In my experience, which is all I can answer from, in American English, 99% of the time the white plastic object is called a bag .

Specifically, it is a plastic bag.

We also have paper bags.

And canvas bags .

When you start talking about "bags" made out of thicker material, traditionally woven from cotton or something, you can then use the word sack.

You can use sack to refer to a paper bag, but it is rare to refer to a plastic bag as a plastic sack, in the USA, using American English, at least in the dialect I speak.

So, in short, yes, bag is the most common term to call the white plastic object.

I have a funny experience with this.

I grew up in the Eastern U.S. What you ask about were called bags , pure and simple.

Then I moved about 1500 miles (2400 km)

away, to the American midwest, near the geographic center of U.S. I still remember my puzzled look when the cashier asked me, "Would you like a sack with that?"

Where I had grown up, a sack was made of burlap or mesh; i.e., this was a sack : Fig. 1: A sack in the Northeast

But in my new location, your groceries were put in a sack , unless you wanted to carry them back to your car in your arms.

Fig. 2:

A sack in the Midwest

By the time I moved back to the east coast more than a decade later, my ear had become accustomed to sack , and bag seemed eerily unfamiliar.

I was just about certain that bag was the right word to use again, but it didn't sound right to me.

So, maybe a month or so after I had moved back, I had this rather amusing conversation with a convenience store clerk while purchasing a gallon of milk: J.R.:

If I wanted one of those brown paper things to put my milk in, what would I ask for?

Cashier: A bag?

J.R.:

Thank you.

Cashier: [looking confused]:

Do you want one?

J.R.:

No

– I just wanted to know what it was called.

and then I walked out.

I think the bottom line is that regional variations may apply.

I'd say bag is usually right, but you can always ask a cashier if you're not sure :^)

By the way, one question often asked in groceries stores is, "Paper or plastic?

" I'd never really thought about it before, but that terse three-word question avoids the noun – which might be by design.

Lastly, remember this: If you are ever asked "Paper or plastic?

" You'll have to decide for yourself.

Why?

Because baggers can't be choosers .

This appears to be UK-English only It's a bag; specifically it's a carrier-bag.

You could ask for either - or even, colloquially, just 'a carrier'.

Some places would ask whether you want paper or plastic, though that's not a popular choice in the UK.

Here they prefer you to have a thicker, heavier plastic or cloth bag which can be used over & over, often referred to as a 'bag for life' Examples - In Br Eng, this would never be a sack - that would imply it being much larger, perhaps like this, a 'bin-bag' or sack.

In India, we refer that as a ' polythene bag '.

Some years back, it was just a 'bag' but then due to the awareness about preserving our planet, the governments started acting strictly.

All the newspapers and TV channels were flooded with the message that we should not use 'polythene bag'

(there is when general public came to know the 'full form' of that bag!)

However, polythene bags above 40 microns are allowed.

There are so many types of polythene but broadly, we refer these bags as polythene bags.

The vendors here started using 'paper bags' and there is where, we, as buyers, have to specify the 'bag'.

Suppose if I'm carrying something wet, I'll have to ask for a polythene bag over a thin paper bag that the vendor is using for everything else.

I would not prefer to put an adjective to this (such as shopping bag, grocery bag) which would simply restrict its usage!

Use a polythene bag to carry a wet shoe, a fruit, a bunch of newspapers or anything that you don't 'shop' as well!

[I'm tagging this answer as InE].

In India wee call it a ' plastic-cover '.

Well educated people also call it a ' carry-bag '.These

are available in almost all types of stores in my country.

In-fact because of its heavy usage and pollution problem a law was created in my state that demands these bags be made of plastic of 30 microns or above.

And because in our country every state has its own language this is mostly known by it local name, in my state Kerala it is known in Malayalam as 'sanjhi'

I am a product specialist in the flexible packaging industry.

The bag you have in this picture is commonly called a "t-shirt bag".

It is called this because the construction moderately resembles a t-shirt.

This type of bag falls under the larger category of "carry-out bag" which is any bag that a cashier will put your item in at the time of purchase and you will then carry-out of the store.

The application is important when it comes to figuring out if the item is subject to import tariffs..

They are made out of LDPE or HDPE.

The bag in this picture also has registered spot printing done with a flexographic press.

Question: I always need this when I buy stuff from the market. So, I need to know the real name for it. I always call it "bag" but it seems that it is not the correct name.

What do you call this thing? "bag"?

This may be referred to as a bag, a plastic bag, a carrier bag, a t-shirt bag, a plastic cover or a polythene bag.

This is a 'bag' in most parts of the world. In India it may also be referred to as a plastic cover.

In India it can be referred to as a plastic cover.


Obese and overweight are both medical terms.

Fat is a casual/colloquial term.

Overweight means to be over the recommended Body Mass Index ( BMI ) for a person's height.

Obese means to be extremely over the recommended BMI for a certain height.

(Obesity is considered medically dangerous.)

In polite conversation, you could refer to a person as overweight but only in the medical sense.

It is always better to use the word "large" or "larger".

For example: "Which person?"

"The larger gentleman on the left."

Americans loathe to talk about people's weight.

Perhaps because so many of us are on the large side. ;)

These words have very specific meanings in medicine, but can have slightly different meanings in casual conversation outside of medicine.

In medicine:In the US, obese and overweight are terms used to describe people who weigh more than they should, according to current medical knowledge.

The exact weights can change as new medical research is done, but an obese person is a very overweight person.

Medically, fat is the type of tissue that makes a person overweight or obese.

In casual conversation:Usually obese means very overweight, but not always.

Both terms are used to describe someone who weighs to much when the speaker isn't trying to be insulting.

Casually speaking, fat can either mean the tissue causing you to be overweight ("I've got a ton of fat on my belly!"), or it can be a mildly insulting description of someone who weighs too much.

None of these are overt comparisons made of two or people.

They are simply modifiers.

He's fat.

He's overweight.

mean pretty much the same.

The second might imply that he needs to lose weight.

He's obese.

can refer to the scientific definition of obesity, or just be a remark similar to

He's really fat.

He's really overweight.

Yes, they differ in formality.

"Fat" is an informal term.

You wouldn't use it in, for example, a technical paper.

"Obese" is more formal.

"Overweight" is more polite, or at least, less impolite.

Calling someone "fat" would almost always be taken as an insult.

Saying he is "overweight" could be taken as a more neutral statement, perhaps expressing concern for the person's health, etc.

They also differ in degree.

"Overweight" could be used to describe someone who is only slightly over his ideal weight.

Like I weigh about 20 pounds more than my ideal weight.

I think most people would say that I was "overweight", but not "fat" or "obese".

"Fat" is a more middling term.

"Obese" is usually used only for people who are seriously overweight, like 100 pounds or more.

Note I'm not saying that there are concrete definitions, like up to 26.28 pounds is overweight and above

that is fat, the boundaries are vague.

"Fat" is a simple word that every child learns.

It is surprisingly mean when used to describe a person.

Definitely avoid calling someone fat unless you intend to hurt them, and generally avoid calling someone else fat without thinking about it.

"Overweight" is the closest word to neutral.

I think it has a medical meaning regarding BMI being outside of the "healthy" range.

"Obese" has a medical meaning, and when used colloquially, people generally respect the medical meaning.

It means a BMI that is above 30.

It would mean "grossly fat."

I agree with other answerers that "fat" and "overweight" are less formal and less clearly defined.

Obese, as pointed out, is a medical term, and there are defined degrees of obesity.

In the US, having a BMI between 30 and 35 is considered "obese" (Class I obesity).

Between 35 and 40 is called "severely obese" (Class II obesity).

Over 40 BMI is considered "morbidly obese" (Class III obesity).

In other countries this scale varies: in China the minimum BMI to qualify as "obese" is 28; in Japan, 25).

Until quite recently, at least in the US, only "morbid" (Class III) obesity was considered dangerous to one's health.

However, just last year, the AMA (American Medical Association) voted (against the recommmendations of their own select study committee) to declare obesity itself a "disease".

This I consider a political move; with that vote, they can now prescribe drugs and treatment to people who are overweight, but OTHERWISE PERFECTLY HEALTHY!

This opens up huge new marketing opportunities.

So a lot of money rides on the exact definitions of "obese", and of "disease", and on who gets to define them.

Question: Could someone please tell me about the nuances of the adjectives:    Fat   Obese   Overweight     The only difference which comes to my mind is their formality degree, where 'fat' is the most informal and 'overweight' is the most formal and at the mid position stays 'obese'; do you confirm me?

Slight nuance between 'fat', 'obese' and 'overweight'

Obese  and  overweight  are both medical terms. Overweight could be used to describe someone who is only slightly over his ideal weight or BMI. Obese means to be  much higher than the recommended weight or BMI. Casually speaking, fat can either mean the fatty tissue itself or it can be an insulting term for someone who weighs too much.

An obese person is a very overweight person according to BMI. Fat is a casual and insulting term, it can also refer to tissue.


It's not a problem at all TO do that.

You can imagine this question and answer: What is not a problem at all? -

"To do that".

But you cannot imagine this:

What is not a problem at all?

- "Do that."

(here, "do that" is a command , not an answer to this question) You can remodel your sentence thus: To do that is not a problem at all.

But it would be ungrammatical without to : Do that is not a problem at all.

(NOT OKAY)

Why?

Because "to do that" is what is called an " infinitive phrase ".

An infinitive phrase can be used as a noun phrase when it has the particle to .

That is, with the particle "to", we can put an equality sign between the phrase "to do that" and the noun "problem": "a rectangle" =

"a square" (both words are nouns) "to do that" =

"a problem" (both serve as nouns) [To do that] is not [a problem]

(we put "is" instead of "=" and added "not")

[It] is not [a problem][to do that].

(we added the pronoun "it".

A pro noun , speaking simply, is a word that is used as a stand-in for a noun .

In our case, such "noun" is [to do that])

Normally you could say: Could you go to the store for me?

(reply)

It's not a problem at all to do that.

It means there is no problem for "you" to go to the store.

The second phrase is not OK as is, but you could say: Do you mind if I answer the phone?

