Grammatically speaking, @anze-k is correct.

For factual correctness, however, you need 'may' in the second instance

but I'm not so sure you need it in the first.

In your second example (which would need correcting to '...

also endanger s the ...')

, you are saying that robbery definitely endangers victims' lives.

This is not the case; robbery (for instance an unarmed robbery) is not definitely life-endangering.

However, robbery definitely does take possessions - otherwise it's only attempted robbery.

You may want to reconsider using 'may' in that first part.

Also, the unlawful force doesn't need an indefinite article.

Given the above, I'd consider rewriting the sentence to: Robbery not only takes international students' possessions by unlawful force, but it may also endanger the victims' lives.

2nd may

and it are redundant (we already know the subject).

Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by an unlawful force, but also endanger the victims' lives.

You have to independently determine if the "may" is necessary in each part of the sentence.

As you know, "may" implies that an event is not certain , so only you can say (based on the context) if both events are uncertain.

For example: Due to the morning

fog we may not see the sunrise, but we will see the sunset.

Due to the evening fog we will see the sunrise, but we may not see the sunset.

Due to the fog we may not see the sunrise, and we may not see the sunset.

Because of the ambiguity it's not always correct to omit a repeating "may", unless the meaning is obvious: Due to the fog we may not see the sunrise, or the sunset.

In your example, if you want to emphasize that both are possible events, and not certain , there's nothing wrong with repeating "may".

If brevity is your goal, you can, however, omit "it" from the second part, as the subject is the same, and also use "their" instead of "the victims'".

Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by an unlawful force, but may also endanger their lives.

As others have said, "may" is not really necessary in the first part, because it is a statement of fact, not conjecture.

Using "may" only in the second part implies it is less likely than the first part: Robbery takes international students' possessions by an unlawful force, and may also endanger their lives.

Of course, this makes the tone somewhat more ominous.

It all depends on what you wish to say.

I don't see anything that resembles a relative clause in your examples.

Neither

do I see any inversion.

Your first example contains two complete independent clauses, each with an explicit subject and finite verb: Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by unlawful force, but it may also endanger the victims' lives.

Here, "robbery" is the subject of the first "may", and "it" is the subject of the second.

You don't need the second "may",

but without it the "it" has no role to play:

Robbery

may not only take international students' possessions by unlawful force but also endanger the victims' lives.

In this version, the only subject/verb pairing is robbery/may .

This is one clause with one subject and one finite verb.

There are also two bare infinitive verb phrases: "take international students' possessions by an unlawful force" and "endanger the victims' lives".

The two bare infinite phrases act as coordinate arguments of the finite verb, effectively creating two verb constructions: "may take" and "may endanger".

Another option is to have two complete coordinate predicates: Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by unlawful force, but may also endanger the victims' lives.

In this structure we repeat the "may" but we do not provide the second finite verb with its own subject.

Instead, the coordinate pair takes "robbery" as the only subject it needs.

Your choice among these three grammatically sound options is a question of style, emphasis and intent.

There is no rule that says you have to repeat the modal may.

As a general, repeatable proposition therefore: You may like this fact or you may not .

[repetition]

You may like this fact or [may] dislike it.

[no repetition, but repetition is implied ] However: two independent clauses joined by a conjunction may call for separate verbs depending on what you want to say. 1)

"Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by unlawful force, but it may also endanger the victims' lives.

"OK

"Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by unlawful force, but it also endangers the victims' lives.

You can have "Robbery may not only" apply to both "take international students' possessions by an unlawful force" and "also endanger the victims' lives", but you can't drop just the "may" in the middle.

Also, you can't really drop the "not only" in the middle, either.

If you want to separate out the two things it may do, you should move the "not only" to the front.

So either Robbery not only may take international students' possessions by an unlawful force, but it may also endanger the victims' lives. or Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by an unlawful force, but also endanger the victims' lives.

Note that the first has more of a sense of independence of the two possibilities than the second does.

That is, if you want to say that one could happen independently of whether the other happens, the first would be better for emphasizing that, while if you want to emphasize the possibility of them happening together, the second one is better for that.

Question: In this  inversion  sentence, do I have to use "may" in the relative clause again?(Assuming you are not sure, that's why you are including "may" in your sentence)   "Robbery  may  not only take international students' possessions by an unlawful force, but it  may  also endanger the victims' lives.   Or   Robbery  may  not only take international students' possessions by an unlawful force, but it also endanger the victims' lives.   Which should I use?

May not only take.... but also it MAY

In your example, if you want to emphasize that both are  possible  events, and not  certain , there's nothing wrong with repeating "may".  Using "may" only in the second part implies it is less likely than the first part:   Robbery  takes  international students' possessions by an unlawful force, and may also endanger their lives.  "May" implies that an event is not  certain , so use your judgement (based on the context) as to whether both events are uncertain.

To emphasise that both are possible but uncertain events, the 'may' can be repeated in both parts. However, if you remove the 'may', you should  also remove the preposition — "but also endanger…". Since the first part of the sentence is more likely than the second, the second 'may' could be the one to keep — "Robbery not only takes..."

Since the first part of the sentence is more likely than the second, the second 'may' could be the one to keep.


While both tenses are idiomatic and correct, the choice between present perfect and past generally depends on the context.

If you had recently tested the program, you would be more likely to say

I have tested....

If your statement related back to a test that you had carried out in the past (whether last month, last year or whatever)

you are more likely to say

I tested....

With the use of the past tense, one frequently gives the approximate date.

I tested the programme last week/month/year

and it does work.

I wouldn't find either statement obviously wrong, or expect a native speaker not to say one of them, but they seem subtly different.

To me, saying: I've tested the program with this input data and it does work.

emphasises that the program is, right now, in a tested state.

Whereas:

I tested the program with this input data and it does work.

emphasizes a past event - you testing it.

For that reason I'd prefer the first if you wanted to keep the '

and it does work', and simply 'I tested the program with this input data' (or 'I tested the program with this input data and it worked', or

'I tested the program with this input data this morning and it worked')

if you were not sure that it still worked now.

I speak

British English - US English seems to use the present perfect tense less often, so you may get different judgements from Americans.

Both are right but to me, this is more natural:

I have tested the program with this input data and it works.

The perfect aspect is used to indicate the state relative to some other time; in the case of present perfect, that time is now.

So "I have tested" implies that while the testing was done in the past, it remains relevant, allowing one to follow with "it works" in the present tense: the act of testing was completed, and remains completed.

Using the simple past put the action purely in the past, and doesn't imply anything about the current state; the simple past doesn't have the same connotation of it being completed as the present perfect does.

So following it with the present tense is off; it should be "I tested it

and it worked".

This is a computer-programmer's opinion, rather than a linguists answer , but I would only ever use

I tested the program with this input data and it worked .

(Emphasis added for clarity.)

Question: Let's consider the conversation:    This program doesn't work with this input data.  I've tested the program with this input data and it does work.    Is it right to  use the present perfect here? Or does the simple past sound more natural?    I tested the program with this input data and it does work.    I suppose both variants are correct, right? But which one is more natural?

Proper tense in "I've tested the program with this input data and it works"

While both tenses are idiomatic and correct, the choice between  present perfect  and  past  generally depends on the context.  "I've tested the program with this input data and it does work" emphasises that the program is, right now, in a tested state. Using the simple past put the action purely in the past, and doesn't imply anything about the current state; the simple past doesn't have the same connotation of it being completed as the present perfect does.

Both are grammatically correct and idiomatic, but subtly different in meaning. The perfect is used to refer to the tested state of the program, and the fact that the testing is complete. In contrast, the past tense refers to an action in the past, and does not necessarily imply that the program is still in a tested state.

The past tense refers to an action in the past, and does not necessarily imply that the program is still in a tested state.


Tea drinking and drinking tea are both phrases that refer to the custom of consuming a beverage made by immersing the leaves of certain plants in hot water.

The gerund drinking fits equally well before or after tea .

Tea drunk uses the past participle of drink to refer to tea that has been consumed.

