendar year.

For example: I take a holiday in Norway once a year Once in a year is much less common and is in decline: many of the older references relate to annual religious observances.

In modern usage, it refers to something that happened only once within a one-year period which need not necessarily be a calendar year, for example:

He bought me a drink only once in a year.

Once a year/month/week would be more common.

Once in a year/month/week would be understood, but less likely used.

You are more likely to hear "Once in the past year" or "Once in the past five months" than "once in a year" For an expression of the form "once a ", "a" acts as a preposition meaning "per"; it could also be defined as "each"

I think that there's a precision difference between those two phrases.

Once a year" says to me that every year, about the same time, something happens.

He goes on vacation in Florida once a year.

- It's some sort of a tradition, which is usually tied to a particular time.

He only goes to Florida once in a month.

- It's more rare to hear this, especially longer than a month, and it's a "may or may not happen" sort of occurrence.

In addition to what has already been explained, it would be presumed that an event which happens once a year probably occurs around the same time.

Valentine's Day only comes once a year.

"Once a year" denotes something recurrent that happens each period. "Once in a year" denotes something happened in the last year.

"I used to party once a week, but since I married I went to a party once in a year."

From my perspective this is the difference in meaning: Once in a year: The expectation is that it happens each year and 1 time each year Once a year: The expectation is that it happens at a 1 year interval Example

This difference is usually not relevant, but here is an example where only 1 of the two seems appropriate: Someone whose birthday is around 1 january, may celebrate it in december or january.

In this case it would be strange (wrong?!)

for the person to say: Once in a year I celebrate my birthday

Question: I've seen  people using the phrase  once a year  but I wonder isn't it should be  once in a year . Are they both the same and acceptable?

Do "once a year" and "once in a year" mean the same thing?

There is a slight, but meaningful, difference. Once a year" denotes something recurrent that happens each period.  "Once in a year" denotes that something happened in the last year.

There is a small difference between the two. "Once in a month" refers to an event  with a time of a month, but for "once a month" the speaker's data is larger than a month. Another difference is frequency of use, with "once a month" being much more commonly used. There is also a difference in precision. "Once a month/year" means that the event probably happens around the same time every month/year.

The main difference is frequency of use, with "once a month" being much more commonly used.


There's nothing wrong with saying " Take apart your legos*† before putting them back into the box."

(Or, equivalently, " Take your legos apart before putting them back into the box.")

"Take apart" is a fairly common phrasal verb, and it's about as simple and straightforward a phrase as you can get to express this to a toddler — or anyone, really

: it's not baby talk or otherwise condescending, it's just a simple phrase for a simple concept.

* American English usage considers the "lego" to primarily be the block itself, and only by normal pluralization (etc) to be the collection of such blocks.

British English is the reverse.

Since you put "Legos" in the title of your question, I assume you're using American English, which conveniently is my native dialect.

As a generic term for a type of block toy, there's no need to capitalize it.

The trademark is in all-caps anyway:

LEGO®.

Another option is to dismantle your Legos. to disassemble or pull down; take apart: They dismantled the machine and shipped it in pieces.

" Disassemble your Legos" sounds appropriate, but talking to a toddler probably " undo your Legos" sounds easier.

Put them together and take them apart Construct them and then de-constuct them

Assemble and disassemble Make and break Connect and disconnect Build and destroy Create and start again

No one has thought of explaining why the expression unbuild is inappropriate.

After all, if we do a belt up , (fasten) we can also undo it.

Likewise, you can fix your hair into a bun or ponytail, and later unfix it.

We lock the car door when we leave, and unlock it when we come back.

Yet, to build and unbuild lego (or legos ) will sound weird to many native speakers.

If we can assemble an Ikea wardrobe, i.e. we fix the pieces together; we ought to say: unassemble , when its time to move to a new home.

But unassembled refers to the flat pack that we have bought at Ikea, the wardrobe that is in pieces and lies patiently in its box waiting to be assembled.

Instead, the correct verb to use is disassemble .

English is never 100% logical,

why shouldn't a child's construction be unconstructed ?

The word exists, but unconstructed does not mean unbuild , it means "not (yet) constructed".

Well blow me down...

I suppose to unbuild something would be like asking a partner to uncook dinner because it was unappetizing, once a meal has been cooked , it cannot be uncooked.