(reply)

It's not a problem at all, do that.

spoken with a pause between all and do .

This mean that you don't have any problem, but here you are telling someone (the person asking the question) to do something.

You probably mean the first one.

They both could be correct (particularly if you add a bit of punctuation to the second one), but they mean different things.

It's not a problem at all to do that

This means that doing "that" is not a problem.

Depending on context it might be a bit stilted, another way to phrase it might be

Doing that isn't a problem at all." or

"That's not a problem at all."

But It's not a problem at all

do that ideally with the comma or semicolon:

It's not a problem at all, do that

It's not a problem at all; do that It means that's not a problem, go ahead and do it.

It's a compound sentence saying two things: "It's not a problem" and then the imperative (command)

"Do that.

In more formal writing you wouldn't combine it, but informally it's not uncommon.

It's not a problem at all to do that

vs it's not a problem at all do that.

I think the second sentence with the bare infinitive is grammatically incorrect.

As for the second sentence with "to infinitive", it will be more idiomatic if use -ing form after problem (problem + -ing form) in this context.

We can use to-infinitive when the noun "problem" means a question or matter involving difficulty for example.

we were given five problems to solve, we have many problems to deal with.

On the other hand, when you face difficulty (in) doing something, you usually use the -ing form after problem (problem + -ing form), for example, I am having a problem finishing my work, the only problem is finding a job, etc.

So it's more idiomatic if we say "It's no problem/not a problem at all doing that".

The use of the bare infinitive is limited to special cases:1 Auxiliary verbs as will/

would + bare infinitive (future and conditional)2 Modal verbs +

bare infinitive as "I can do it".3 A very limited number of other cases where a bare infinitive can be used.

But after nouns you can't use a bare infinitive.

The normal thing is a to-infinitive or sometimes of + gerund.

Question: Which of these is correct?     It's not a problem at all  TO do  that   vs.    It's not a problem at all  do  that (without TO before do)

"It's not a problem at all TO do that" vs. "It's not a problem at all do that" (without TO before do)

The sentence with the bare infinitive, wirthout "to" is grammatically incorrect, so you would say "It's not a problem at all TO do that".   However, it is more idiomatic to say "It's no problem/not a problem at all doing that".

The second sentence is grammatically incorrect. You sould say it's not a problem at all to do that/it's no problem.


Preface ADDED 14

Jan/Jan 14, 00:11

GMT/UTC:

This answer, as the OP Lucian Sava is well aware, has been written from an AmE perspective.

Actually, it is written from the perspective of the variety of AmE that I speak.

I think Lucian gets by now that English usage is not universal, as I had already indicted in my anwer.

Let the conversation continue, by all means!

Serpentine is fine, but in English I am pretty sure we would use it as an adjective describing the road.

Such a road is also called, in familiar terms, a curvy mountain road.

More technically, it is any road that contains many switchbacks or hairpin curves Switchback can refer to entirety of such a road.

But this may not reflect universal usage.

I think serpentine (adjective) would be the more universally recognized word.

You can do an image search for both "switchback road" and "serpentine road" and get many of the same images.

Thus saith the snake:

Suitable words might be: winding or twisting

You could check the Thesaurus for more options.

These are very general adjectives and don't just apply to mountain passes (a pass is a road that crosses a mountain, but it does not have to be winding).

Note that there is a pass over the Pennines called Snake Pass , but that is its name.

You could use Serpentine but that is rather poetic sounding.

The type of turn that loops back on itself is known as a hairpin turn .

In the U.S., we call those mountainous roads "switchback" roads, with the individual turns called "hairpin" turns. https://www.google.com/search?q=switchback+road&espv=2&biw=1147&bih=685&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=qUy0VKO3KtWxogSMpYDIBw&ved=0CB0QsAQ&dpr=0.9

I often refer such paths/roads as .. zig zag roads or paths Searching this on Google Images supports this word.

In my state, we have such place called Saputara .

It's famous for its hairpin curves or zigzag roads.

Most of the tourists experience motion sickness due to this.

I think serpentine road or winding road is as close as you're likely to get.

Personally, I prefer serpentine road .

To my knowledge there isn't a single-word noun form of this phrase that is generally understood.

Another user mentioned switchback , but that strikes me as less likely to be widely understood.

In england we do not speak of serpentine roads and a swichback (n) is not a road and a switchback (adj) road is not a bendy one.

We are notorious for winding roads but these are not necessarily winding to ascend a hill or mountain.

Meandering is more often applied to a river than a road and would not describe a bendy climbing road.

We speak of hairpin BENDS rather than curves or corners.

I do not think there is in British English a particular noun or adjective pertaining particularly to roads made with bends to reduce the gradient on a hill.

This may be due to lack of mountains and hence such roads in england; there may be Welsh or Scottish words for such.

Instead of a 'road' you could instead call it a 'track.'

'Track' refers to it being a dirt, rather than sealed, road.

So 'winding track' rather than 'winding road,' for example. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/track

This would be a road containing many s-bends or hair-pin corners.

The word that you are looking for is " meandering ".

It is called a mountain pass .

You can definitely use words like "serpentine", "sinuous", "winding" and so on to describe such a road but they're just appropriate adjectives.

To give an analogy, answering the question "What is this type of road called?"

with "a serpentine road" is a bit like answering "What is this this type of animal called?"

with "a huge animal" rather than "an elephant".

Question: I’m looking for a word or a phrase for describing this kind of  road  which usually is constructed in the mountain areas, but not only:   image a representative sample from Google images, query = transfagarasan  In my language we call this  serpentine  a word used as a noun (not adjective) to describe its shape.  If I wanted to write an article about this road, a road constructed in the mountains provided with many turns and angles like in the above link, which word would be more appropriate to use?

What is this type of road called in English?

Suitable adjectives would include meandering, serpentine, sinuous, winding, twisting, zig-zag. However, serpentine would be the more universally recognized word.

Meandering, serpentine, zig zag, twisting, winding are all options.


The word "drug" can have connotations of illicitness , whereas medication is always used in licit contexts.

But a drug can refer to licit medicines as well.

New drugs come on the market.

A drug is typically ingested (or injected) whereas medications can also be topical.

Not that we don't say "topical drug" too, but "topical medication" is used more often and has been in use since the 1840s, whereas "topical drug" is a fairly recent usage, arising in the 1950s per Google ngram .

So, they're more or less interchangeable, except in illicit contexts, where drug is used.

The criminal is said to be a "drug dealer", or a "drug runner", and the addict is said to be "hooked on drugs" or "on drugs".

The patient is said to be "on medication".

Medications are substances that are taken with the intention of healing or improving health.

Drugs can refer to any substance that has an effect on the body — positive, negative, intentional, or side-effect.

For example: Cannabis is a drug.

If you are using it to treat pain or cancer, it's a medication.

If you're just smoking it for fun, you're just using it as a drug.

Alcohol is a drug.

You might be able to call it a medication if you are taking it on a doctor's advice, but it would be a bit of a stretch.

Athletes who take performance-enhancing drugs may refer to them as "medications", but I would consider that usage a euphemism.

Whether the word drug has a positive or negative connotation depends on the context.

A "drug store" would generally be a legitimate business; a "drug deal" usually implies illegal activity.

Drug delivery is an active area of scientific research, but sometimes "drug delivery" is used in the other sense .

Medicine is a type of drug.

All medicines are drugs, not all drugs are medicines.

In AE (not sure about BE), "drug" tends to have an illicit connotation, so it is better to use "medicine" for clarity if there is a chance of misunderstanding.

I think a drug is just a raw state of a chemical and a medicine is the use of a particular chemical to prepare something to change the body's state in positive way.

For instance, the use of acetaminophen.

If it is taken "raw" or as it is a chemical regardless of the quantity and without any additives or other ingredients, that can be termed as a drug because taken in that alone can have both positive and negative effects on your body.

In a case where other additives are added to acetaminophen, it becomes a medication because it has been prepared to treat a disease.

All medicine is drugs but all drugs are not medicine.

Because Drug is the active ingredient used to modify physiological system or pathological states for the benefit of the recipient but it may not have a suitable form & dose.

On the other hand, Medicines are finished products, which contain drugs in active ingredient as well as the excipients and It has a suitable form & dose.

Drug is a chemical substance use to treat disease, illness and disorder that has dose and dosage.

While Medicine is a chemical substance use to treat disease, illness and disorder that does not have dose and dosage.

Example herbal medicine.

Question: What's the difference between drug and medication?  Do you agree with Dose of medications=Dose of drugs?

What's the difference between drug and medication?

Medicines are finished products that are taken with the intention of healing or improving health, which contain drugs as active ingredients. Medicines also have a suitable form and dose. A drug is the active ingredient used to modify physiological system or pathological states for the benefit of the recipient, but it may not have a suitable form and dose. Unlike medication, the word "drug"  can  have connotations of  illicitness.

Drugs are any substances that have an effect on the body, whether positive or negative, licit or illicit. Medicines are finished products for health improvement.


The latter is correct.

If the meaning is essentially There should or must never be any additional uses of nuclear bombs on cities or against people, as occurred in Hiroshima (and in Nagasaki) in August, 1945 , it must be No more Hiroshimas.

People who use this expression are likely using Hiroshima to stand for the bombings of both cities.

Hiroshima then, would be conceptualized as a single event, and like the word event, Hiroshima is countable.

No more Hiroshima would usually mean that the city no longer exists.

It might also be used in an abbreviated way to express something like

We are no longer in Hiroshima (having, for example, travelled out of it from inside it; thanks to JdeBP--see comments), or to express something like I/we/somebody will have no more experience of Hiroshima; for example, because we've left it and won't return.

English learners can perhaps more easily understand the grammar if we consider that "Hiroshimas" refers to Hiroshima plus one or more imagined or theorized cities like Hiroshima (cities that might be attacked with a nuclear bomb like Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) and that might suffer the massive loss and agony that followed.

No more events (like that one).

As usual, we make the countable noun (Hiroshima) plural by adding s .

It is not surprising that you may see errors in the form

*(no) more

+ [city name/singular noun] because we would rarely see city names in plural form.