For example: Tea drinking (or drinking tea) is widely recognised as bringing health benefits.

and The amount of tea drunk has increased since its health benefits were recognised.

Thus the first of your examples is correct.

The second is not.

It's not grammatical to say that tea drunk is a British custom .

Yes, you can begin a sentence with tea drunk: Tea drunk without sugar is better for you.

meaning that tea consumed without sugar is better for you.

Equally, you might write: Drinking tea without sugar is better for you.

whereas to write Tea drinking without sugar is better for you is NOT idiomatic.

"Tea drunk" is not an idiom, and only makes sense with the meaning "[some] tea [which has been] drunk".

"Tea drinking" is a noun phrase, and its head is the verbal noun (gerund)

"drinking".

I would be inclined to hyphenate it ("tea-drinking").

"Drinking tea" is a full non-finite clause, which still has verbal qualities.

For example, you can modify it with an adverb ("slowly drinking tea"), or elaborate the object ("drinking several cups of very hot tea").

"Tea-drinking" is a noun phrase where most of the verbal qualities have been leached out, so you can't do those things.

There is another use of the phrase "tea drunk", which has its origins in Chinese, as 茶醉 (cha zui, which literally translates to "tea drunk").

It's a state of being, named because it's similar to being drunk on alcohol, with symptoms including dizziness, weakness, and nausea.

In this case, "drunk" is a noun and "tea" is an adjective specifying the type of drunkenness, similar to phrases such as "wine drunk" or "liquor drunk."

Example B would still not be correct with this interpretation, as it's not an activity that can be a custom.

However, one could say something like "If you drink tea too quickly, you could get tea drunk."

Usable patterns: Drinking tea is nice.

Tea drinking is a custom in some countries.

Answering questions is difficult.

Playing tennis is boring.

Tea drinking is subject matter.

Drinking tea is the actual activity.

All those are activities.

In English, we use gerunds as nouns all the time.

Here they are all the subject of the sentences I have provided.

Knowing that might be helpful to you.

In this last case, "knowing that" is the subject made up of a non-action verb that can take a direct object.

Drinking too much is not good for you.

[drinking, as in drinking alcohol]Drinking wine with friends can be amusing.

Another usable pattern, past participle + prepositional phrase, used adjectivally:

The tea

||drunk at the gathering|| was from Japan.

The movie ||viewed at the conference|| was terrible.

The man ||seen on the bus|| was the spy.

Drank and Drunk:

Past Tenses of Drink

You asked which of the following was the preferred way of expressing the custom: A:

Tea drinking is a British custom B:

Tea drunk is a British custom A is correct, because "tea drinking" is a compound word of the form noun plus gerund that forms a single subject for the sentence.

Stereotypes aside, you can think of the sentence as: [The act/practice of] tea drinking is a British custom.

or, alternatively: [The act/practice of] drinking tea is a British custom.

In the sentence B, "drunk" is an arguably-ambiguous form of the past participle of the verb drink .

In casual speech, at least in America, people will often use drunk and drank interchangeably, although "drunk" can also be used as a noun or adjective for being inebriated.

As a result, it is often better (at least in formal speech where you're attempting to avoid negative connotations or ambiguous parsing) to say "drank" instead.

Because tea drinking isn't describing something that occurred only in the past, B should be rejected because the past tense of the subject doesn't align with the tense of the verb is

(the 3rd person singular present indicative of be ).

Grammar rules aside, it also just sounds wrong to an American English speaker like me.

Examples

Some examples of where drank would be an appropriate word choice would be:

I drank a lot of tea this afternoon.

[simple past]

The American guests have drank almost as much tea as their British hosts at the party tonight.

[past participle]

As both terms also form the past tense of drink , in informal speech you might also hear: All the tea in the house was drunk this afternoon.

All the tea in the house got drunk this afternoon.

Despite the ambiguous or ungrammatical word choices, these informal sentences would be understood as the past tense of drink because the subject (the tea) couldn't possibly be (or become) inebriated.

However, to the educated American ear, a sentence like I drunk all the tea. would sound wrong even if drunk were a legitimate past tense of drink .

For that reason, I'd recommend using drank as the past tense, although you may certainly hear drunk used the same way informally.

Dictionary Sources

In American English, drank is both the past tense and the past participle of drink , whereas drunk can only ever be the past participle.

So, as a purely pragmatic issue, drank is much more likely to used correctly.

For reference, see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drank and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drunk .

Other regions and dialects may vary.

Question: Which of these two is preferred?   A : Tea drinking is a British custom  B : Tea drunk is a British custom    P.S. What is it called when we say  tea drinking  instead of  drinking tea ?  Also, can we say the "tea drunk" sentence without beginning with "the"?

"Tea drinking" vs. "tea drunk" in this context

"Tea drinking"  and  "drinking tea"  are both valid phrases and the gerund fits equally well before or after  tea. "Drinking tea" is a full non-finite clause, which still has verbal qualities. "Tea-drinking" is a noun phrase where most of the verbal qualities have been removed. "Tea drunk"  uses the past participle of  drink  to refer to tea that has been consumed.  You can begin a sentence with "tea drunk":   Tea drunk without sugar is better for you.

Drinking tea is a non-finite clause that can be used with modifiers ('drinking hot tea slowly'), while tea drinking is a noun phrase that is less receptive to these changes. 'Tea drunk' would not be idiomatic or grammatical, expect in constructions like 'tea drunk without sugar'.


Your conjecture is invalid.

Follow takes an object and an optional locative complement designating the destination or path of movement.

But it never has a causative sense: the subject does not cause the object to move.

No, the second meaning does not work.

The word follow cannot have that meaning.

For contrast, let's look at a different sentence:

A dog chased the man into the store.

This sentence can have two different interpretations: The man caused the dog to enter the store.

(The man chose to run into the store, and the dog ran in behind him.)

The dog caused the man to enter the store.

(The man was running to get away from the dog, and the path away from the dog led into the store.)

Why can this sentence have more than one interpretation?

Because the word chase has more than one meaning, and the sentence does not make it absolutely clear which meaning should apply.

chase - verb (1) transitive verb 1 : a : to follow rapidly :

PURSUE //

a dog chasing a rabbit ... 4 : to cause to depart or flee : DRIVE // chase the dog out of the garden ... ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chase )

The first interpretation uses definition 1a.

The second interpretation uses definition 4.

For the purposes of our discussion, definition 4 is the more interesting definition.

This definition describes a particular kind of relationship between the subject of the verb ( dog ) and the object of the verb ( man ), where the action of the subject is causing a certain behavior in the object.

(That behavior is "running away".)

In short, definition 4 is the only reason we can say that the dog caused the man to do something.

If the word chase did not have definition 4, then we could not interpret the sentence that way.

Now, if we look at the definitions for the word follow in the dictionary , do we see any definitions similar to chase 's definition 4?

That is, do we see a definition where the action of the subject is causing a certain behavior in the object?

No, we do not.

There is no definition of follow that describes a situation where the dog is causing the man to enter the store.

I don't know what you mean by the second sentence, it makes no sense to me.

The sentence you are asking about means: a man walks into the store and is followed by a dog.

The dog is walking behind the man.

You are correct that your second sentence "sounds very weird".

That is because it makes no sense .

It seems to suggest that the man somehow got into the store (was allowed to enter) by "the following of a dog" ( because he was followed by a dog), which is just plain crazy, unless the shop only allows humans to enter if a dog goes in after them.

Maybe you mean "the man went into the store, followed by a dog".

We can use "follow" a number of ways: e.g. to literally move along behind someone or something, or to happen after something else, or to sympathise with and admire (of a leader).

Follow

There are verbs that describe an action of a subject causing an object to enter into something:

I forced a square peg into a round hole.

The students moved their possessions into the dormitory.

The board of directors forced the company president into retirement.

The general sent two divisions into the valley.

The mermaids lured sailors into the ocean.

The artists fastened the painting into its frame.

He poked his head into the room.

She pushed him into the water.

You have painted yourself into a corner.

The child cajoled her parents into buying candy.

Some of those meanings of "into" are more abstract than others, but in all cases the verb is understood as causing the thing described in the "into" phrase.