In fact, uncooked food means food which is raw, or has not been cooked.

So, I think the same theory applies to building.

For example, when a sandcastle is built, the action is completed.

A sandcastle will not last for days, but it might survive for a few hours, until the heat from the sun dries the wet sand and the castle crumbles, or until it is washed away by the tide.

A different action must intervene, in order to reverse the process of building.

And, by necessity, it must be destructive.

Destruction , not uncreation , is the opposite of creation .

The sandcastle must decay; crumble; disintegrate; be knocked down; collapse; or fall apart , in order for it to return to its original state.

A child's lego construction must therefore be destroyed, in some measure, i.e. taken apart if the lego bricks are to return to their original state.

Put away your Lego You put away toys, and Lego is a toy like any other.

Put away your bike, put away your paints, put away your screaming ninja turkey...

In a similar vein to "take apart," "break up" works well

(and, to me, feels more natural) in this context as you are breaking up the whole into its smaller parts.

I've no idea if this is a Br Eng - only expression, or more regional than that -

but I might say 'Take it to bits' for this kind of situation.

I agree take apart sounds the best for a toddler, but what I would say is "put your legos back in the tub/box".

The toddler legos come in a big plastic tub.

If you bought several tubs then you likely store them all in a bit bin or box.

Telling them, then showing them putting the legos back in the tub requires taking them apart, is probably better then trying to explain vocabulary to someone that is barely speaking.

That said, I would personally use disassemble in place of take apart.

No reason not to start the vocabulary building with simple house hold tasks.

I think the word "dismantle" might do, as you are not actually 'breaking' the Lego pieces.

The Lego assembly may not involve assemblies that we perceive as being "built", e.g., would placing a brick under a Lego's man count as building?

What about placing an screens obj its helmet?

Question: How could I change this sentence in order for it to sound more natural and easier to be understood by a toddler?  I've been using  'unassailable ' or  'take them apart'  but both sound strange.

Does "unbuild" in "Unbuild your Legos before putting them back into the box" sound natural?

There's nothing wrong with saying " Take apart  your Legos before putting them back into the box.". You can say put them together and take them apart, or construct them and then de-construct them. Dismantle is another alternative.

"Take apart" is probably the best noun to be used. That said, "Construct/deconstruct", "Disassemble", "connect/disconnect", "make/break", "undo" and "dismantle" are some other options. Finally, you could also say "put your Legos away/back in the box/tub".

"Construct/deconstruct" the Legos is also another option.

"Disassemble" can be used as well, or "connect/disconnect", "make/break", "undo".

In more general terms, you could say "put your Legos away/back in the box/tub".


It's true that girls often call their close female friend(s) girlfriend(s) , at least in the US.

And although I am inclined to believe that the friend is likely a platonic female friend, it is still ambiguous.

girlfriend 1.

A female companion or friend with whom one has a sexual or romantic relationship.

A female friend.

If you really care to know, you should ask her for clarification.

It depends where in the world you are.

Everywhere, as far as I know, one meaning of "girlfriend" is "a woman you're having a romantic and/or sexual relationship with but aren't married to."

In the US, it's very common for women to describe close female friends as "girlfriends", even when there is no romantic or sexual involvement.

In the UK, the friend-who-is-a-woman meaning

is much less common than in the US and would be seen as something of an Americanism.

Having said that, the proportion of women in the UK who use "girlfriend" to mean any close female friend could easily be higher than the proportion of lesbian and bisexual women.

If that's the case then a woman saying "my girlfriend" in the UK would still be more likely to mean "my close female friend" than "my romantic/sexual partner".

The other answers have done a great job, and I fully agree.

If a girl refers to another girl as a "girlfriend" it could mean either way

but it's very common to refer to just a female friend.

I wanted to add some additional information to say that this (for whatever reason) is very specific to one girl referring to another.

If a girl said "boyfriend" most people would would assume that means a romantic relationship, and it would sound weird otherwise.

I have heard "guy-friend" to refer to platonic male friends, but I'm not sure how common this is.

(It might be regional)

Similarly, if I (a male) were to refer to someone as a "(girl|boy) friend" most people would infer that I mean a romantic partner.

I probably would too.