We normally have in mind one Tokyo, one San Francisco, etc.

It is also likely common to find mistakes in that grammar pattern because more often determines something about quantity of mass or of a noun treated grammatically as mass: We would say no more rice much more often than no more rices.

Both will be correct, depending upon the context in which you want to use them.

If you are referring to the CITY in particular, then it will be "No more Hiroshima".

However, if you are referring the incident that occurred there, it will be "No more Hiroshimas".

No More Hiroshima is what almost happened in

No More Hiroshimas is what we say to indicate that we don't want that to happen again.

At best, the former sounds like a clumsy attempt at the latter.

No more SOMETHING!

means: you deny someone access to that something.

you are sick and tired of something and express your feeling of denial.

you express the fact that something is gone (or you are parting ways with it).

No more SOMETHINGS!

means: you are against SOMETHING and express your opinion that such thing shouldn't happen anymore.

IMO. :)

To explain it in terms of terminology: "No more Hiroshima" would treat Hiroshima as an uncountable noun.

There was five square kilometres of Hiroshima before the nuclear attack, but then there's zero square kilometres of Hiroshima after the attack.

"No more Hiroshimas" would treat Hiroshima as a countable noun.

There is one nuclear attack, two nuclear attacks, but hopefully no more nuclear attacks.

It's like saying "I like kangaroo" (which'd be indicate a liking of the uncountable noun of kangaroo meat), versus "I like kangaroos"

(which'd indicate a liking of the countable noun of the animals themselves).

As one slight complicating factor, pluralising a city feels a little weird.

Maybe they chose not to do it, even if they ought to.

I'd say both are valid.

In either case, we aren't literally talking about the city of Hiroshima, rather, what happened at Hiroshima.

We use the noun Hiroshima to mean the destruction of a city with a nuclear weapon.

This is a metonym .

I'm guessing that someone who makes either statement is saying that they don't want to see another city subjected to a nuclear attack.

In that case, you would say, "No more Hiroshimas."

You use the plural because "more" calls for a plural, and you are using the word "Hiroshima" as shorthand for "the nuclear attack that caused massive destruction of the city of Hiroshima".

Suppose instead of this shorthand we used a literal phrase, like "nuclear attack".

Then I think it's clear you would say, "No more nuclear attacks", plural, not "No more nuclear attack", singular, because "more" calls for a plural.

You could recast the sentence to call for a singular, like, "I hope there is not another nuclear attack", or

"I hope there is not another Hiroshima".

Someone might say "no more Hiroshima" if what he was trying to say was that the city no longer existed.

Like, "After the bomb dropped, there was no more Hiroshima.

" But I'm guessing that's not the intent.

There is no direct plural in Japanese, so "Hiroshima" is like "sheep.

" It can refer to one Hiroshima, or it can refer to many Hiroshima.

However, in colloquial usage, we just tack an "s" on for plural in English--otherwise you end up with the very dangerous confusion included in the other questions.

Additionally, since the phrase refers not to the city as such but an event which occurred there (and only one other place), it can be considered to be a new "English" word.

In the end, "No more Hiroshima disasters" would cleanly avoid the problem, though it does lack the enthusiasm of the protest era that the original phrasing intends to load in there.

Question: " No more Hiroshima " or " No more Hiroshimas ".Some say the former and some say the latter.I'm wondering which is grammatically correct.

"No more Hiroshima" or "No more Hiroshimas"

This depends on the context. "No more Hiroshima" would mean that the city would no longer exist. However, if you are referring the incident that occurred there, it would be "No more Hiroshimas".

Both are valid. The former suggests the city no longer exists. The latter suggests no more incidents.


This is synecdoche, and it is curt and slangy, and probably derogatory.

Keep in mind that mildly derogatory slang terms can be used affectionately as well.

A similar example comes to mind: say you're the driver to a ski trip?

You might be referred to as "the wheels.

" It's derogatory in the sense that that's now your purpose, flattering in the sense that your pals trust you with the role, or think you are good with it, etc.

When you use synecdoche like this, you are saying that being a suit or the wheels is the person's only relevant function.

You could use it as a slur,

e.g. "Suits aren't welcome here."

If you meet a friend with a businessperson and say "who's the suit?"that would be mildly offensive also.

"What's with that bar?

Seemslike there's a lot of suits in there.

probably implies that youthink suits are a type of person and probably a type you don't like.

A software developer might say to a colleague helping her on the project

"oh he's just the suit" to mean "he's not important right now, because we're talking about technical stuff."

If you are an engineer you might introduce your partner as "the suit," which is affectionate because it is derogatory and no harm is meant.

But, it is also an expedient way of saying "my partner does all the business stuff," which is ironically very important but also far removed from what "I" worry about.

Collins defines "suit" as: (slang)

a person wearing a suit; specif., a business executive or a bureaucrat ( usually a term of mild derision )

So, yes, it is somewhat offensive.

Suit is slang for an executive - one who has to come to work in a suit.

While it isn't "offensive," it is typically used by someone who does not identify himself as an executive, nor is it overly affectionate.

It is by no means derogatory - the person is admitting he is not "a suit" by it isn't something I'd actually say to the executive myself.

Suit is offensive

The reason it is offensive is because it gives the impression that all they are is the suit they wear.

A "suit" is an executive who, in the speaker's eyes, is nothing more than an empty suit.

The person inside the suit is unimportant.

Someone who uses this term would feel comfortable treating several "suits" interchangeably, because to them, a "suit" is not a person, its merely a machine performing a role in business.

If you've ever watched the TV show, "White Collar," you know that the quirky character Mozzie (played by Willie Garson) refers to the FBI agent Peter Burke (Tim DeKay) as "The Suit" and his co-workers/fellow agents by variations of the phrase: Agent Jones is called "The Junior Suit," Agent Diana Berrigan is called "The Lady Suit," Agent Kimberly Rice, who is seen as hard & aggressive, is called "The Pants-Suit,

" a superior officer is "The Super Suit"...

Agent Burke's wife Elizabeth is called "Mrs. Suit"...

The main character, con man/forger/thief-turned-criminal informant Neal Caffrey (Matt Bomer), who gets his sentence shortened by helping the "suits" catch other criminals, has a lot of fun playing against Peter's uptight, strait-laced, by-the-book officer-of-the-law, and as his partner-in-crime, Mozzie loves tweaking Peter's calm demeanor & pushing his buttons...

Eventually through the 6 seasons, these three form an unlikely comraderie, and soon a genuine friendship as they bring down the bad guys & try to keep Neal out of jail or from being killed...

In one episode, Mozzie, who holds an online degree from some unknown "divinity school" (he also has an online law degree), officiates Peter & Elizabeth's renewal of their wedding vows, ending with, "I now pronounce you 'Suit' and 'Mrs. Suit'"...

In another episode, the three go to an old stone fort to find clues to a case, and Mozzie develops a fever from being poisoned by a female criminal they are chasing...

At one moment as he begins to deteriorate, Mozzie slips and refers to Peter by his first name...

Neal asks, "Did you just call him 'Peter'?"

Mozzie answers, "Who?

The Suit?

" Mozzie is eventually taken to a hospital and his life is saved...

In this show, the term "suit" thus becomes a term of affection, friendship and respect...

Question: You are in your workplace.  Your father is visiting you. He sees one of your coworkers and asks you:    Who is the suit?   Is the word "suit" offensive in this context?  A usage of this :  http://youtu.be/y8rzt-vj2gU?t=3m17s

Is the word "suit" offensive (meaning "corporate-looking person")?

"Suit" is typically used by someone who does not identify himself as an executive. Some may find it offensive and derogatory, while others may not. However, it is not overly affectionate.

It is disputed as to whether the term is offensive or derogatory.


The software either knows, or does not know, if there are unsaved changes.

That is a yes/no question.

So it is either monitoring whether the document is "dirty" (programming jargon for "has unsaved changes") or it is not.

OMITTING THE ARTICLE

Leaving this page will discard unsaved changes.

USING "ANY" INSTEAD OF THE ARTICLE

Leaving this page will discard any unsaved changes.

USING THE DEFINITE ARTICLE Leaving this page will discard the unsaved changes.

To use the definite article the implies that there are in fact unsaved changes to be concerned about, and so there had better be, or the user can lose faith in the software.

So a software developer should use the only if the software is actually monitoring the document for changes (and the document is "dirty").

To use any will never be inaccurate, since it implies that there may be such unsaved changes.

But to use any explicitly reminds the user every time the warning is displayed that the software is not "intelligent" enough to detect if there are such unsaved changes.

So the people in the sales department would advise against any .

Why remind the user of a shortcoming?

When neither the definite article the nor any is used, the warning becomes a general truth (unsaved changes do not get saved if you exit now), which leaves it up to the user to decide if there are such changes to be concerned about.

This is little different than using any ; but it lacks the explicit reminder of the software's shortcoming.

This is the version the sales department would opt for when the software lacked the intelligence to track the document's state.

The sentence is fine as-is, although adding the word "the" would not make it incorrect.

You could also add the word "any"; I think that would sound better than "the": Leaving this page will discard any unsaved changes.

It's hard to say if the software engineers were trying to be deliberately terse, or if they simply liked their shorter version better.

Maybe they strive to write short messages, much like headline writers do, to save space on mobile devices.

A trickier question is, "When is it okay to omit the article, and when must it be left in?"

After all, I wouldn't have asked that tricky question as:

When is it okay to omit article?

In that simple question, I'd say you could use the definite or the indefinitie article, but not the null article.

You can find more about the null article at this question .

Discard the unsaved changes implies that there actually are some changes that have not been saved.

Discard unsaved changes could mean that the message is displayed whether or not there actually are unsaved changes, but if there are they will be discarded.

If the software correctly detects whether or not there are changes before displaying the message, the unsaved changes might reinforce the sense that the software 'understands' the situation, and increase the chance that the user will think before clicking OK - rather than assuming the message is something automatic that is displayed whether or not there are actually any changes they might want to save.

You might even choose to say Leaving this page will discard the unsaved changes to your document -

but there is a delicate tradeoff to be made between ensuring your messages mean what you want, and making them too wordy.