But plenty of verbs do not have this construction.

For example, it is not possible for me to stand myself into unconsciousness, even if I cause myself to fall unconscious by standing in a bad posture for a long time.

I cannot know a book into a library, even if I am responsible for purchasing books for the library and knowing the book caused me to buy it.

Perhaps the man went into the store in hopes of getting away from the dog that was following him, and therefore the dog caused the man to enter the store by following him.

But that fact is not a meaning of the sentence, "The dog followed the man into the store."

We do not use the construction followed into to indicate causation.

As others have said, your second interpretation is incorrect.

You may, however, have been thinking of a similar phrasing that would be correct, although still unusual.

The dog-following man entered the store.

This makes sense and would be inline with your second interpretation.

However, it's kind of hard to come up with a situation where I would actually use it.

Maybe in a story about a man who saw a stray dog and decided to follow it to see where it went?

Punctuation is important.

With careful punctuation, it is possible to twist the sentence to match your second meaning: A dog, followed the man - into the store

However, this requires an unnatural form of the language, and is likely to only be used either poetically, or in writing to emphasise that English is not a character's primary language.

Sound like Yoda, you will.

Compare with this famous example, used in teaching English language:

Caesar entered on his head his helmet in his eye a steely glint in his hand his sword saying nothing Now, punctuate it: Caesar entered - on his head, his helmet; in his eye, a steely glint; in his hand, his sword - saying nothing.

Question: A dog followed the man into the store.   Is it only me who thinks the sentence above means both?   A dog was walking behind the man into the store.  The man got into the store by the following of a dog.    I think it's possible the sentence means both, although the second version sounds very weird, but anyways, it can be interpreted the 2nd way.

A dog followed the man into the store

The word  "follow"  cannot have that meaning. Follow  takes an object and an optional locative complement designating the destination or path of movement. However, it is never causative. The sentence means that a man walks into the store and is followed by a dog. The dog is walking behind the man.

The second interpretation is not valid, and the sentence cannot be understood to mean that the dog caused the man to enter the store.


Grammatically you're correct, you're saying that you have done something.

However, your choice of words is unfortunate since suspend and suspension are often used for involuntary suspension too.

Taking Wiktionary as a source: suspend 7.

To debar, or cause to withdraw temporarily, from any privilege, from the execution of an office, from the enjoyment of income, etc. to suspend a student from college; to suspend a member of a club suspension 5.

The temporary barring of a person from a workplace, society, etc.

pending investigation into alleged misconduct.

Your phrasing is close to something like "[the account] has been temporarily suspended" which would not sound at all unusual in a case where the account had been frozen by the system or its administrator.

You could make your intent clearer with something like "I've temporarily stopped using [this account/service]" or "I don't currently/actively use [this account/service]".

"I've (I have)

[done something]" is used when the speaker is saying that he or she has personally done something.

"I've temporarily suspended activity on SOru" means that you, yourself, ceased activity on SOru (it was your action).

If somebody or something else made that happen, you could say "I have been suspended on SOru".

Compare: "

I've burned my house down.

" I have personally started a fire in my house which burned it down.

"My house has been burned down.

" Someone or something has started a fire in my house which burned it down.

There is also a possibility that someone might misread "I've temporarily suspended..." as "I'm temporarily suspended..."

- I suspect that's what that one guy did.

Although the sentence would be ungrammatical as I'm temporarily suspended activity on SOru people's interpretation of what that means might be established before they have finished reading the whole sentence.

Active voice: I've temporarily suspended activity on SOru.

That means you did it yourself.

It has the same meaning as: I've temporarily suspended my own activity on SOru.

Passive voice:

I've been temporarily suspended on SOru.

Someone else did it, but you didn't say who.

It has the same meaning as: I've been temporarily suspended on SOru by someone .

State: I'm temporarily suspended on SOru.

You are in the state of being suspended.

It's not clear who did it.

It has the same meaning as: My activity is temporarily suspended on SOru.

To suspend" some one is more common than "to suspend" some thing , and that might account for the confusion too.

Your original sentence is fine, because you said what you were suspending (activity).

I can read your sentence in two ways without really trying too hard, the phrase.. temporarily suspended activity ..can be read both in a verby sense and a nouny sense.

The meaning slightly changes when you read it as either one or the other.

This isn't something others here have mentioned...

In the verby sense it says what you expect, that you have done something, and that thing you've done is temporarily suspended your active participation.

In the nouny sense, the meaning changes to something akin to "I own some activity that is suspended".

This is, imo, why your reader is so convinced that this is what you meant.

The key problem here is that "activity" is both a thing that exists as data on the website, and can also mean your active participation on that website .

This is what can confuse the matter.

He didn't misread it, he didn't misinterpret, he did fail to realise your intended meaning though.

The truth is your sentence has ambiguity because the word "activity" is ambiguous in its definition.

I suspect people here will use a dictionary to prove me wrong, but the fact is that activity is a word commonly used in software circles and can mean more than one thing at once.

For example; "I went to the history page on the website to look at my activity info."

Your activity is both what you've done, and the data contained on the website, very ambiguous... To answer your actual question, I would either avoid the word activity or give it a better qualification, for example;

"I've temporarily suspended my activity on SOru" better yet;

"I've temporarily suspended my active participation on SOru"

Question: I use "I've temporarily suspended activity on SOru" in my profile description. And I've thought that it means that "I'm not active on site anymore".  But one guy said that I'm wrong, and told me that it means that "someone banned the account".  I've thought that if he is correct there should be passive voice and the sentence will look like "My activity has temporarily been suspended on SOru".  So, what's the correct form?

Does "I've temporarily suspended" mean that I did it?

ell.stackexchange.com/users/89255/Suvitruf - Andrei Apanasik

Grammatically, you are correct, saying that you have done something. "I've temporarily suspended activity on Soru" means that you, yourself, ceased activity on SOru (it was your action). However, there is also a possibility that someone might misread  "I've temporarily suspended..."  as  "I'm temporarily suspended..."

You are correct in your usage and it means that you have suspended activity, but it could sound similar to "I've been suspended" or "I'm temporarily suspended".


I might call these the legs of the board or whatever the object is called.

The stand would be the entire standing apparatus, perhaps, but certainly "the legs" is the best way.

I think the strut is actually the horizontal metal strip between the two sides of the board.

It keeps the two sides from pressing back together.

A strut is a structural piece designed to resist pressure in the direction of its length.

It seems there is some debate if the piece I refer to is 100% technically a strut--I have always heard it referred to that way, and believe that in colloquial usage it would be an appropriate word.

But it seems if you're writing for a technical description, it may not be appropriate.

The picture shows a board in a frame and this is attached to an A-frame structure.

A-frame structures for this usage (holding up a board) have legs.

struts are not relevant here.

Struts are cross-beams, therefore, usually horizontal, used in the construction industry to strengthen vertical loads and also on guitar necks

to so different notes can be played.

On guitars, struts are vertical.

Struts can also be found in certain pieces of furniture where they reinforce some structure.

For examples, some beds have a frame made of wood with cross pieces called struts where a mattress is placed.

The engineering definition of a "strut" is simply a component which has a compressive force acting along its length.

That definition certainly applies to the parts of your frame marked with the arrows.

In contrast, it does NOT apply to the horizontal links between the two boards, which are in tension not compression.

An engineer would call those parts "ties".

However, non-engineers would describe the arrowed parts as "legs," not "struts," just like the "legs" of a chair or a table.

In common non-engineering American English, the main familiar usage for this meaning of strut is as part of the suspension in cars, since they need service/replacement from time to time.

Keep in mind strut , as a noun or verb, can also be used for a particular way of walking, and this meaning is probably more familiar.

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

Question: What does strut mean? Where I can apply the word?  I need to know what you call the things in the picture and what strut means. Are those struts in the picture?

What does strut mean?

A  strut  is a structural piece designed to resist pressure in the direction of its length.   They are used to reinforce and strengthen, and are usually subject to compression. They may also be referred to as legs or cross-beams, depending on the context.