I would never refer to a platonic friend as a "(girl|boy) friend", and it would sound very strange to hear someone doing so.

Unlike boys, girls very often call their close female friends girlfriends .

Even as a native speaker (a gay one, at that)

this can be ambiguous.

In my experience, using "girlfriend" to refer to friends is something that older women do and probably not the under-thirty set that is more used to gay culture.

However, I've always lived in liberal, very gay-friendly environments so I wouldn't be shocked if I found that young women in less LGBT-friendly American regions used "girlfriend" as a synonym for "friend".

If understanding were crucial to your conversation, I think asking "Is she just a friend or are you two dating?" would be perfectly acceptable.

Often, if the ladies in question are in a romantic relationship then they will refer to each other as their partner (this is true for both genders).

As mentioned, that doesn't also preclude them from referring to each other as girlfriend as well.

Question: I have a classmate and sometimes she says something like "I told my girlfriend that she has to blah blah".  Does this wording imply a lesbian relationship, or is she referring to a her best friend (a girl) only?

When a girl mentions her girlfriend, does she mean it like lesbian girlfriend?

it's very common for women to describe close female friends as "girlfriends", even when there is no romantic or sexual involvement. However, if a girl refers to another girl as a "girlfriend" it could mean either way.

It depends on where in the world the speaker is, because universally "girlfriend" implies a romantic relationship.  However, Especially in the US but also in other parts of the world, girls often call their close friends "girlfriend", although older women tend to use the word in this way more. Therefore, its usage is ambiguous. Since it is ambiguous, it is best to ask for a clarification. Also, bear in mind that when two girls are in a romantic relationship, they often refer ro each other as "partner"

When two girls are in a romantic relationship, they often refer ro each other as "partner"


If we are specifically talking about a family member, nepotism is a good word.

(It does not apply for friends, however.)

patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship,

as in business and politics

From SpanishDict enchufe masculine noun (colloquial) (influence) a. connections Yo estoy mejor cualificado, pero le dieron el trabajo a ella porque tiene enchufe.

— I am more qualified, but she got the job because she has connections.

b. friends in high places (colloquial) Tengo un enchufe que te puede ayudar a conseguir un aumento.

— I have some friends in high places who might help you get you a raise.

enchufado

adjective (colloquial)

(favored) a.

well-connected Mariano consiguió el puesto de gerente solo porque está

enchufado.—Mariano only got the manager position because he's well-connected.

b.

no direct translation ¿

Sabías que

Jaime está enchufado en la empresa de su

tío?—Did

you know Jaime's got a job in his uncle's company just through his connections?

Esto está lleno de gente enchufada.—This place is full of people who got a job because of their connections.

masculine or feminine noun (colloquial)

(person with connections) a.

well-connected person

En esta empresa solamente los enchufados

consiguen un

aumento

de sueldo.—Only

the well-connected people get a raise in this company.

b. person with pull Le di mi nuevo disco

a un enchufado que trabaja en la discográfica.—I gave my new album to a person with pull who works at the record company.

As is often the case, there does not seem to exist a direct translation.

Although connected and well-connected might not necessarily have negative connotations, they can still be perceived negatively under the right context.

Example.

He's obviously underqualified.

I bet he got the job because he's got connections.

Less formally, you could say "know someone" or "hook up":

He got the job because he knew a guy/

someone at the office (on the board, etc).

I didn't need to apply.

My friend hooked me up with the job.

The closest I can think of is "Crony", although the term is usually seen as " Cronyism ".

And as far as I know, you have to be the Crony of somebody else, you can't just say "a Crony" without some reference as to whose Crony they are.

Example

"He's one of Bob's cronies" is OK.

But "He's a crony" would need to have been preceded by something to indicate whose crony they are.

See also: Tony's Cronies , and Crony Capitalism .

Nepotism noun 1.

patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship,

as in business and politics:

She was accused of nepotism when she made her nephew an officer of the firm.

Being fluent in Spanish, there isn't a direct equivalent in English in terms of cadence, register, connotations, and of course meaning.

You would have to find another way to express it.

E.g., you could talk about a “job for the lads”, shifting the subject of the sentence.

Concerning the answers above, nepotism is a terrible fit.