This question might also be suitable for http://ux.stackexchange.com .

Leaving this page will discard unsaved changes.

My guess is that it would not be a crime to omit the ; it would be similar to the practice of article omission used in newspaper headlines and in picture captions.

As a sidenote, I guess there are some usability guidelines in the software industry that address the topic of "exit messages".

Maybe it would be better to rephrase the sentence, like You have unsaved changes.

Do you really want to leave this page?

or in some other way.

I would actually rephrase this message to address the user more directly (which is always a good thing to do, and better for localization): If you leave this page, any unsaved changes will be discarded.

Do you want to continue?

[Yes]

[No] --Ron

"Leaving this page will discard unsaved changes" has the same meaning as "Leaving this page will discard any unsaved changes" in that it doesn't assume there are any unsaved changes, but if there are it will discard them.

In this case you know that the user has unsaved changes

so I would say, "You have unsaved changes.

Leaving this page will discard your changes."

Question: In my software, if user edits some content of a document and clicks close icon without saving the changes he made (i.e. without clicking the save icon first), the text of message that I display to the user is as follows:   Leaving this page will discard unsaved changes.   Should I use ‘the unsaved changes’ instead of simple ‘unsaved changes’? Does this sentence look correct?

Should I use 'the' in 'Leaving this page will discard {the} unsaved changes'?

Discard unsaved changes  does not mean that there actually are any unsaved changes, but  if there are  they will be discarded.  Discard the unsaved changes  implies that there  actually are  some changes that have not been saved.

The' implies that there are unsaved changes. Both versions work.


American English doesn't have a good idiom for this. "

Top up" is used very rarely.

It may sometimes be used to describe filling up a partially-full container of liquid (" I've drunk half of the coffee from my mug; please top it up.

"), though "top off" is more common.

Neither is used to talk about putting money in accounts.

Apparently Virgin Mobile calls their cards

"top-up cards," but TracPhone and Boost Mobile never use the phrase "top-up" anywhere on their sites.

(Instead, they use "Add airtime" or "Refill.")

Apparently Best Buy sometimes uses "top-up" to describe refill cards, but mostly the carriers themselves call them "Refill cards."

(Consider this example from Verizon : the Best Buy website calls it a "top-up card" but the phrase "top-up card" does not appear anywhere on the product.

Instead, it says "Refill card.")

Instead, Americans would probably use add minutes or add more minutes in conversation:

I need to add [more] minutes to my phone.

I'm almost out of minutes.

Note that the British prefer "mobile" to talk about mobile phones , while American speakers prefer to say "cell" to talk about their cell phones .

In America we say to "top off" rather than to "top up".

Also, we generally say "cell phone" rather than "mobile phone", though if you said "mobile phone" people would know what you meant.

There may be a difference in meaning here, though.

To "top off" something is to fill it to capacity.

Often the connotation is that the container is already close to being full.

Like if you had a 10 gallon container that presently contained 9 gallons, "topping if off" would mean adding an additional 1 gallon to bring it back up to its full 10 gallons.

You probably wouldn't say that you were topping it off if it presently contained only 2 gallons.

Then you'd say that you were "filling it up".

As cell phone accounts, in the U.S. anyway, don't normally have any upper limit, you wouldn't normally talk about topping one off.

I think most Americans with prepaid cell phone accounts say "I am adding minutes to my cell phone" or "adding to my account".

I think the most common American English equivalent would be to "buy more minutes".

For example, I can't make the call right now.

I need to buy more minutes for my (cell)phone. Agree that in most areas of the US, "cell" is more commonly used as "mobile", but I think that may be changing.

In technical documentation, "mobile" is typically used, but in conversation "cell" is more common.

People would understand regardless of which term you used.

In English English we would say "I need to top up my mobile" or "I need to top up my 'phone".

Americans use the term "cell-phone" or just "cell" but I'm not sure if they use the term "top-up".

In American English, "topping up" and "topping off" are used to describe filling up containers of liquid, such as tanks of gasoline.

Gasoline retailers specifically recommend against filling gas tanks to 100 percent full, because that can cause excess gasoline to spill out.

Statements like this are common and natural: " Top up the tank and off

we go again. "

If you have a fan blow across the top of a fishtank, " you will have to top up the tank more frequently due to the increased evaporation. "

Thus, I intuitively understood the original poster's example: I need to top up my mobile phone. as meaning: I have a pay-as-you-go cell phone.

I try to keep $50 [or some other amount] of available balance on it.

I am currently below that amount.

The next time I am at Safeway [or another store or on-line site that sells cell phone minutes]

I will buy some more minutes.

That way, I can make a few long calls, without running out of minutes.

If this is what the original poster meant, then "I need to top up my cell phone" is a natural way of saying it in the United States.

In Bangladesh, they may say the equivalent of "I need to 'flexi' my phone" which comes from the word "flexiload" some mobile service providers used in advertising at the beginning of the system.

They may also say "I need to recharge money to my phone" or "I need to fill my mobile balance."

To top up a mobile is just a shortened (modern) version of what used to be said when mobiles first appeared en-mass in the UK, back in the 90's which was: To top up the credit on a mobile Here, as has already been noted, there is an assumed analogy between a mobile's credit [tank] and a petrol tank in a car (or topping up the oil in the engine, coolant in the radiator, etc.).

However, nowadays " the credit on " is dropped as it is generally assumed that you are talking about the credit - although you could say I'm just going to top up the charge on my mobile thus clarifying that you are referring to the electrical charge in the battery... :-)

Question: In the UK people can say   I need to top up my mobile phone  (= pay more money so you can make more calls)   How do we say this sentence casually in the US or other countries?

to top up a mobile phone

Americans would probably say "I need to add (or buy) more minutes to my cell phone". In Bangladesh, they may say the equivalent of "I need to 'flexi' my phone"

In the UK 'top up my mobile' is used. In Bangladesh 'flexi' is used. Americans would say 'top off', 'add/buy minutes' and 'cell'.


AMENDED:

For the military, brass means any officer who outranks the speaker: the people who make decisions which affect the speaker's life (usually with the suggestion that they don't much care how they affect the speaker's life).

(Civilians, however, generally use the term to refer to the upper echelons of command—"the brass in Saigon", for instance, during the Vietnam War.)

The term arises from the fact that in the US and English armies the primary insignia of rank for officers are pins on the collar, colored gold or silver but actually made of brass, while enlisted men wear shoulder patches of cloth and embroidery.

[ http://www.army.mil/symbols/armyranks.html] :

It's military slang for very high ranking officers.

Even though these generals and commanders make all the most important decisions that affect the troops on the ground, the infantry soldiers will never meet them face-to-face.

This means that it can feel like a big unseen force is controlling what they can and can't do, so whenever a decision reaches them they have to follow, they say it came 'from the brass'.

Even though a lieutenant is a commissioned officer, he wouldn't be referred to as 'the brass', as he's on or near the frontlines giving orders in person; if the soldiers object to an order they can talk to him.

But if he receives an order from his boss, who received the order from his boss, there's no room for argument.

There's no specific rank it refers to, since it doesn't matter who it came from.

The order has traveled down the chain of command until your commanding officer doesn't have the authority to let you raise objections.

"The brass" refers to officers, and it's shorthand for the older phrase "the brass hats."

From the OED: brass hat n.

[so called from the gilt insignia on an officer's cap] colloq.

(orig.

Mil.

slang)

a high-ranking officer in the armed forces, originally in the British army; cf.

tin hat n. 1b.

1887 Belfast News-let.

Mar. 7/4 Three officers..are to be tried by general court-martial for practical joking to a most unwarrantable extent with one of the brass hats of Dublin—we mean a staff officer.

Brass refers to commissioned officers.

Brass is a term used to denote officers, it comes from a time when enlisted personnel had cloth badges of rank, but officers had brass emblem (and had Batmen to polish them).

Top Brass refers to staff Officers (above brigadier), i.e did not directly command troops.

Hope this helps

I'm submitting a distilled version of something I said in comments on another answer.

The "brass" when referring to military officers, only refers to commissioned officers, and never refers to non-commissioned officers in any context.

Because of the absolute, discrete boundary that exists between NCOs and commissioned officers, I would expect a negative reaction out of a high-ranking enlisted person whom is called "brass" by lower enlisted (for the same reason you very often hear NCOs and NCO veterans reply to being called "sir" with "I'm not an officer,

I work[ed] for a living").

"Brass" probably is best described as a placeholder term for commissioned officers above company-grade.

More specifically, commissioned officers above company-grade who are issuing orders to the unit.

Because there is often no direct benefit for the unit following the orders, this is sure to generate a lot of "because the brass says to do it" in response to questions about the orders which are a kind of "spukhaften fernwirkung".

From my many years of experience as an enlisted infantryman, by far the most common place to find this term -- used in reference to officers, instead of the definition of an empty shell casing, which is correct but out of context -- is in this situation.

Lower enlisted soldiers almost always question orders.

It's just a natural human motivation to be curious about directives.

And "brass" is most often used in response to these queries by NCOs or company-grade officers.

Brass can refer to the ammunition shell that is ejected from a weapon after it has been fired.

This was the first thing I thought of when I read the question since I'm uncertain as to whether the phrase is something the questioner came up with or if it was read somewhere.

I was in the military as an enlisted person.

Officers being referred to as Brass is something that I'm familiar with but more strongly related the reference to ammunition and not people.

"Brass to the grass" also refers to the proper loading alignment of U.S. military belt-fed machine guns.

The individual rounds are linked together with dark colored clips that are stripped off as they enter the weapon.

The clips are more visible on one side of the belt than the other.

When loading the ammo can or feed mechanism, the side with the linking clips faces up and the other side where the brass shell casings are more visible face down, i.e. "brass to the grass."

Question: In books by many different authors I encountered phrases like this:   He curses the brass for not caring whether he lives or dies.   From context, it seemed to me that it meant high-rank officers, about the rank of general. But sometimes it seems to mean lower (than general) rank commissioned officers, too. Sometimes civilian government officials overseeing army. So what does it really mean? And does it have anything to do with copper and zinc alloy?