A strut is a component with compressive force acting along its length, so the vertical pieces could be considered struts. However, they would usually be called legs by non-engineers. While struts are often not horizontal, the metal strips in the picture are under tension and would be called 'ties'.


Yes, these are two different words, and using both is not redundant. to be ashamed means to feel embarrassed or guilty, as in: I am ashamed that I took money for my work. to shame means to publicly humiliate someone, i.e. to make them feel embarrassed or guilty, as in: That journalist was shamed by her online readers for taking money.

Shamed is what one does to you.

Ashamed is about how you feel about yourself.

Shamed could be punitive, ashamed shows remorse sometimes repentance.

If a person has no shame, then others might view their behavior or conduct as shameful and thus shame them, but the individual who has no shame is not (yet) ashamed of anything they have done or are doing.

Below is paraphrased from Webster's fourth edition

To shame is to dishonor, or disrespect Shamed is when others treat with dishonor and disrespect due to some action or trait of the one being shamed.

Ashamed is when you are embarrassed by these same traits - or when you fear shame/dishonor/loss of respect even before said actions are publicly known

"Ashamed" is an adjective meaning "feeling shame", that is, to feel that they have done something wrong.

"Shamed" is the past participle of the verb "shame".

"To shame" can either mean to cause someone to be ashamed, or to expose someone to censure, or both.

In the first sense, it is redundant, so it is reasonable to infer that the second meaning is intended: the person should personally feel that they have done something wrong (ashamed), and other people should feel that this person has done something wrong (shamed).

The difference is that "ashamed" describes a person who is shamed or shameful, and "shamed" describes the condition of being the object of someone else's shame.

Ashamed is always an adjective.

He is ashamed.

Shamed can be a past-tense verb.

She was shamed and disgraced.

Question: A sentence:   Any journalist who takes money should be ashamed and shamed.   What is the difference between  ashamed   and  shamed ?  Does the sentence    Any journalist who takes money should be ashamed and shamed.   contain  more info than the sentence    Any journalist who takes money should be ashamed.   or     Any journalist who takes money should shamed.

What is the difference between ashamed and shamed?

Ashamed is an adjective meaning "feeling shame", that is, to feel that they have done something wrong. "To shame" can either mean to cause someone to be ashamed, or to expose someone to censure, or both.

The difference is that 'ashamed' is to feel embarrassed or guilty, but 'shamed' is to try to make someone feel this way. In this way, the sentence is saying that the person should feel bad, and be made to feel bad.


The stomach is a digestive organ and is totally different from the uterus.

Women do not carry babies in their stomachs unless they are cannibals (eating babies).

When women are pregnant, they carry a child in their womb or uterus .

You will, however, regularly hear people say that a woman's belly grows when they are pregnant, or that there is a baby " in their belly ".

And the word " belly " is sometimes used in a manner that is synonymous with " stomach ", while at other times it refers to the external area of the body outside of the stomach.

But " stomach " is generally used to refer specifically to the internal digestive organ, and it would sound a bit strange to say that a woman " has a baby in her stomach " ...

although you'd still be clearly understood by almost any English speaker.

Informally, 'stomach' (and the informal form of the word 'tummy') can refer to the abdomen as a whole - when someone is said to have a 'flat stomach', 'hard stomach' or 'distended stomach' then it takes the wider meaning.

Examples talking about 'stomach' in pregnancy can be found '

Generally, you expect a hard stomach when you’re pregnant. ' or 'Of course your stomach won't go back to pre-pregnancy size right away'

But generally you wouldn't use this meaning with 'in the stomach'

as, while it would be understood, it could be ambiguous:

Cartoon source

Stomach is used specifically to describe a place where food is digested, so it's not very useful for a baby.

I'd use belly as a generic term instead:

She has a baby in her belly

Womb and uterus would also be okay, but these words are more "medical".

It depends on whether you are speaking to an adult (who has a larger, more precise vocabulary) or a young child (whose vocabulary is limited and when accuracy does not matter as much).

Most speakers would use "pregnant", unless the other person doesn't know the word.

"She is pregnant."

The most accurate and shortest way to say it, and the most common expression between adults.

She has a baby in her abdomen."

Uses the proper scientific term, but rarely used.

She has a baby in her belly."

Occasionally said to both adults and children.

She has a baby in her tummy."

Much more likely to be said to or by a child than an adult.

She has a baby in her stomach."

Anatomically wrong, but still very commonly said to or by a child, often because they already know the word "stomach".

Such a child would probably also know "tummy" or "belly", so it's not clear why this expression continues to be used.

If your goal is to speak like a native speaker, then you would say "she is pregnant" or "she is expecting (a baby.)

" You would not say "a baby in her stomach" as that is wrong enough to sound odd because it is the right area but the wrong organ.

You likewise would not have to say "a baby in her uterus" because that is the natural location for a baby and anything else would be so unusual and even outlandish that it just wouldn't come up except in a medical context.

The words belly and tummy are colloquial terms that people use for the area on the front of the body between the hips and chest.

Belly is commonly used by adults and tummy by children or adults speaking to children.

You could say "baby in her belly" but that is kind of crude and not used in formal speech or even polite company.

However, it is perfectly acceptable to say "a baby in her tummy" when speaking to children.

Stomach or gaster is a part of digestive system, not of reproductive system.

If woman had successful fertilization, we would use the term "pregnant".

The "baby in ones belly" would be in use when there are visible signs of pregnancy, let's say after 16 weeks of being pregnant.

Personally, I don't think many people refer to any part of the body when talking about a pregnant person, you could say: 'expecting' 'carrying' or 'carrying a baby' 'pregnant' 'with child' 'up the duff' Although the last one should be reserved for your friends only, remember expectant women can be touchy about everything

Question: If a lady is pregnant, for her can this be said?   She had a baby in her  stomach .   Or is it necessary to use the word  womb  or  uterus ?

Difference between 'stomach' and 'uterus'

Women do not carry babies in their  stomachs, they carry a child in their  womb  or  uterus .  You will, however, regularly hear people say that a woman's  belly  grows when they are pregnant, or that there is a baby " in their belly ". This is much more likely to be said to or by a child than an adult, and most speakers would use "pregnant".

The expression "She had a baby in her stomach" is used more for children and although the terms "womb" and "uterus" are used they are used more in medicine. It is most important to note, however, that the most widely used term is "pregnant".

The expression "She had a baby in her stomach" is used more for children. The terms "womb" and "uterus" are used more in medicine. The most widely used term is "pregnant".


This depends on context.

The distinction has largely been academic for some years, but recent political developments have brought it into the public eye - and the difference between the two terms is different under different academic theories.

Broadly, most are based on the idea that sex is biological or anatomical, while gender is social or psychological.

However, it is still normal for many people to use the terms interchangeably, so if you were ever to ask them as separate questions, you'd need to make sure you explained them.

Also, asking for both, by whatever definition, is asking extremely personal questions.

You'd better have a good reason, and expect some people to be unhappy.

A hospital setting is one of the cases where you may have a need to know both, because you want to address people according to their gender identity and so on, but you also need to know for health/medical reasons what their anatomy is, and if it used to be different.

It just has to be done really carefully, with sensitivity.

The two words are often used interchangeably by many speakers, so the distinction that "gender" is subjective and psychological and "sex" is objective and biological won't always apply.

The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person's biological sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sexual characteristics ) from that person's gender, which can refer to social roles

Sex is what "Parts" and gender is how you feel/what you want to be.

In a hospital setting and other administrative-type settings, the terms can be the same to mean male or female.

Generally speaking, the technical term is M or F, for male or female.

However, there is no reason one cannot say the term gender to refer to the same thing.

But it would not appear on a hospital form.

However, in terms of what is called gender identity , gender refers to male, female and LBGTQ.

[at least in the U.S. and the UK].

Please see the highlighted paragraph below.

definition from Planned Parenthood of gender identity

However, both would not be asked of a person in formal settings.

Usually, on forms, one sees sex and one ticks a box: M or F. "Gender—or the different characteristics that begin to define a person as masculine or feminine—consists of several categories apart from the traditional binary ends of the male/female spectrum.