“Estar enchufado” or “ser un enchufado” means to benefit from some sort of favouritism, whether one is related to the person giving or facilitating the job or just a friend, or even a friend of a friend, or even a simple acquaintance in some cases.

"Old boys club"; "it's who you know";

"friend of the family"; "a legacy" would all be related terms.

Question: "Enchufado" or "enchufe" is a colloquial way of saying that a person got a job because a friend or relative gave it to him, instead of earning it themselves.   I thought about the word "appointed" but that is too formal and I don't think it conveys quite the same meaning (you could be appointed and still have earned the job).

How do you say "enchufado" in English?

Nepotism is widely used. Being connected, cronyism, the old boy's club, it's who you know, and hooking up are all used in this context.

There is no direct translation. That said, if we are referring to family members, "nepotism" is a good match. "Connected", "well-connected" and "person with connections" can have the equivalent negative meaning depending on context. "Crony/cronyism" is another equivalent. Also, if you say "know someone" or "hook up", it can have the same meaning. Finally, "Old boys club", "it's who you know", "Friend of the family" and "a legacy" are some other expressions for this.

If we are referring to family members, "nepotism" is a good match.

"Old boys club"; "it's who you know" are some other expressions for this.

"Friend of the family", "a legacy" are some more related terms.


Nowadays it can be good or bad.

In the past it was inherently bad, but it has undergone the phenomenon of reappropriation , which causes insults to become a "badge of honour" for the insulted group.

In my personal experience, nerd was an insult most (~ 90%) of the time until the mid-late 2000s, when the concept of a "nerd culture" became surprisingly popular.

Of course, nerd as " person who follows nerd culture " and nerd as " person who studies too much " do not always overlap.

If they are referring to an "intelligent" person like you say then they most probably mean: a person who is extremely interested in one subject, especially computers, and knows a lot of facts about it — Cambridge Dictionary Example, I'm a real grammar nerd.

So, no it is not in the bad or negative sense

but you still have to be careful with this word some people might find a bit offensive to be called a "nerd" especially when this word has a first definition that is kind of negative.

I don't agree nerd is restricted to intelligent.

A nerd can use the n word to describe themselves but other people should not.

A nerd can say he is a nerd pack like me.

As a non nerd there are so many ways to express without using the n word.

He/

she is into computing.

He is a car racing enthusiast.

All she can talk about is medicine.

He is cryptography nerd from MIT that works for the NSA

is OK.

It clearly does not have the strict negative connotation of the other n word.

Just making a silly comparison.

In some language communities, "nerd" is a loaded word; for example, when used to describe a boy or man, nerd can carry connotations of being easy to push around and/or sexually frustrated.

In some language communities, it's basically considered inoffensive; but unless you want to risk offending the other person, I don't think this a good term.

And I think that, when speaking to men especially, it's safer to assume that the other person considers themselves "dominant" (not like a bully; more like, someone you don't f**k with), so best to choose language that doesn't convey a disconnect between how you're viewing the other person and how they view themselves.

This applies w/o much qualification when talking to women, too; if you're talking to a woman, for example, keep in mind that she may well be elected in as a parliamentary MP one day, or become the CEO of a major corporation, or end up owning a large and highly successful business, etc.

Such a woman may not appreciate being called a "nerd", I think.

A nerd is someone with a drive to study.

The driver can exist for any of a bunch of different reasons.

There are also different areas of focus.

Eventually, though, a nerd, in order to be a nerd, must have a certain "love of the subject".

And then there are shy nerds, who will cringe upon hearing the word, and less shy nerds, who will openly affirm, part of their identity, as a nerd.

For a reference and idea, please see the movie T.G.I.F by Katy Perry , which might be able to give you some ideas about why one would be, or want to be, or end up being, a nerd.

Question: My friends always use "nerd" to describe an intelligent person, but when I searched its meaning online, I found that it's not really a good word.  "A foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious."  Oxford Dictionaries  I've become so confused with this word. Is it an insult or a compliment?

Is it good to call someone "Nerd"?

Nowadays it can be good or bad. A nerd must have a certain love of a subject. However, nerd  was an insult most of the time until the mid-late 2000s, when the concept of a "nerd culture" became surprisingly popular. The insult of "nerd" has undergone the phenomenon of  reappropriation , which causes insults to become a "badge of honour" for the insulted group.