What does "the brass" mean, exactly, in military context?

The "brass" is military slang to refer to high-ranking military officers,  only  refers to commissioned officers, and  never  refers to non-commissioned officers in any context. It is shorthand for an old phrase "the brass hats."  Enlisted personnel had cloth badges of rank, whereas officers had a brass emblem.

Brass refers to commissioned officers. It can also refer to ammunition.

Brass refers to commissioned officers.
Brass can refer to ammunition.


I don't think "very" is the best definition for that idiom.

Collins , American Heritage and Cambridge dictionaries of idioms all define it more like more like "clearly" or "above all else."

This meaning is more easy to distill from the component parts.

[X] is nothing if not [y]"

means that if [y] is not a good description of [X] , then nothing could be.

[Y] is the best possible description.

Phrases like "either… or", "neither… nor", "if… then… else…", "between… and… (inclusive)", and "nothing if not" explicitly use multiple different logic operators.

Some of these logic operators (such as "neither", "nor", and "inclusive") are rarely used in informal speech.

Similarly, informal speech rarely uses so many different logic operators in a single expression.

These are hints that these logic operators are being used to express formal logic, and the meaning can be derived logically.

Here are the assumptions: 1) <

X> exists. 2)

<X> is nothing if not <

Y>.

We seek to prove that: 3) <X> is at the very least <Y>, and 4)

<X> is certainly <Y>.

The argument is fairly straight-forward: 5)

Either <X> has the feature <Y>, or 6)

<X> does not have the feature <Y> 7)

If (6) is true, then <X> "is nothing", per (2).

If <X> "is nothing", then it does not exist. 9)

But we have assumed that <X> exists, per (1),

so neither (8), nor (7), nor (6) can be true.

Therefore (5) is true.

We know that <X> has feature <Y>. 11)

We have proved that <X> is certainly <Y>. 12)

Since the assumptions state nothing else about what <X> is, or is not, we have not proved that <X> is more than <Y>, nor have we proved that <X> is <Z>

13) We can only state with certainty

that <X> is at the very least <Y>. 14)

Q.E.D.

It's an abbreviation of a rhetorical device.

If we say "Canada is nothing if not beautiful" then we are saying "if Canada isn't beautiful, then it isn't anything at all."

But it's understood that Canada does have other properties; for example, it's large and full of maple trees.

So the purpose of setting up the comparison is to say that Canada is beautiful, and its beauty is as notable as, or more notable than, anything else about it.

( source )

Shakespeare used this idiom in Othello (2:1):

"I am nothing if not critical."

[c. 1600]

If I am not critical (which, I am very much), then I am nothing.

In my experience, this idiom is often used to disparage.

There is often an implied criticism.

To say that someone is "nothing if not {X}" can mean that the person is rather too {X}, or {X} at the expense of {Y}, i.e. that the person is lacking in other qualities.

She is nothing if not thorough.

(translation:

She gets lost in the details ).

He is nothing if not persistent.

(translation:

He can be a nuisance ).

He is nothing if not logical.

(translation:

He can be wooden in his approach to things .)

He is nothing if not practical.

(translation:

He is relentlessly pragmatic )

He is nothing if not predictable.

(translation:

He is a creature of habit. )

Question: nothing if not  =  at the very least; certainly   How does  the juxtaposition of  nothing + if + not  produces the above definition on the right? What semantic notions underlie and connect the left-hand and right-hand sides? I ask not about this phrase's definition which I already understand;

How does 'nothing if not' mean 'at the very least; certainly'?

This is a rhetorical device. If we say "Canada is nothing if not beautiful", then we are saying "if Canada isn't beautiful, then it isn't anything at all." However, some claim that there is an implied criticism in this idiom, which can be used to disparage.

This is a rhetorical device explicitly using multiple logic operators. It often contains implied criticism.

This idiom often contains implied criticism.


I'm an American speaker, but I'm not aware of any difference in American and British usage here.

(See these Google ngrams for "glasses" vs. "eyeglasses": American , British .)

Generally, "eyeglasses" is uncommon (according to the above ngram links, and my personal experience) but will be understood perfectly.

I would expect to see "eyeglasses" used when you need to differentiate between an ambiguous use of "glasses" (which can also mean "drinking cups, made of glass"): "

Have you seen my glasses?

Yes, I just filled them up with water."

(This person assumes "glasses" here means "cups") "

No, I mean my eyeglasses !"

In fact, there is an old joke:

My grandmother is 90 years old, and she doesn't need glasses!

She drinks right from the bottle.

The first sentence suggests "glasses" means "eyeglasses" (since eyesight degrades with age) and the second sentence reveals that "glasses" actually means "drinking glasses" (since she drinks from the bottle instead of pouring her drink into a glass).

The word "glasses" has several meanings.

Among them are both eyeglasses and drinking glasses .

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary : 2

a : something made of glass: as : tumbler ; also : glassware 2 c plural :

a device used to correct defects of vision or to protect the eyes that consists typically of a pair of glass or plastic lenses and the frame by which they are held in place — called also eyeglasses , spectacles Usually, the correct meaning is clear from the context.

I can't read these tiny letters.

Let me get my glasses.

We assume the speaker means eyeglasses, because you don't use drinking glasses to read.

Would you like some water?

There are glasses in the kitchen.

We assume the speaker means drinking glasses, because you don't use eyeglasses to drink.

Sometimes the meaning is unclear from the context, and then we may have to ask for details:

I have to go buy new glasses today.

Do you mean for reading or for drinking?

Of course eyeglasses is unambiguous as compared to glasses as other answers say, but I don't think it is that common when ambiguity becomes an issue.

I think the main difference is that eyeglasses is somewhat archaic/formal and glasses is the usual term today.

Words tend to be trimmed over time.

Other examples of this kind are the archaic motorcar versus the modern car or aeroplane/airplane versus plane ; here too, the former ones in the pairs are unambiguous, but they do not need to be used to for disambiguation.

In the UK at least, if you want to avoid ambiguity, you would say " spectacles ", or, more likely in speech but very unlikely in formal writing, the slangy " specs ".

In order of formality awkwardness to a UK speaker, most-uncomfortable-first, I'd put them roughly: Pince-nez Eyeglasses Monocle Spectacles Glasses Specs apsiller's suggestion of viewing n-grams

is valuable here, since it shows the relative frequency of the words between US and UK, but in the UK at least, it feels to me like "specs" is under-represented because it's slang, and they're analyzing books, not speech.

But it could be that it's only a regional slang:

American , British

It is really about context: Put on your glasses.

You would not think about putting on drinking glasses , but eyeglasses , here.

I can't find my glasses.

Usually a person will say the instead of my , when referring to drinking glasses, but this still could depend on what the person was last doing.

Were they searching for something to pour themselves a drink into?

Did they last say they were thirsty?

Were they looking for drinking glasses that are special and specifically owned by them?

If no to those questions, they probably mean eyeglasses , and most of the time, that is what an English-speaker is referring to.

That is why we will probably say more often: Where are the cups? instead, and most of the time the person says glasses , especially if they wear them, they mean eyeglasses .

Question: I heard in some movies "I lost my glasses" (eyeglasses), but if I insert this word into search, this return some jars, bottles.   Is it wrong?  In a conversation I must use "eyeglasses", or "glasses" is enough?There is a difference between American and British English?  "I want to buy glasses."  or  "I want to buy eyeglasses."

Usage of "eyeglasses" and "glasses"

This deepnds on the context.  In the UK, to avoid ambiguity, you could say "spectacles" or "specs". There does not appear to be  any difference in American and British usage in this case.

In the UK, spectacles/specs can avoid ambiguity. Context is everything.


All four are correct for your situation; they just have slightly different meanings.

You can also use very with any of the four choices.

Think about it: all four are adjectives, so if using one is grammatically correct, then the other three will be as well.

I would alter the sentence a little, but the way you've phrased it is not wrong.

I'd put it like this:

Wow, what a * question!

Or like this:

Wow, that's a * question!

Replace * with any of the four words; all are equally correct.

The use of what or that's focus the exclamation a little bit more, making the sentence a little more versatile, but aren't strictly necessary.

How about the differences in meaning?

The standout of the four words you're asking about is long ; the other three are quite close in meaning, but long is distinct from them.

If you say what a long question , you're remarking on the length of the content.

A long question uses a lot of words (or pictures, charts, etc.) to ask.

A question described as big , huge , or large might be long , or it might be weighty, substantial, or of great significance or importance .

A big question might be long but unimportant, long and important, or important but short.

Here's an example of a question which is big but not long : what is the meaning of life?

Big , large and huge are all extremely close in meaning, but have slightly different magnitudes.

Big and large are roughly equal

(I would rate big as slightly bigger, but this is largely a matter of opinion), and huge is significantly larger than either of the other two.

Since you want to describe the length of the content of the question, long is the unambiguous choice, but you can call it big , large or huge if you want.

People will understand that you mean the question has a lot of content, though depending on that content they might think you also mean the question is important or substantial in meaning.

I'm going to say that a question with lots of content is most accurately a long question.

A big question can also be a question with lots of content as well, but it can also mean a short question that's important.

For example: The big question is not whether we have enough money to go to the movies tonight, it's whether we have enough money to pay the rent tomorrow.

"Wow, a very long question" is the most understandable of the original poster's four alternatives.

These two options sound even more natural:

Wow, that's a very long question!

Wow, that's a long question!

Both the exclamatory tone of voice, and the use of "Wow", make these choices informal.

The exclamatory tone, or the use of "Wow", makes the "very" redundant.

All of the adjectives ("long", "very long", "large", "big", and "huge") describe the size of the question.

The specific dimension is length, as measured in words, letters, time to read, or time to say.

Thus, "long" and "very long" are the best options.

If the question was about a very important topic, or would take a lot of effort to answer completely, it would be a "big" question.

A question about an unimportant topic would be a "minor" question.

A question that is very easy to answer would be a "trivial" question.

You need to use your choice #1.

It was a very long question.