It’s possible for someone to identify as transgender, for instance—with a gender identity that does not correspond to their biological sex—or cisgender, with a gender identity that does match up with their biological sex.

Others, whose gender identity feels neither masculine nor feminine, may identify as non-binary.

Though the words are sometimes used interchangeably, gender is different than sex; while sex refers to certain genetic traits assigned at birth, gender is understood by many researchers to be influenced by a range of societal, environmental, and genetic factors.

" gender as identity

This question may have several answers based on opinion.

Many such questions are eventually closed, but I think this may bee worth at least a discussion.

Until a few decade ago, the word sex was used to distinguish males from females, and had very little other connotations.

It was used to describe either the trait (being a man or a woman) or the group (all men of all women).

For example, Arthur Conan Doyle uses "the whole of her sex" to describe all women.

Gender , on the other hand, was mostly a term used in grammar of many languages that have a distinction between male and female (and in some cases neutral) for all nouns, not just for people or animals (where it "makes sense").

In these languages every noun has a gender (not sex!).

English has little notion of gender - the words he and she are used primarily according to the biological sex of a person, and the word it is used for almost every noun that does not refer to a person.

So the terms "sex" and "gender" were related but not identical.

More recently the word "sex" got another meaning, that of sexual intercourse (nowadays this is probably the predominant use of this word).

As such it acquired an offensive connotation, and some people feel uncomfortable using it.

The word "gender" caught instead as a "clean language" term for the biological trait.

This made "sex" and "gender" almost synonyms.

Even more recently, with the increased legitimacy and influence of the LGBT movement, there is an increased awareness that there are some people for whom the social or psychological identity does not match the biological and genetic trait of being a male or a female.

Such people are identified (sometimes self-identified) as genderqueer , and their social identity is sometimes expressed by the linguistic gender they assume - for example, a biologically male person may prefer to be addressed as a "lady", "she", "sister", etc.

The awareness to the existence of genderqueers makes it important in some cases to inquire separately for a person's sex (biological trait) and for their gender (sociological identity).

However, this is often a touchy point - many people object to the idea of genderqueer identity and would be angry of having separate questions.

I would assume that in a medical questionnaire this separation makes sense, especially in a society that is sensitive to LGBT rights.

For example, a patient may have an external appearance of a female and be addressed as a woman, while having male organs; the medical team needs to be aware of this situation.

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

Question: What is the difference in asking a person (1) What is your 'Gender'?and (2) What is your 'Sex'?  Can there be any scenario where both these questions can be asked to a person at the same time? I am particularly interested in medical contexts, specifically hospitals.

What is the difference between 'Gender' and 'Sex'?

The two words are often used interchangeably by many speakers, so the distinction that "gender" is subjective and psychological and "sex" is objective and biological won't always apply.  A hospital setting is one of the cases where you may have a need to know both, because you want to address people according to their gender identity and so on, but you also need to know for health/medical reasons what their anatomy is, and if it used to be different. However, in administrative-type settings, the terms  can  be the same to mean male or female.

The terms are generally interchangeable though sex is associated more with biology and gender is associated more with social roles.

The terms are generally interchangeable. Sex is associated more with biology and gender is associated more with social roles.


In America, at least, "gray hair" is a catch-all category that includes white.

It would not be surprising to refer to someone with white hair and beard as having gray hair.

Still, the more precise description of the beard in your picture would be white .

Santa Claus is always depicted with white hair and a white beard, and almost nobody thinks of that image as being in any way gray.

(And remember, the main difference between Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White in Peter Jackson's film series of The Lord of the Rings was the color of his robes .)

It really just depends on how fussy you are.

Hair color, like eye color, can be hard to pin down.

A redhead I dated once asked me to describe her hair color.

I told her it looked orange to me.

She was pleased, and told me I was the first one who didn't just automatically tell her it was red.

(For the record, it really was orange.)

N.B. "Gray" and "grey" are alternate spellings of the word, the latter being chiefly British.

But it doesn't matter which you use, unless you're trying to spell a proper name.

In my experience as a native speaker in Britain, grey hair is the catch-all term for hair faded with age.

If you were describing someone specific, and trying to be precise, you might say "white hair", or "grey, not white".

In that sort of specific case, the one in your picture is white .

This may be my idiosyncratic take on it

but I think grey hair and white hair are different, at least when talking about many hairs.

For individual hairs, I would use the terms interchangeably.

When all the hair on someone's head is grey / white, I would describe them as having white hair.

But as long as they still have an appreciable number of darker hairs, I would say their hair is grey.

It's the obvious thing.

Grey and white are just colours and you use whichever colour is most appropriate: "grey" if it's grey and "white" if it's white or very pale grey.

How pale is "very pale" is a subjective decision and will probably depend on the light, anyway.

If you do image searches for "grey hair" and "white hair", you'll see that most of the images for "white hair" are significantly paler than most of the "grey hair" images.

When my hair started "greying" (in my late 20s or so), I talked about grey hair.

As my original color went away and grey/white hair took it's place, I continued to refer to it as grey.

Now, a few decades later, my hair and beard are both white now, like Santa's, white like the driven snow.

We use grey to describe the colour of people's hair when it changes from its original colour, usually as they get old ( source ).

However, "white hair" can also be said to express the same thing: (of hair, a beard, etc.)

silvery or grey, usually from age ( source ).

My step-father's hair was grey for many, many years.

But now it's white .

That's why I hear and read people using both terms, when appropriate.

There are a lot of very good answers here.

The guy in the picture appears to me to have white rather than gray hair.

Though as @Flydog57 says, the verb that describes the process of hair lightening with age is graying (or greying ).

Also, if you want to be literary, you can use the word “hoary” to describe either the old person or their hair (not recommended for everyday speech, though): https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hoary

Question: In my region is it usual that we say 'white' for hair which is not black or brown anymore as the age passes. But I've recently come to know that the word 'grey' can also be used instead of 'white'. Which word do you native use? The colour that I mean to ask about can be seen in the image.

Grey hair or white hair

In America, at least, "gray hair" is a catch-all category that includes white. However, as a native speaker in Britain,  grey hair  is the catch-all term for hair faded with age. If you were describing someone specific, and trying to be precise, you might say "white hair", or "grey, not white".

Gray hair can be used to mean white hair and the terms can be used interchageably.


One refers to a spike in a measurement, or a sharp rise (often followed by a fall that may not be as sharp, but is clear).

This is because such measurements would be drawn with a moving needle on paper, or otherwise graphed after the fact, and the spike looks like, well, a spike.

Thus, in an adrenaline spike the level of adrenaline in a person's system has risen sharply, and may not be sustained.

We don't generally have ongoing measurement of things like that, but it means that if we did have that sort of ongoing measurement, the graph would show a visible spike.

An adrenaline dump is also a sharp rise in adrenaline, speaking figuratively as the adrenal glands "dumping" a load of adrenaline into your system all at once.

Both of those terms are 'correct', they are just looking at it from a different perspective.

If you're really being a purist about the terminology, a spike shouldn't be sustained, whereas a dump might be.

In practice, they are used reasonably interchangeably, in my experience.

The term comes from the appearance on a graph.

There are four main spikes in the following picture.

spike 6

a : a pointed element in a graph or tracing https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spike

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

Spike in this context means a sharp increase in the magnitude or concentration of something.

Adrenaline spike would indicate an increase in adrenaline production

An adrenaline rush is when one experiences a sudden increase in the hormone adrenaline (also known as epinephrine ).

Apparently adrenaline dump has the same meaning, as I see from looking this up, though I’ve never heard dump used in this context.

I guess spike (or surge ) could be used as a synonym of one of those other words.

However, as an American native speaker, the only one I’d say and that I think is most idiomatic is adrenaline rush .

Also, if you’re asking what this means, it’s a biological process in response to fear and/or excitement.

You might get this feeling while riding on a roller coaster or while skydiving, for example.

In practice, a spike in something really refers to any abrupt increase, even if the decrease afterwards is not abrupt.