The term is ambiguous. In the past it was inherently bad, and could even mean "an easy to push around/sexually frustrated man". However, it has been reappropriated, so now it has become somewhat more popular. Now, a nerd is a studious person with love for a certain subject.

A nerd is a studious person with love for a certain subject.


In the UK, you can still use the term bitch without embarrassment, providing that the context is clear: Our bitch, Sally, has just had pups.

However, you might want to think twice before referring to someone else's dog as a "bitch".

I have the feeling that the term is falling out of use, partly because most dogs are given names and so it can easily be avoided.

You can still hear the term on British television, mostly on nature and countryside programmes.

Thinking about it, a lot of gender-specific names for animals are used infrequently.

You rarely hear male ducks called drakes , male geese called ganders , or female cats called queens .

However, male cattle are still called bulls , and male sheep are still called rams , but then these are farm animals and that may be why the usage has persisted.

In the U.S., it is only used in veterinary and dog-breeding circles.

Outside of that, it is almost exclusively used as a pejorative.

British veterinarians and veterinary associations routinely use "bitch" to refer to female dogs and "dog" for males, particularly in the context of reproductive health.

Example:

BVA strongly supports the practice of neutering cats (castration of tom cats and spaying of queens) and dogs (castration of dogs and spaying of bitches) for preventing the birth of unwanted kittens and puppies and the perpetuation of genetic defects. from https://www.bva.co.uk/News-campaigns-and-policy/Policy/Companion-animals/Neutering/

- there are many more examples on the same page.

Owners and the general public do it much less, and while they usually won't be offended, some may not even associate "bitch" with "female dog".

I suspect the use of the gender specific terms is easier in a professional context where the health implications are immediately useful to know.

That said, dog breeders in the UK use the term, and vets tend to use the same language as their clients.

If the client says bitch, so will the vet; if they say its a "girl dog", so will the vet.

A lot of the job is establishing a good relationship with the client.

source - asked my partner, a UK vet.

If you look at this Google Ngram , you will see the rise of the usage of the term 'bitch' in written works over the years.

Having said that, if you look at the frequency values of its usage (the scale on the left-side), you will notice how rarely they are used.

The word 'bitch' has been often marked as an offensive term nowadays.

When someone shouts out: "Hey, look at that bitch !"

people will expect to see a woman* (or man, no offence intended), and not a female dog.

Literally, the word means a female dog, but today, it is considered as a term that has been deemed as an offensive slang usage.

Now, if you ask why a cow is still called a cow, or a bull, based on it's gender and why bitch is not often used to reference a female dog, I'm as clueless as the next guy.

But please restrain from using the term as the listener will take offence and he wouldn't have the patience to listen to your justification that you had indeed referenced a female dog, by calling out so.

Fun Fact : A female pig is called a gilt or a sow.

But I'm sure most people are unaware of this terminology.

"Bitch" is the word you use when you need to distinguish between male and female dogs.

All English-speaking dog owners worldwide will use it for that purpose.

It's the correct word to use, and in that context it is entirely clear that this is what is mean.

Owners may say they have "two girls and one boy" instead, which is a natural extension of the tendency to treat dogs as children and members of the family.

If a dog owner doesn't have to be specific about whether the dog is male or female, they generally won't be.

In that case, "dog" is the generic term for both male and female familiar canines.

If a dog owner has to be specific about the animal being female though, the word "bitch" is entirely relevant, and no dog owner should be offended by it.

Outside of the doggy world though, "bitch" will almost always be an insult.

The insult "dog" used to also be common - Samuel Pepys, on being woken by his friends at 3am, reports saying "What, is it you, you dogs!"

- but has fallen out of use in English.

Various other languages still use it, but in English it seems comically archaic (think of translated communist Chinese propaganda about "capitalist running dogs").

Question: Today I was exposed to the fact that the  female form  of  dog  is  bitch  (just like  bull  (m) and  cow  (f)).   But I have never heard someone who called his female dog  a bitch. So I suspect that in fact it is not in use, Isn't it?

How common is it to use the word 'bitch' for a female dog?

Literally, the word means a female dog, but today, it is considered as a term that has been deemed as an offensive slang usage. However, you can still use the term  bitch  without embarrassment, providing that the context is clear. Veterinarians and breeders routinely use "bitch" to refer to female dogs and "dog" for males, particularly in the context of reproductive health.