We would generally not use big question to mean having "lots of content" because big question is a fixed phrase (semi-fixed; fixed expression) that has a special meaning.

When we position big before question, then big is understood to mean big > adjective 2 >of considerable importance or seriousness.

We sometimes use huge in front of question to mean very big -- big in this sense of important.

We won't normally use large because large does not (at least not commonly) share this meaning.

A look through results of a web search for "big question" quickly shows its meaning, and the results of a search for "large question" quickly demonstrates that it's used rarely if at all.

Wow, what a great question!

Of the four choices, long us by far the best.

However, depending on circumstances, more appropriate adjectives might be complicated or complex .

Since long merely describes the number of words or the time taken to convey the question, it could also mean that the person was being needlessly verbose.

(For example, some people like to include a lot of unnecessary background information before getting to the point, thus making a long question out of a simple one.)

Interestingly, the other adjectives have quite a different meaning.

A big , large , or huge question indicates uncertainty.

A: "Shall we start interviewing candidates for the project manager role?"

B:

"No, we should wait until we find out whether funding for the position is approved — and that's a huge question.

That means that B thinks that there is a significant probability that funding will be denied.

In addition, big question can also mean that it is important as well as uncertain: The big question on investors' minds this morning is, will the Federal Reserve raise interest rates?

Question: Someone asked a question with lots of content, and I said  wow a very long question  after hearing his question. Was that OK? Later I was wondering which one I should use:   wow a very long question  wow a large question  wow a big question  wow a huge question     Which one is correct?

Should I say a question is "very long" or "large" or "big" or "huge"?

All of the adjectives ("long", "very long", "large", "big", and "huge") describe the size of the question.  However, if the question was about a very important topic, or would take a lot of effort to answer completely, it would be a "big" question.  A question with lots of content would be a  "long"  question.

A big question can refer to its importance. A long question is more about length. All four can be used and describe size.

All four are correct and describe the size of the question.


That is not a usage I am familiar with!

If I saw it as an editor, I would write notes to the author of, "What do you mean here?"

Was the drama's author a native English speaker?

Was the drama a translation into English from some other language?

Was there some other context going on such that person B was not responding to A's most recent comment?

Or, to answer your question...

No, in American English, at least, "I'm positive" doesn't mean "I agree with you," nor can "

I'm negative" mean

"I disagree with you.

" I could contrive situations where similar constructions could be understood as agreement/disagreement, but I would have to set up idiosyncratic speech patterns for Person B, where B tended to shorthand "

I'm positive you are right" to just "I'm positive."

I am positive means

I'm certain .

It's usually used when there is reason to express certainty in some statement.

So, you could say: — Do you think it will be cold tomorrow?

— I'm positive!

but not — It's cold today.

— I'm positive.

Here are some other questions that might be followed by

I'm positive :

Are you sure it's safe?

Are you capable of delivering the product on time?

Are [sports team name] going to win tonight?

Do you think the weather will be good enough for a picnic on Saturday?

Did John understand the requirements?

Notice that not all of them ask whether the person is sure, but they do all require the respondent to make some kind of judgement, which is why it is possible to respond with "

I'm positive"; it's expressing the degree of certainty in that judgement.

Did you buy bananas?

This is slightly different.

Normally, the answer to this, if you bought bananas, would simply be "Yes".

However, there is a context in which you might say "I'm positive" - basically if there's some reason to not be certain of the result.

For example, person A goes to the fruit bowl (where there are no bananas, despite asking person B to buy some) and says, "Did you buy bananas?"

Then person B looks in the fruit bowl, looks in the shopping bag, glances all around the room and says, "I'm positive I bought them!"

before finally finding them in the cupboard.

N.B.

There is also another meaning of I'm positive that would be apparent in a different context - namely if you have been tested for something.

For example, I was tested for HIV

and I'm positive.

That means that the speaker is HIV-positive .

The answer to the question is 'No'.

The use of 'I am positive' in relation to the statement 'It is cold today' results in a non-sequitur; the response refers to the speaker, and not the weather.

Strictly speaking, the phrase "I'm positive" should allude to something about which the person is positive, since it is an assertion of belief.

("Are you sure you left your keys on the table?"

"Yes, I'm positive!").

Sometimes it is used similarly to 'upbeat' or 'optimistic', to refer to the person:

"I've been unemployed for two years", said Bill, the electrician, "but I'm fairly positive!"

I have come across this usage of 'positive' too many times in English movies and tv serials.

This usage translates extremely well into my regional language.

But since I have to explain it in English I'll try to be as accurate as possible.

This 'positive ' is used when you are extremely sure about something.

Suppose someone asks you Are you sure you

it was Tim who you saw in the mall last night ?

Now how would you respond to express that you're extremely sure.

You'd say, Positive.

Are you good enough to drive right now ?

Positive.

(Though I have had few drinks, I am confident that I'll still be able to drive)

Let's modify your example A - It's too cold out here, isn't it ?

There are two ways to answer it 1.

Yeah, certainly it is !!

or when you think that it's way too cold out here, then you might respond with just one word i.e. 2.

Positive.

However I have never come across the usage where you say 'I am positive' in the above examples. '

I am positive' doesn't sound good english.

You don't have to say 'I am positive'.

Responding only with 'positive' will do the job.

Note - this is a bit informal usage.

It has a meaning similar to 'very sure.'

Q: "I'm positive" can have meaning

"I agree with you"?

A:

No.

Well, could be (sort of).

Q: and is "I'm negative" that "I disagree with you"?

A:

No.

Well, could be (sort of).

It looks like it's Asian English.

I think this is the best way to translate them (even though dictionaries would define positive as "completely certain ):

I'm positive

= I think 'yes'.

I'm negative =

I think 'no'.

So, replying "Oh, Today is very cold" with "I'm positive" doesn't really mean "I agree with you", but it's more like

"I'm positive (that today is very cold)", or in other words, "I think yes, today is very cold", and that's why I said "I'm positive" could be understood as "I agree with you".

(Because I'm certain about the same thing you're thinking of.)

So, no, it doesn't literally mean "I agree with you", but yes, it could convey roughly the same idea.

The same applies to "I'm negative".

I hope this helps.

Question: In a drama, I heard the following exchange:   person A : Oh, Today is very cold.  person B : I'm positive.   So I thought that  "I'm positive"  means  "I agree with you" , but after googling it seems like that there is no such meaning.  Can  "I'm positive"  have the meaning  "I agree with you" ? What about  "I'm negative"  - can that mean  "I disagree with you" ?

Does "I'm positive" mean "I agree with you"?

Strictly speaking, the phrase "I'm positive" should allude to something about which the person is positive, since it is an assertion of belief. However, this could be understood as "I agree with you" in the sense of  "I'm positive (that today is very cold)", or in other words, "I think yes, today is very cold, and that's why I said "I'm positive".

Positive refers to belief/certainty in this instance.


Yes, it is grammatical.

Interestingly, "your cooking" can mean either "the food you made" or "the fact that you cooked."

So, for instance: "Everything you made for the care package was delicious.

The food brought me great comfort during the stress of exams.

Your cooking made me happy.

" vs.

"I know it was a big deal for you to take the time away from your job to do this dinner.

It means a lot to me that you did all the cooking personally.

Your cooking made me happy."

It does sound a bit weird to my (American) ear, but not for grammatical reasons.

The "-ing" form of a verb can be used as a noun.

This "noun" form is called a "gerund".

I can imagine the example sentence being used in a scenario like this: Older mother: Looking back, what did you enjoy as a child?

Grown up child:

Your cooking made me happy.

If the conversation were between a man and a woman he was courting, or between a husband and wife, I would not expect this sentiment to be expressed the same way.

A statement in the present tense would make more sense, like: Your cooking makes me happy. or The way to a man's heart is through his stomach. or a woman might say Someone needs to write a book On the Care and Feeding of Boyfriends .

I also know families where the father does much of the cooking.

In those families, I can imagine a child someday telling her father, "Your cooking made me happy."

The -ing form of a verb may indeed be deployed as a noun (when this happens we call the -ing form a gerund ), and play the same syntactic roles as any other noun.

In those roles it may still take the same sorts of complement it takes as a verb, and it may take either adjectives or adverbs as modifiers.

Cooking rice is boring.

I hate your cooking.

I love my mother, but her atrocious cooking drove me from home.

I must thank Cedric for heroically cooking such an enormous meal on such short notice.

The sentence Your cooking made me happy is grammatical.

But the problem is the cooking in contemporary (American) English can refer either to (a)

the act of cooking (b) the result of cooking

In the sentence you've made I would think it means (a), or to reword it: That you cooked for me made me happy OR That you always cook[ed] for me made me happy If you want to express the other meaning, then I would say:

I was happy to eat the food you made OR Eating the food you made made me happy

Cooking may be a noun referring to the art of preparing food: "The artful way you prepare food makes me happy."

Cooking may be a gerund.

Then this is a case of possessive with a gerund .

It is like: "I hate his singing in the shower"

– I hate that he sings in the shower.

In your case: "It makes me happy that you cook.

" I guess that both forms could be understood as either "I am happy that you cook and nobody else

but you" or

"I am happy that you stopped playing and started cooking."

Question: Your cooking made me happy.   Is this correct? Can " your cooking " be used as a noun? The more I read it, the weirder it sounded  to me.

Is "Your cooking made me happy" acceptable?

The sentence is grammatically correct,  although slightly weird sounding.

The sentence is grammatically correct, if not a bit strange sounding.


It's called a dieresis.

It's used to show that the "a" and the "i" are not to be pronounced as a single sound.

So it's pronounced something like "na-eve" and not like "knave" or with the "ai" rhyming with the "i" in "knives".

But in 50 years as a native English speaker/writer, I have never written it like that, and have rarely seen it so either.

Another example is "cooperative" where the second "o" in theory has a dieresis.

It's pronounced "coh-op...." and not to rhyme with "loop".

Again, I've never written it with the dieresis, and don't recall seeing it like that either.

The two dots on the letter i are a French diacritic sign.

The two dots in the French spelling naïf / naïve show that ai has not its normal pronunciation but is spoken as two separate vowels /a

-i/.