The visual image definitely is a time-series plot where you would see a spike-like projection if there was a rapid increase and a rapid decrease afterwards.

But people are more concerned about the consequences of any rapid increase, so the term came to be used more broadly.

If you imagine a graph depicting the rate of change, rather than the level of the quantity, then an abrupt increase followed by a leveling off or a decline will always look like a spike.

But I am not sure people thought it through in that much detail.

Question: What's the meaning of “spike” in the context of “adrenaline spike”? how does it relate to the meaning of “dump” in the context of “adrenaline dump”? and which of the two is the correct version?

What's the meaning of “spike” in the context of “adrenaline spike”?

An  adrenaline dump  is a sharp rise in adrenaline, speaking figuratively as the adrenal glands "dumping" a load of adrenaline into your system all at once.  Adrenaline spike would indicate an increase in adrenaline production.  Both of those terms are 'correct', they are just looking at it from a different perspective.

Spike is a sharp rise in the context of "adrenaline spike" and an adrenaline dump is also a sharp rise in adrenaline.

Spike is a sharp rise in the context of "adrenaline spike". An adrenaline dump is also a sharp rise in adrenaline.


Nope.

Fingers are only on the hand, except for figurative uses such as ladyfingers (a dessert).

If you talk about the fingers on someone's foot, or a person with 20 fingers, unfortunately you'll just generate unsettling mental images.

As smci points out, to refer to the ensemble, people will often say "fingers and toes".

This is a so-called " Siamese twin " phrase: the two words love to be paired and the order can't be reversed.

We do also have a single word that covers both fingers and toes: digits .

It registers as a somewhat technical term, likely something your doctor would write in a report about an injury.

I think most people would understand it in other contexts anyway, though some speakers might not realize that it can apply to toes, probably because of the influence of "finger".

(Also, someone's "digits" is a way of referring to their phone number.)

A third alternative is "appendages", which everyone will understand, but which is usually too broad (see comments below) and simply sounds funny when used of regular human body parts.

Toes are not fingers.

The general term for fingers and toes is digits .

We have twenty digits: ten fingers and ten toes.

In French, the toes are called 'doigts de pied' ('fingers of the foot'), also 'orteils'.

Doigt nom

masculin Chacune des parties libres et mobiles qui terminent la main de l'homme :

Compter sur ses doigts.

Toe Digit Doigt (Larousse)

No, the correct term to use in your case would be digits .

This means both fingers and toes.

Heh.

There is one particular case where you could do it, but it's pretty bizarre.

If a person loses his thumb, this will have major effects on the function of the hand as a whole.

Thumbs are important .

In such cases, the preferred treatment is to transplant the big toe of the appropriate foot to substitute for the missing thumb.

Big toes are not nearly as important to proper functioning of a foot.

With time, the pad of the transplanted toe will shrink, and with use and therapy the toe joint will become more flexible.

The result is not a perfect replacement, but it's much better than the alternative.

In this case, you could talk about having 10 fingers when one of them is (or at least started out as) a toe.

You could even have two, if you're unfortunate.

Other than that, the other answers are spot on:

English makes a clear distinction between fingers and toes.

Can I use fingers when referring to toes?

Would saying that a human has 20 fingers make sense, in English?

No.

I don't believe there is any context in which this would be correct - not even some of the unusual ones suggested by other people.

I agree that 20 digits is correct.

We could say, "The typical human has ten fingers and toes."

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

You could refer to toes as fingers as a metaphor if you were describing someone with uncommon dexterity in their toes.

The crowd was amazed when the escape artist kicked off his shoes andhis newly exposed fingers untied the knot.

If you mean the toes themselves, then describing them as fingers would be wrong, and confusing.

I have only used the word 'fingers' to refer to 'toes' when looking at some pre-Renaissance and Renaissance paintings where barefoot figures looked like they had fingers for toes.

No "fingers and toes" is what we would say in everyday speech or writing (not "digits", which is more technical/precise).

(Yes, to be pedantic, "finger" is here referring to both fingers and thumbs

) "digits" is the more technical/precise term, but you'd almost never hear that spoken, except when discussing anatomy.

Humans have 10 fingers and 10 toes.

It would not be correct to say that we have 20 fingers or 20 toes.

Fingers are only on our hands, and toes are only on our feet.

However, a general word "digits" can be used to say that we have 20 digits altogether.

Question: In my native language, there is no word for  toes . You just use the same word for both toes and fingers. In this context, I would say a human has 20 fingers.   Recently I've heard someone saying a human has 10 fingers (without saying it out loud but assuming that the other 10 are toes and not fingers).  Can I use  fingers  when referring to  toes ? Would saying that a human has 20 fingers make sense, in English?

Can I say "fingers" when referring to toes?

Fingers are only on the hand, except for figurative uses such as ladyfingers (a dessert). However, we do also have a single word that covers both fingers and toes:  digits.  English makes a clear distinction between fingers and toes.

Fingers and toes are not the same thing but digits is a word that can be used t encompass both.

Fingers and toes are not the same thing. Digits is a word that would encompass both.


Consider the sentence in two parts: 1.

Reports are now coming in.

There is trouble at yet another jail.

Or look at it in a conversation:

"We're now getting a lot of reports.

" "Oh, really?

What do they say?

" "There's trouble at yet another jail.

In the sentence, of is used to indicate the reports' subject matter.

Several different words could be used to express the same thing: Reports are now coming in of trouble at yet another jail.

Reports are now coming in about trouble at yet another jail.

Reports are now coming in concerning trouble at yet another jail.

Reports are now coming in in relation to trouble at yet another jail.

Reports are now coming in on the topic of trouble at yet another jail.

Reports are now coming in that say there is trouble at yet another jail.

Syntactically, reports are not the same thing as trouble .

It's like a bowl of ice cream .

The bowl contains ice cream, but the bowl isn't the ice cream.

You can't just remove of (without replacing it with something else) and have the phrase make sense.

The role of "of" is clearer if you move "are now coming in" to the end of the sentence: Reports of trouble at yet another jail are now coming in.

Or, reduce the sentence to: Reports of trouble are coming in.

We have reports of trouble.

"Of" says what the reports are about.

You can't remove it.

Compare "reports of trouble" with "pictures of boats", "sales of houses", etc.

Without "of", "Reports trouble are coming in" doesn't work.

(You could say: "Trouble reports are coming in", although that wouldn't work with the longer description "trouble at yet another jail".)

I cannot parse this without "of", as the noun phrase "trouble at yet another jail" has nothing to give it a grammatical role in the sentence.

With "of", this indicates the particular meaning of the noun report which takes a complement with "of": a message that something has occurred or been witnessed, without necessarily having any more detail.

This is distinct from the meaning of report when followed by "about" or "concerning", which usually implies a degree of detail.

No answers that define what "Reports are now coming in trouble at yet another jail" means: I get the sense that we have some naughty reports that are assaulting more jails or the reports

are not having much success at attacking jails.

(The jails are fighting back?)

This shift is by taking "in trouble" from the "coming in" verb phrase.

Since "at" appears after "in trouble", you get the new "coming at" verb phrase, which basically means fighting or brawling.

The "In trouble" can either mean one has been caught and will be punished or some issue has come up and failure is becoming more likely.

Reports are now coming in of trouble at yet another jail.

The standard order here would be: Reports of trouble at yet another jail are now coming in.

In newspeak, reports of trouble, reports of rioting, reports of [whatever] are common usages.

at yet another

just means: there is

has already been reports of trouble at one jail.

This is the second.

Yet another child almost drowned at the lake.

[there was already one]

This sounds like a reporter speaking live, and that sometimes causes unusual word order.

But it is not wrong for speech.

Question: What is the meaning of "of trouble" in the following sentence:   Reports are now coming in  of trouble  at yet another jail.   Does it mean "Reports(=trouble at yet another jail) are now received" ?  What is the difference between without "of":   Reports are now coming in trouble at yet another jail.    and with "of":   Reports are now coming in  of  trouble at yet another jail.

What is the meaning of "of trouble" in the following sentence?