In the UK, it is very common to use the word "bitch" to distinguish female dogs, for dog owners, breeders and vets alike. In the US it is more reserved for professionals, but all in all it is a term that is in use, although it is becoming less used because dogs are given names, so it is more often unnecessary. However, one might argue that the word "bitch" is most commonly used offensively in its metaphorical sense, so it is best to be avoided.

In the UK, it is very common to use the word "bitch" to distinguish female dogs, for dog owners, breeders and vets alike. In the US it is more reserved for professionals, but all in all it is a term that is in use.

The term is becoming less used because dogs are given names, so it is more often unnecessary.

The word "bitch" is most commonly used offensively in its metaphorical sense, so it is best to be avoided.


The word there has no meaning.

It is the same word we see in sentences like:

There is a fly in my soup.

In the sentence from the Wizard of Oz, the writer has used it so that the noun phrase "a beautiful princess, who was also a powerful sorceress" appears at the end of the sentence instead of the beginning.

This makes the sentence more interesting.

This is called a presentational construction.

The sentence means: A beautiful princess, who was also a powerful sorceress, lived here then.

The word then means at that time .

The word here means in this place .

ell.stackexchange.com/users/8084/Araucaria - Not here any more.

To add to @Araucaria's answer, it's important to note that this is a rather old-fashioned sentence construction and would not be used in spoken English, even when L Frank Baum wrote his books.

Using old-fashioned grammar makes it sound like an older fairytale though.

These days, the construction "there is a fly in my soup" is the normal way to describe something's presence, but any verb beyond "is/are/were/will be" is not normally used.

So we would say "there was a fly, swimming in my soup" (where "swimming in my soup" is a further description of the fly's presence), but not "there swam a fly in my soup".

When dealing with archaic grammar to help someone who doesn't have English as a first language, I think it's important to be clear about what a native English speaker today can read and understand, and what a native English speaker would actually say themselves.

The word "there" sometimes appears just to introduce a concept, rather than specifying a particular location, as in: Limerick rhymes: "There once was a girl from Nantucket..." Expressions of ultimate approval: "There will never be another ... like him." Presence or absence: "There are no more carrots."

Suggestion: "There's no better time to...

(e.g.

buy a house)

" General (non-specific) location:

" There you are!"

" There they go!"

(In both of these examples, the actual location is unimportant; the first means " At last I've found you, ", and the second means " You can see them now ", and their location is even continuously changing and their actual destination irrelevant and usually completely unknown ).

Most authors would avoid including both " here " and " there " in the same phrase, due to the obvious potential for ambiguity and confusion.

There lived here then, away at the North, a beautiful princess, who was also a powerful sorceress.

This is an old-fashioned way of writing, trying (successfully) to portray the feeling of old fairy tales.

So what does it mean?

"then" is there to convey that the fact reported here

follows from something stated previously.

There will have been an introductory phrase.

We could replace it loosely by "so". "

So there lived here...

" "there lived" is much the same construction as "there was".

We could replace it by "somebody lived" - That gives us the exact meaning of the phrase:"So a beautiful princess lived here, away at the North, and she was also a powerful sorceress."

But that's boring.

The Brothers Grimm version has more style (even if it's hard to read).

The word 'then' in the emboldened phrase refers to some information that the reader or character in the story is already aware of; so saying 'then' refers to that information to continues the story.

That is my understanding of it.

I must also say, sentence constructions such as this are fairly archaic.

Question: There lived here then,  away at the North, a beautiful princess, who was also a powerful sorceress.   The sentence is cited from  The Wizard of Oz, page 37 .  What do the words in bold mean?  Thank you!

What does "there lived here then" mean?

This is called a  presentational  construction. The sentence means:  A beautiful princess, who was also a powerful sorceress, lived here then. The word  then  means  at that time.   The word  here  means  in this place.

"There" is sometimes used to introduce a concept. In this sentence, it is a presentational construction and means "A beautiful princess, who was also a powerful sorceress, lived here then", in which "then" means "at that time" and "here" means "in this place". The grammar in this sentence makes it sound more old-fashioned, like a fairytale.