In English you can write naive or naïve.

The French term for the two dots on e/i/u is tréma .

The Greek term diaeresis means separation and refers to the separate pronunciation of two succeeding vowel letters.

I think it is worth pointing out that perhaps the most common use of this diacritic to indicate diaresis in modern English is in the personal name

Zoë, which is not pronounced to rhyme with "toe" but instead as "zo-ey".

Basically the answer is that naïve is sometimes spelled with the diaresis because it is derived from French which spells it that way.

It is actually very un common for native English speakers to spell it with the diaresis, largely because, as you've noticed, the diaresis is not normally a part of the English language.

The vast majority of English keyboards don't even contain a modifier to add a diaresis (or a tilde, accent, or any other marking, for that matter) to a letter.

However, the auto-correct feature in some computer programs will change naive to naïve, as my browser has done in this post.

In some cases in English, the two dots indicate an umlaut , typically seen on loan-words (predominantly from languages like German and Swedish), to indicate a special pronunciation of the vowel: ångström, Bön, doppelgänger, filmjölk, föhn wind, fräulein, Führer, gemütlichkeit, glögg, Gewürztraminer, Götterdämmerung, Gräfenberg spot, jäger, kümmel, pölsa, smörgåsbord, smörgåstårta, über, Übermensch, surströmming... As others have stated, however, this is not why we find it in words like naïve.

For this class of words, the symbol is not an umlaut but a diaresis (or diæresis ).

For these, it is to mark a vowel as being unassociated with another vowel, either adjacent as in naïf, or elsewhere in the word, as in Brontë.

This class of words includes both loan-words (particularly from Romance languages: naïveté ), and home-grown English terms (reënter).

Boötes, Brontë, caïquejee, Chloë, continuüm (rare), coöperate [-ion, -ive], coöpt, coördinate [-ed, -ing, -ion, -or, -ors], daïs, faïence, Laocoön, naïf, naïve, naïveté, Noël, noöne (rare), oöcyte, oölogy (rare), opïum (rare), öre, preëminent

[-ly]

(rare)

, preëmpt [-ion, -ive] (rare)

, reëlect [-ed, -ing] (rare), reënter [-ed, -ing] (rare),

reëstablish [-ed, -ing] (rare), residuüm, spermatozoön, Zaïre, Zoë, zoölogy Especially now in the days of the keyboard, both forms of this diacritic tend to be omitted for simplicity when writing or printing English.

The only words that appear to have any extra resulting ambiguity from homographs are Öre , Bootës and Coöp .

The New Yorker style guide is the only one in common use in the US which still advocates their use: for most people, both umlauts and diaresis are considered as archaic as digraphic ligatures (æ and œ).

The purpose of it is to show that the word is two syllables, and that the i falls into each.

Think of the two dots as being a sort of divide, so the two syllables are "nai" and "ive" rather than the i only belonging in one of them (na-ive or nai-ve).

Another example is the word "weird".

While most of us would pronounce it as "weerd" this isn't the case in Scotland.

As with naive, the word has evolved - to a greater extent - to exclude the use of two dots (Shakespeare always spells weird with both, so it definitely used to be that way).

This gave the word two syllables, "wei" and "ird".

After the Revolution, America became determined to shorten words to simplify them as much as possible (part of the reason the letter u was removed from words like "colour" and why "z" often replaced "s"), which is why over there "weird" is always said quite short.

In other places, such as England and Australia, the word is often still drawn out very slightly so it almost has a second syllable.

This is a remnant of when it was always pronounced with two syllables - the second syllable is still very prominent with a Scottish accent because of how the r is rolled.

The adjective "naïf" (or naïve which is the feminine writing ) is a French word.

The pb is that French language "marries" some vowels together to produce another sound.

Normally, a+i makes a [e] like in n a vy: the a of navy equals the a+i in French among other ways of writing that sound.

to prevent it, there can be either an H between the a and the i or there will be what is called a "trema", the 2 points above the letter i to indicate that the a and the i are pronounced separately.

I hope this clarification will be helpful.

Kind regards.

Question: I have observed that the word naïve is written with two dots on the i. Why is this?Is it correct to write the word with a single dot, as in naive? Are there any other English words with such two dots?

Why does the i in naïve have two dots?

Naïve is spelled with the diaresis because it is derived from French which spells it that way. The two dots on the letter i are a French diaresis sign. It's used to show that the "a" and the "i" are not to be pronounced as a single sound.

The diaeresis comes from French and indicates that the 'a' and 'I' are not pronounced as one single sound.


Yes, you would still use the word "manhunt".

For example, a review of Thelma & Louise includes this quote:

Ridley Scott’s 1991 road movie Thelma & Louise is often cited as the singular feminist movie of the decade, but in reality it’s so much more than that.

Geena Davis plays Thelma, a housewife stuck in a mundane marriage.

Sarandon plays Louise, a waitress who always finds herself alone while her musician husband is out on the road.

The two decide to take a road trip but soon become fugitive when Louise shoots and kills a man who attempts to rape Thelma.

Soon, they find themselves the targets of a massive federal manhunt.

According to Google NGrams, "manhunt" is about 600 times more common than "womanhunt".

Similarly, "gunman" is about 600 times more common than "gunwoman".

Whereas "armed man" is only about 12 times more common than "armed woman".

Google NGrams does not find "female gunman" at all.

Men are much more likely to commit crimes using guns than women, so it is hard to find descriptions of female gunmen.

Here is an example of an author using a phrase to avoid choosing between "female gunmen" or "gunwomen": Nice Girls With Guns : Kingwood High friends

say the girls were "Sweet.

" Adults say "Well-Mannered."

Cops say "armed robbers."

Man is derived from a term that was gender neutral and this sense persists today in many terms, such as manslaughter, so manhunt is the correct term to use.

If you wish to find a gender neutral alternative to "gunman" and a more specific term such as "armed robber" is not appropriate, the term "shooter" can be used.

This is a widely used term (more common even than gunman) and has become much more frequent in recent years.

The term "Active Shooter" is defined by the U.S.Department of Homeland Security as ""an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a conﬁned and populated area" and would be appropriate in this instance.

My humble opinion, as I am a not-mother-tongue-English-speaker, is "man" is coming from mankind which designates an human being, male or female.

So manhunt will be appropriate regardless the sex of the hunted.

I guess the same applies to "gunman" which is the same regardless if the gun bearer is male or female.

Try polling a dictionary with the term "gunwoman" .

It's perfectly acceptable to use terminology that implies a gender if you attach a male term to something negative or a female term to something positive.

It's only sexist when your words imply that something positive must be male or something negative must be female. :-)

In the 1920s the female equivalent of a "gunman" was a "gun moll".

I have never heard anyone say "womanhunt" or "gunwoman".

If someone was worried about implying that the person with the gun is male when that person's sex is unknown, they'd probably say, "A search for the suspect" rather than "A personhunt for the guncreature".

The word means "human hunt", not "male hunt".

The man- part of the word is meant in the larger generic sense, not the gender-specific sense.

I suppose in certain circumstances it could be used as a humorous double entendre, with the interpretation in your more limited sense furnishing the pun.

For example, a group of ladies out for a night on the town might say they are on a manhunt.

Question: Some time ago, Paris police launched a manhunt for three gunmen.  But, what if there are three women who carry guns, shoot and escape, is it still appropriate to say "manhunt for three gunmen"?  Will it have to be "womanhunt for three gunwomen"?

'Manhunt for three gunmen' vs 'womanhunt for three gunwomen'

Yes, you would still use the word "manhunt".  "Man" refers to mankind, which designates a human being, male or female.  It is meant in the larger generic sense, not the gender-specific sense.  Therefore, manhunt would be appropriate regardless of the sex of the person being hunted.

This refers to mankind and is not gender-specific.


To become a fluent English speaker, you must study and master reading, listening, and speaking.

Some methods :- 1.Don't study grammar too much-

Studying grammar will slow you down and confuse you.

You will think about the rules when creating sentences instead of naturally saying a sentence like a native.

2.Learn and study phrases and collocation-

These are essential part of spoken English.

If you know thousand words, you might not be able to say one correct sentence.

But if you know one phrase, you can make hundreds of correct sentences and similarly a collocation shows your level and knowledge of the language.

speaking-

In order to speak English fluently, you need to practice speaking.

Practice speaking until your mouth and brain can do it without any effort.

By doing so, you will be able to speak English fluently.

NOTE-->When you want to create an English sentence, do not translate the words from your Mother tongue.

The order of words is probably completely different and you will be both slow and incorrect by doing this.

Instead, learn phrases and sentences so you don't have to think about the words you are saying.

It should be automatic.

4.Study correct material-

You should read a newspaper daily (English).

You can read novels,classical works and articles on different topics on internet.

You can also read magazines and comics.

5.Watch English news channels-As you are from India and you will be talking to Indians only,the Hollywood movies will not benefit you much as they are American(generally) and this will cause problem due to difference in accent.

So it's better to watch English news channels as they use the same dialect as used in India and it will also help in increasing your knowledge and you will stay updated about current affairs.

You should also watch English Talk shows as they help in quickly developing communication skills,improve non-verbal skills and up-to some extent in grooming body language.

List of some books which will help you in improving:- 1.Cambridge - English Vocabulary in Use(upper-intermediate & advanced) by McCarthy and felicity

O'Dell 2.Word Power Made Easy by Norman Lewis 3.Cambridge International Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs 4.Wings of Fire by Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam 5.I, Robot by Isaac Asimov

I Always try to listen to English movie and TV show which really helps me improve my speaking.

The more you listen, the better you get

Reading that you select for the most enjoyment.

Reading that you can easily understand.

This guidance is supported by research in language acquisition.

Applying the Comprehension Hypothesis: Some ... - Stephen Krashen

The Case for Non-Targeted, Comprehensible Input http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/nontargeted_input.pdf

Ok, the best way to learn spoken English is to practise speaking English either with other learners of spoken English or yourself.

Try to imagine different situations (e.g. you the man of the match

and you are being interviewed by journalists; you have won a film fare award; how you have prepared a particular dish, etc.) and express yourself.