In the sentence,  of  is used to indicate the reports' subject matter. Without "of", "Reports trouble are coming in" doesn't work. The standard order here would be:  Reports of trouble  at yet another jail are now coming in.   In newspeak, reports of trouble, reports of rioting, reports of [whatever] are common usages.

The sentence doesn’t make any sense without "of" since "of" explains what the reports are about.

The sentence doesn’t make any sense without "of". "Of" explains what the reports are about.


Wiktionary defines the expression plug out as Irish: (Ireland, transitive, colloquial)

To unplug; to remove (an electrical device) from its socket. From The Daily Edge : 13 words you'll never hear outside of Ireland... Another uniquely Irish phrase is 'to plug out' as in ' plug out the telly'.

In America, we use the term "unplug", not "plug out"

Here in South Africa, we say "plug out" too.

I am not sure if this is based on the historical European influence, or that in Afrikaans "uit prop" translates to "plug out" really...

In Afrikaans, the words make sense -

but I can see how it gets a little non-descriptive in English.

It sounds like "rock out" (even though not really great form in my opinion either), so "plug out" tends to convey a slangy feel to me.

Nevertheless, we do use it commonly here.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/92751/Marlon van der Linde

I work in north eastern Ohio, in a community of Amish people, where the first language is Dutch (not European Dutch - this would be Pennsylvania Dutch, or a regional dialect thereof).

Here, I never hear native dutch speakers say "unplug.

" It's always "plug out."

There are relatively few idioms that are unique to this area, but this is one of those that stood out starkly to me, as I'd never heard this term prior to working in this area.

I am from a community in New York speaking English and Yiddish and I can definitely hear myself say "plug out".

I believe this happens because we tend to express things in English the same way we would in express it in Yiddish.

There are many more examples where we do it.

Yiddish is also somewhat derived from German.

I came across this phrasing in a Supermicro server's IPMI Virtual Media interface.

It looks like this: The plug in/out buttons could easily say "connect/disconnect" and have exactly the same meaning.

Company is based in California, USA, but I do not know where their IPMI interface coders are located.

Question: Are these valid in American English as opposed to  "unplug" .   Plug out  the charger from the wall.  I  plugged out  my TV.   I found my radio  plugged out.   I started hanging out with some guys of Jamaican descent who were born in Canada and I noticed that they talked about  "plugging out"  their electronic devices rather than  "unplugging"  them. Recently I've begun to hear the same expression from non-Jamaicans.  Anyone have any idea how widespread this is?

Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?

In America, we use the term "unplug", not "plug out" However, I am from a community in New York speaking English and Yiddish and I can definitely hear myself say "plug out".

The term "plug out" is used in New York and South Africa and in some industry but "unplug" in America is more generic.


The word you're looking for is probably eavesdrop : Secretly listen to a conversation.

‘my father eavesdropped on my phone calls’ (source: Oxford Dictionaries ) @Zikato reminded me of this scene from The Fellowship of the Ring where Sam is caught eavesdropping (around 2:45) on a secret conversation between Gandalf and Frodo.

While I think eavesdrop is probably your best choice, spy would also be an appropriate descriptor for the action of stealthily listening though it does include all kinds of observation, so watching (

and I suppose smelling?)

as well.

Observe (someone) furtively.

(Source: Oxford Dictionary )

You can use to listen in .

It can be used either without an object, or with one.

In that case, you listen in on something.

Definition and examples from the Oxford dictionary : listen in Listen to a private conversation, especially secretly.

Seth listened in as his father chatted philosophy with friends

I hurried him into my room and shut the door behind us; I didn't want any eavesdroppers listening in on our conversation.

At this point, I decided to stop listening in on their private conversation.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/30156/Fabio says Reinstate Monica

This is more of a visual, (perhaps even nasal ), term, but it doesn't rule out listening: snoop intransitive verb : to look or pry especially in a sneaking or meddlesome manner

She locks up her diary to keep her brother from snooping. -- MW

A word that means "listening to someone or a group of people without having him/them know" but not "listening stealthily" is overhear Hear (someone or something) without meaning to or without the knowledge of the speaker.

‘I overheard two doctors discussing my case.’

(source: usage from collins and definition from oxford )

I agree that eavesdrop is a good word for this.

An alternative synonym is earwig Oxford Dictionaries definition British informal Secretly listen to a conversation.

‘he looked behind him to see if anyone was earwigging’

In this case ‘spy’ could do as well, though that indicates more than just listening, it’s more ‘observing stealthily’

Question: I am wondering if there's a verb that means "listening stealthily" or "listening to someone or a group of people without having him/them know".  I am highly confident that there's a verb, but I can't seem to remember what it was.  Just so that we're in the same page, here's an example:   John put his ears over the door to ___ at the private conversation between the king and the queen.

Is there a verb for listening stealthily?

The word you're looking for is probably  eavesdrop :   Secretly listen to a conversation. An alternative synonym is  earwig  Oxford Dictionaries  definition    British informal  Secretly listen to a conversation.

The following can be used for "listening stealthily": "eavesdropping", "listening in", "earwigging", "spying", "overhearing" and "snooping".


I think ' stocker ' is a common term for this in the US, though it may have declined with the rise of more business speak terms.

In the UK I have heard and seen shelf-stacker or sometimes shelf filler to describe this role.

Someone whose job is to put goods on the shelves in a supermarket - Cambridge Dictionary A person whose job is to fill the shelves and displays in a supermarket or other shop with goods for sale - Collins

Dictionary A person whose job is to fill the shelves and displays in a supermarket or other shop with goods for sale - Dictionary.com Similar definitions are also in

The Free Dictionary Some companies or staff (rightly or wrongly) may want to overstate a job title, a job advertised as a merchandiser or product placement specialist (another actual, but different job role) may attract more applicants than advertising for a shelf-stacker ; also an employee needing to ‘enhance’ their cv.

So you are correct that merchandiser is the wrong term.

In my state (MA) in the US, they call it a "stock boy" .

In a lot of companies in the US, this job is called " stock associate ."

The responsibilities can include receiving shipments, stocking items in warehouses or on sales-floors, and assisting customers.

Other possible terms are "store clerk" and "salesclerk."

Stock clerk is a term I have often heard and seen.

It's widely used in job descriptions and job search sites, though Stock Associate has become more popular in recent years.

shelf-stacker would be term used in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

A merchandiser works for the manufacturer or supplier of a product and visits stores to set up the shelves and/or in-store displays.

To add on to the other answers ( stock clerk, stocker, stock associate, store clerk, sales clerk , etc.): In some libraries, this job is literally called a shelver (although "re-shelver" might be more accurate).

The general terms given here are all applicable.

You asked specifically about grocery stores and when I was in the grocery business we called them "grocery clerks.

" We called the group who did this work the "grocery crew" or "grocery" for short.

This was to distinguish them from the produce, bakery, meat and front-end (cashiers and administrative workers) crews.

Grocery crews had responsibility for making sure the non-perishable goods were well stocked and properly rotated (newer products went to the back of the shelf and worked their way forward).

The perishable products were handled by crews that specialized in that particular product which sometimes had a specialized skill; meat cutter for the meat department or baker for the bakery, as examples.

Different geographic areas and different companies had some slight variations in the naming of the position and some of those variations included the more generic title seen in other answers, such as stocker.

I used to do this as a job in Australia, our official title was 'Fill Associate' (as we filled the shelves) and we were more colloquially referred to as 'Fillers' or just 'Fill'

I would say stock boy or stock person.

(There seems to be regional variation in this, I am in the North-east U.S. if that helps.)

I've been called a "Merchandiser" by the large box store where I used to work.

Other people have left reviews for this position

In french we use the word "magasinier", which can be translated to "storekeeper" or "warehouseman".

I think a storekeeper has a interactions with the customer (such as advising) and manages other aspects of the shop such as the cash register.

He actually keeps the shop, so it may not be what you are looking for.

In the other hand, warehouseman induces the idea of a large scale of merchandise, so your choice depends on the context.

I don't know about the UK, but in America we call them Stocker/Sales Associate: person who "stocks shelvesVendor: someone from outside of the store who sells the products and maintains the needs of the product/company.