This is a presentational construction and means "A beautiful princess, who was also a powerful sorceress, lived here then", in which "then" means "at that time" and "here" means "in this place".


How about transient ?

not lasting, enduring, or permanent; transitory.

lasting only a short time; existing briefly; temporary: transient authority.

staying only a short time:

the transient guests at a hotel.

Or temporal : enduring for a time only;

temporary; transitory Both definitions from dictionary.com.

If you just want to say that it is possible for the code to be replaced by something new/faster/better, you could use the adjective supersedable , which means basically "able to be replaced or made obsolete".

If you just want to say that it is possible for the code to be replaced by something new/faster/better, you could use the adjective supersedable , which means basically "able to be replaced or made obsolete".

If you want to talk about how long it will probably be before the code is superseded, then I would use half-life .

The term half-life refers to how long it takes for something to undergo some process.

It might be most familiar in relation to radioactive decay or drug metabolization.

In the realm of technology it can be used to refer to how long it will be before some new technology makes a product obsolete.

So if the code you're talking about will probably be obsolete soon , you could say it has a short half-life . 1 From Dictionary.com :

supersede verb (used with object), superseded, superseding . to replace in power, authority, effectiveness, acceptance, use, etc., as by another person or thing. to set aside or cause to be set aside as void, useless, or obsolete, usually in favor of something mentioned; make obsolete:

They superseded the old statute with a new one. 2 From Techopedia : Definition - What does Future Proof mean?

Future proof is a buzzword that describes a product, service or technological system that will not need to be significantly updated as technology advances.

In reality, very few things are truly future proof.

In any field that depends heavily on technology, a regular cycle of replacing and updating appears to be the norm.

For example: [W]hat is the half life of your technology devices these days?

By that I mean, at what point are you already starting to think about upgrading your devices — from the moment you purchased the last one?

Half-life is the moment when you could continue to use your device but it is either so far behind the functionality of other devices or — because of performance issues — it is increasingly unusable.

Both points used to take three to five years, but are now more likely to be only one or two years. — "Why is the half-life of technology getting shorter?" Global Telecoms Business , 2012.

Consider fleeting : passing swiftly; vanishing quickly; transient; transitory:fleeting beauty; a fleeting glance.

I would prefer not to use such a fleeting technology on this long-term project.

Saying something like the above would convey that you suspect the technology in question is merely a fad, or not yet mature/stable enough, to consider using it as a long-term solution to a problem.

The software can become obsolete ; When the software is obsolete, it will be superseded by the new technology.

Depending on the context, though, you may not even need to say any of this; software is assumed to be ephemeral and temporary, given the speed of change in the software industry.

You could say the program will be deprecated (Wikipedia explanation) .

Obsolescent means becoming obsolete.

It describes something that is in current use, or can be used now, but which is expected to be obsolete in the future.

See also here

You could say that the program or software becomes obsolete .

Obsolete: no longer used because something newer exists :

replaced by something newer Although it is a general term that can be used to describe a broad spectrum of things that are outdated, it is commonly used to describe technology or software that is outdated.

In fact, some software has built-in or planned obsolescence , where it is purposely designed to have a limited useful lifespan, in order to bring back repeat business by forcing users to upgrade to a newer version.

Question: I can think of "perishable". However I do not know if I can use it in context of programming. I want to say that the code or a program is replaced when there is a new and better technology.  Edit: I mean code will someday be replaced someday in the future. It is not obsolete right now.

Word for things that can become outdated

Transient, temporal, supersede, or fleeting may be considered. If you want to talk about how long it will probably be before the code is superseded, then you could use  "half-life".

Some words that could be used in this context are: "transient", "temporal", "supersedable", "fleeting", "that can become obsolete". When referring to the time period until the code becomes obsolete, the term "half-life" is a perfect match. However, software is assumed to be temporary, so pehaps there is no need to say anything at all.

Software is assumed to be temporary, so pehaps there is no need to say anything at all.


You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of to leave .

It means: to cause or allow to be or remain in a specified condition Therefore, the sentence could be understood as meaning: Where (In what position, good/bad/awkward/terrible, etc)

does Brexit (what you described in the question) leave (cause to be or remain)

Britain (object of to leave )?

[Merriam-Webster]

The idiomatic use of the word leave is problematic, to be sure!