If you do not get the English words refer to a dictionary (from your mother tongue to English).

About books to improve your spoken English : The most important component of spoken English is vocabulary .

Read books to improve your vocabulary.

The books that may be read are short story books written by English writers, Aesop's Fables, English books prescribed in school curriculum, English Grammar book for school students.

Study poetry and read them aloud to improve your sense of rhythm, stress and intonation .

Watch English news channels (of India).

Read English Novels .

You can also read the 'abridged versions' of the novels of Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, Jane Austen, etc.

Try to learn by heart the English proverbs and idioms , and use them often.

The best source is a Dictionary having a list of proverbs as appendix or supplementary material.

You can also learn by heart the sayings and quotations of the famous people.

This will help you learn good sentence construction and you will be able to imitate these sentences in the long run.

English Plays are also very good source of learning how the native speakers use English in different situations and moods.

Composition will help you build up a strong vocabulary.

But the most important thing is to practise it; better if practised in front of a person who can point out your mistakes.

Try to learn: pronunciation .

When you know it, you can hear more exactly.

There are some rules to learn: Word Stress.

What type of word.

I recommend some Study English Series of australianetwork

This series introduce IELTS Preparation .

Videos are easy to hear.

Children's books are meant to be read aloud.

Children's poetry is meant to be recited by English language learners to each other (usually in a "sing-songy" voice).

If you have children, consider reading bed-time stories to them.

Here are a few great books for reading aloud: The Princess Bride .

Alice in Wonderland ; Through the Looking Glass .

The Hobbit .

The Jungle Books .

(Kipling was a colonialist, but he lived in India.

His writing is very vivid.)

Nursery rhymes, including Mother Goose .

Most of Shel Silverstein's children's books.

(But skip The Giving Tree .)

Most of these examples include lots of poetry, and their prose is very poetic.

Question: Should I prefer plays or composition? Is there some benefit of one over the other for learning spoken English?  I live in India and will be talking to only Indians. It is supposed to be a daily conversation about day to day life.  Update --__-----------_------------  I am 32 years old and do have a fluency in written English.

Which kind of books should be read for learning spoken English?

Children's poetry and books can be read aloud by English language learners to each other. The Princess Bride, Alice in Wonderland - Through the Looking Glass, The Hobbit and The Jungle Book are great books for reading aloud. You could read a daily newspaper in English, articles on the Internet, or magazines and comics.

You should read English newspapers, novels, classical works, comics and articles. Children's books and poetry are also good.

Children's books and poetry such as The Hobbit, Alice in Wonderland and The Princess Bride are good.


Both past and present perfect may be employed with recently to name an action in the recent past.

Which you employ should be governed by the context in which that action occurs.

Use a past form if the action is one of a sequence of past actions, a narrative:

I recently wrote my grandmother to tell her about my first year in college.

She answered with a very funny letter about her own freshman year, in 1967-68.

They were working in Canada recently, and collected many old songs about the Newfoundland whalters.

Use a perfect form if you name the action as the source of a present state:

I have recently written my grandmother; I expect her to send me a check, and I will be able to pay you back.

They have been working in Canada recently, and I have no idea when they will be back.

Keep in mind that the present perfect is a present tense, which makes a statement about the situation at the time you speak.

You can use "recently" with past and perfect tenses, as seen in these dictionary examples :

I recently bought a CD player.

Dean recently lost his job in a sports shop and applied to join the fire service.

"Recently" is often used with past participles on web sites.

Examples: "recently watched videos", "recently read stories", "recently viewed items".

There's no problem with using recently and the simple past.

In that case, the reference is to an action that was completed or an event that took place in the recent past.

There's a gray area, however, with recently and the present perfect.

These two sound fine:

I have purchased a CD recently.

(Meaning: In the recent past, on at least one occasion , I bought a CD.)

I purchased that CD recently.

(Meaning: in the recent past, I bought that CD.)

But this sounds "off":

I have purchased that CD recently.

(Meaning: It's not clear what sentence #3 means. )

It is common practice here to try to find contexts where #3 would make sense; perhaps if certain words are emphasized , it could make clear sense.

But there is a discord in the sentence that asks to be resolved.

The question is as much about the slightly different meanings of 'recently' as it is about tenses. '

Recently' can mean (1) a recent point in time or (2) a recent period of time extending until the present.

I bought a CD player recently.

I've been busy at work recently.

I've recently bought a CD player

is also fine; it means you bought it within a recent time period extending to the present.

Note:

The 'up until now' concept with the present perfect includes both actions and states that continued over that time period or actions that happened within an unfinished time period (Have you been abroad this year?

etc.)

Generally speaking, you can use the adverb "recently" in both the past simple and the present perfect, without any difference in meaning.

The use of this adverb in the past is more common in AE while in the present perfect is more common in BE.

However, if you look at these minutely, there is sure some difference.

When you use the present perfect, you look at something as happening in the past but having a result in the present.

In other words, we talk about the past and the present when we use the present perfect while, in the past simple, we look at an event as happening in the past only.

For example: I have purchased that CD recently indicates that I own or have that CD now.

On the other hand, "I purchased that CD recently" doesn't necessarily mean that I own or have it now.

Maybe I sold it or it got stolen.

Question: When do we use  recently  with past tenses?  I came across some sentences in which I couldn't understand the use of  recently.     I recently wrote to my grandmother.  They were working in Canada recently.   From Headway upper intermediate Teacher's Book p.7.  I thought we have to use it with the present perfect.

'recently' with present perfect and past

Generally speaking, you can use the adverb "recently" in both the past simple and the present perfect to describe an action in the recent past, without any difference in meaning.


Yes, they are different.

Get motivated:

increase your desire to take action.

Use willpower: force yourself to take action.

For example: You could be motivated to stop smoking for health reasons

but, you must have the willpower to do so.

Further to Damkerng's comments, literally, "willpower" means the ability to control your mind and body in order to achieve something that you want/desire to do while "motivation" means only the reason, feeling, desire, or willingness to achieve something.

In this way, motivation is part of willpower, but willpower isn't part of motivation.

I would like to mention an interesting saying that is quite relevent here.

"The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak".

The saying is expressive that there is only willingness or feeling to do something, but the ability to do is lacking.

If your spirit is willing (motivation) and you also have energies, skills, it becomes your willpower.

However, I think a psychologist can throw light on these terms in a better way.

A simple way to think of it:

Motivation is positive: it is your wanting to do something.

Will power is negative: it is your wanting to NOT do something else.

Motivation is out of your control; Willpower is the conscious force you apply, to try and choose which motivation you follow.

When motivations conflict, willpower makes the difference.

For instance, I am motivated to go to the gym, because I want to lose weight.

This motivation has strength 5.

But I am also motivated to eat candy, because it tastes good.

This motivation has strength 10.

So I will eat candy.

However, my willpower is strength 6.

So I can apply my willpower to resist the temptation to eat candy, and because 5+6 > 10, I will then go to the gym.

If my willpower is too weak (e.g. 4), then I give in to temptation , eat the candy, and feel bad about not having a strong enough will.

In Western philosophy there is the concept of the Will, the power or faculty of the human psyche that enables a human being to act purposefully .

By our wills we act with a goal or purpose in mind.

Our motivation to act can be purposeful, driven by the will, but it need not be so.

Motivation could be the result of subconscious factors, or of forces or influences acting upon us.

If you have motivation to do something, it means you have a good reason to do something.

You know doing this will help you.

You will probably want to do this.

A person might be motivated to quit smoking when they think about how much healthier they will be if they quit, or how much money they will save if they don't have to buy cigarettes anymore.

However, just thinking about how nice it will be isn't enough to actually stop.

You need something else to make you stop thinking and take action.

Having willpower means you are strong enough (mentally) to force yourself to do something, even if it's hard or you don't want to.

It's hard to stop smoking, but with enough willpower, it is possible.

People with lots of motivation, but no willpower, probably will not be able to quit smoking.

However, people with lots of willpower can make changes even with little motivation.

Motivation can be external.

Willpower is always internal.

Let's say you're thinking of running a marathon.

That's going to take some willpower.

Your motivation may be internal: for example, it's something you always wanted to do.

Or your motivation can be external: for example, people will donate money to your charity.

Motivation is interest; willpower is capacity to pursue interest.

A lot of good answers here.

In addition to these (which all appear correct to me), I'd like to clarify that motivation can strengthen willpower , but nothing happens without willpower .

This is hinted at in a couple of the other answers, but I think it deserves more attention.

For example, there might be many good reasons (going to work, hanging out with your friends, doing chores, etc.

- i.e. significant motivation ) for you to get out of bed in the morning, but if you have no willpower then you will be lazy and sleep in late.

Inversely, if nothing special is happening today (it's a rainy Sunday, your house is clean, your friends are all busy - i.e. zero motivation ) but you still want to get up and start your day early anyway, you'll do it under your own willpower .

Here, I believe, is where your confusion comes from: in the former scenario (insufficient willpower despite ample motivation ) an ignorant observer might say you are simply unmotivated to get up

(i.e. assuming you require more motivation), but it might just be that you're sick or depressed and therefore do not want to get up and face the world.

Similarly, in the latter scenario (sufficient willpower despite zero motivation ), the ignorant observer might marvel at your motivation to get out of bed so early, when really you might just be well-rested and uncomfortable languishing in bed even though there's nothing to do for the day.

To be motivated is to have a reason or want to do something.

For example, if you had to wake up at 4:00 in the morning it would be more motivating to get up if you had fresh coffee.

The coffee would be motivating.

Whereas will power is having the choice to get up at 4:00 and to be willing to get up.

Question: Are the words  willpower  and  motivation  different? And how can I distinguish between them?   I read about them in a book of building habits; it says motivation doesn't help to build a new habit while willpower does.

What is the difference between the words "willpower" and "motivation"?

Motivation is a desire or a reason to do something and can be external.  Willpower is internal, and means you are strong enough (mentally) to force yourself to do something, even if it's hard or you don't want to.

Willpower is internal and relates to mental strength. Motivation is about wanting to do something. It can be external.