Moreover, the sentence in question is, at best, poorly stated!

Perhaps an illustration would help.

Let's say two guys are bemoaning not having a suit to wear to a special occasion to which they've both been invited.

One guy says, "I may not have a suit to wear, but I have a cousin who does, and we're almost exactly the same size.

I think I'll ask to borrow his suit!"

The other guy says, "But where does that leave me?"

In other words, the "other guy" is feeling as though he's been left (past tense of leave!)

out in the cold without a suit to wear.

Getting back to "Brexit" . .

The question being asked is "Where, or in what condition, does Britain's exit from the EU leave her?"

The word where has nothing to do with a literal, physical location; rather, where means "in what condition."

So, where is Britain, having left the EU? out in the cold? isolated? in danger of losing allies?

in some other condition, either good, bad, or indifferent?

Britain "leaving" the EU has no semantic connection to exiting; rather, the leaving has to do with a condition Britain might be left in, having exited the EU.

Some other illustrative sentences:

Your plan is all well and good for you, but where does it leave me?

Hey, my friend, we're both broke, but you have good credit

and I have bad credit.

You can go to a bank to get a loan to tide you over, but where does that leave me?

Jim, I hear you found a date at the last minute for the party tomorrow.

That's great, but where does that leave me?

The sentence is intended to be read as, "In what state does Britain's leaving the EU leave it?"

That is, where does Britain go after making such a decision?

Is Britain better or worse off having decided this way or the other?

What options are available to Britain now that it's made this decision?

Normally in English, "where" type questions are referencing the relationship between 2 or more physical items and their relative location to each other.

To answer a "where" question, one normally has to provide a second item to serve as a reference point for the location of the first item.

For example:

Where is my TV?

Answers:

On the table.

In my house.

In Texas.

In the US.

On planet earth.

All of the above answers are correct to differing degrees of accuracy.

I think most people's definition of "where" in the above context is easily grasped.

However native English speakers, having fun with our language, will also use "where" to denote the status of non-physical relationships between non-physical "things".

In the case you mention, Britain while being a physical landmass, is also an non-physical idea, specifically a political organization of people (a nation) who happen to mostly live on the previously mentioned landmass.

The original question being posed is referencing this non-physical idea (the British nation) and is asking in relation to the EU (another non-physical idea, specifically a political alliance of nations)

where will the British "stand".

The "standing" is not a physical location, but rather an ideological "location".

Ultimately what is being asked by this question is, will Britain continue to have a constructive relationship with the EU after it ceases to be an active State in the political entity known as the EU.

Other examples that you might commonly see in the English speaking press that conflates physical location and ideological standing: What nations will fall into the Russian orbit?

Nations won't physically orbit Russia, but if they come under the political influence of the Russian government they will often be referred to as being in the Russian "orbit".

Will the UK and US become closer when the next president takes office?

Again, physically their distance from each other will not change, but if the political goals of each nation become more aligned, then we use the word closer, which is normally related to physical distance, to denote a non-physical comparison in the status of our relationship.

Hope

this helps and hope I didn't add to your confusion.

This is very similar to the rhetorical question, "Where do we go from here?

" The newspaper is not asking for a location or making travel plans, but rather, it is pondering what will happen to Britain after a majority of its voters chose to leave the EU.

Question: I cannot understand the meaning of the sentence:   "Where does Brexit leave Britain"   According to  Wikipedia  Brexit (like its early variant, Brixit)[3] is a portmanteau of "Britain" and "exit". The United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.  In this case it sounds like:   "Where does The United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union leave Britain"   ...which makes no sense at all!

What does "where" mean in the sentence "Where does Brexit leave Britain"

Britain "leaving" the EU has no semantic connection to exiting; rather, the leaving has to do with a condition Britain might be left in, having exited the EU.   The sentence is intended to be read as, "In what state does Britain's leaving the EU leave it?"

The issue seems to be the understanding of the word "leave". Also, in the English language, sometimes where is used for the state of non-physical relationships between non-physical things. The meaning of the question is "In what state does Britain's leaving the EU leave it?", wondering what the relationship of Britain and the EU will be in the future and about the future state of Britain.

In the English language, sometimes where is used for the state of non-physical relationships between non-physical things.