Question: What's called a person whom his work is to put products on shelves in stores (for example in supermarkets)? For example, if one of the products is missed,  then he adds it again. I was told (by non native English speaker) that "merchandiser" works here,  but some dictionaries (Cambridge, Collins) say that merchandiser is someone who  sells  products. So I doubt it.

What is the term for a person whose job is to place products on shelves in stores?

I think ' stocker ' is a common term for this in the US, though it may have declined with the rise of more business speak terms.  In the UK I have heard and seen  shelf-stacker  or sometimes  shelf filler  to describe this role.  Different geographic areas and different companies had some slight variations in the naming of the position and some of those variations included the more generic title seen in other answers, such as stocker.

The following options are possibilities: "stocker", "shelf-stacker", "shelf-filler", "stock boy", "stock associate", "store clerk", "salesclerk", "stock clerk", "shelver", "re-shelver", "grocery clerks", "filler", "fill associate", "stock person", "magasinier", "storekeeper", "warehouseman" and "sales associate".


This is a special usage of the word "the".

It is listed in the MacMillan Dictionary under definition #2 as follows, "used before a singular noun when making a general statement about people or things of a particular type"

They give two examples:

The average university student is not very interested in politics.

People have come to depend on the car as their only means of transport.

Used in this way, "the + singular noun" means basically the same thing as that same noun pluralized: the cow

= cows the English garden =

English gardens

the computer

= computers

This construction is very common in titles and introductory sentences within paragraphs and chapters because it has a certain air of scholarliness about it that the simple plural form just doesn't convey.

It's a difference between the abstract and the concrete.

Adding "the" before a noun this way changes the meaning, from actual instances of the concept to the concept itself .

Other answers have stated correctly that semantically the two are equivalent but one just "sounds" more formal or more academic.

That's true, but I believe the reason is that "the cow" refers to the concept of cows, whereas "cows" refers more directly to, well, actual cows; and speaking at the conceptual level is common in scholarly writing.

The cow is a common way of referring to a species, as well as just a specific individual cow.

Cows refers to all of them.

It's slightly more formal to write of "the cow" than "cows", and is normally preferred in an essay.

A cow is a useful domestic animal. is semantically equivalent to: Cows are useful domestic animals.

ANDThe cow is a useful domestic animal.

Usually, the use with the is more academic.

In everyday language, we tend to use the plural.

So, in fact, any of them could be used in a title.

You have only recognised three meanings for the grammatical forms.

There are at least six: Introduce into context a cow - used to introduce a single cow into context cows - used to introduce multiple cows into context

Cows were grazing by the side of the road.

A cow wandered off.

Refer to existing context

the cow - a single cow already in context the cows - multiple cows already in context

The cow wandered into town.

The other cows returned to the farm.

Refer to entire species

the cow - the species known as "cow" cows -

all individuals of the species "cow" The cow is a bovine.

Cows are large animals.

Both the original and your sentence are correct to refer to the entire species: The cow is a very useful domestic animal .

Cows are very useful domestic animals .

Question: Article before a  common noun:   The  cow--- a particular cow.  A  cow--- any cow.  Cow s. ---all of them.   But while reading an  essay  on  cow , we usually get to see:   The  cow is a very useful domestic animal.   In my opinion I should be:   Cows  are very useful domestic animals.   And the title should be  Cows  instead of  The cow.  Please help.  Thank you.

"The cow" OR "a cow" OR "cows" in this context

This construction is very common in titles and introductory sentences within paragraphs and chapters because it has a certain air of scholarliness about it that the simple plural form just doesn't convey It's a difference between the abstract and the concrete.  It's slightly more formal to write of "the cow" than "cows", and is normally preferred in an essay, The cow  is a common way of referring to a species, as well as just a specific individual cow.    In fact, any of them could be used in a title.

Any of these terms can be used in a title. However, "The Cow" is a more formal title than "Cows" and is preferred in an academic essay.

Any of these terms can be used in a title. "The Cow" is a more formal title than "Cows" and is preferred in an academic essay.


While you can do things with good manners, it is rare to direct someone to do so in imperatives.

Unless addressing children, it is not required to remind people to be polite— a person with good upbringing has good manners out of habit; an poorly raised person cannot tell the difference, anyway.

This may reflect a difference of cultural perception, but I think more likely that it is simply a poor translation from Japanese.

A search on "smoke with good manners" mostly returns results from Japan.

Considerate would be the more idiomatic adjective to use to remind people to think of others, so a similar campaign in an English-speaking city might be

please be a considerate smoker or please be considerate when smoking , phrasings which are common in such signs.

When speaking generally of politeness, consideration, and other positive social behavior, good manners are something you have , not something you do (as with one's habits or one's nature ).

Someone with good manners may be said to be well-mannered , and someone without good manners is ill-mannered ; it is more usually expressed that someone has good manners, than that they do something with good manners.

In Japan, there are many odd (and sometimes unintentionally hilarious) signs with translations of Japanese phrases into English.

This is a good example, as "please smoke with good manners" is not at all idiomatic.

A more idiomatic version might be:

Please be considerate of others when smoking in the area surrounded by planters.

or Please be courteous when smoking in the area surrounded by planters.

Side note:

One of the funniest "Japlish" signs I ever saw was from a train station, which advised passengers: Please do not run into the train.

Good advice to be sure, but more likely they meant to say Please to not run onto the train.

Please do not run to get on board the train Logically, "into" makes sense, but unfortunately the phrasal verb "run into" something means "collide with", usually "head-on".

I suspect most people know it's not a good idea to run into trains.

(Edit)

For general interest: A direct translation from the Japanese マナーを守って (mana o mamotte) would be:

Please mind your manners

when ...

However this is somewhat too strong for a public sign, as it's the kind of thing parents might say their children, or a teacher to her students.

Now children, be sure to mind your manners when we are at the museum, otherwise they won't allow us to come back.

A more nuanced translation would be "be courteous".

It is not uncommon to see "with good manners".

For example see Google and Google Books .

You can learn good manners, practice good manners, or keep good manners.

A Japanese speaker might offer a better phrased translation, but this doesn’t seem too bad.

One can use good manners in other actions.

A smoker can be mindful of those nearby and carefully dispose of the remains.

That would seem to be good manners.

As others noted, “be considerate” would be how one would word this in English, typically.

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

A native Japanese.

We are so embarrassed that our English literacy is so low despite the mandatory English study span

is 6 years in the shortest.

For example, a guidance of a community bus of one of the wealthiest district of a prefecture says, Abide by Low .

O.K.

How can we abide by Low , man!

Correct it to Law right now!

But towards 2020 Tokyo Olympic, the English guidance or announcements are getting improved gradually, but especially in rural areas, there are still many signs with strange English.

For example, Please notify the train crews if you find unclaimed and suspicious objects or persons

Okay, so if I find someone whose behavior seems to be strange, am I obliged to call the crews?

F::k

my country's English.

Hahahaha, An another odd guidance from one of the wealthiest districts.

(Many native English speakers live here.)

PLEASE STAND AT SEAT AFTER STOPPING.

So do we need to stand up at the seat every time bus stops?

Did the guidance try to mean "Please stand up from your seat after the bus stops"?

Oh..my lovely country always full of harmless and innocent but stupid instruction everywhere lol.

(Found today)Did the guidance try to mean "Please stand up from your seat after the bus stops"?

Oh..my lovely country always full of harmless and innocent but stupid instruction everywhere lol.

(Found today) Hahaha, here is an another shot from a Tokyo metropolitan subway.

As the Tokyo Olmpic gets closer, the "announcement" in English is getting improved in rapid pace.

But the banner of the central Tokyo subway is still behind the schedule?

Even though it looks they are appointing the "professional" English speakers?

Enjoy Tokyo with Good Manners!

Alternatively, keeping "manners" in the title, it could be phrased as: Practice good manners while smoking in the area surrounded by planters.

Although "courteous" is what they're trying for with that translation, it is understandable.

Question: In Tokyo, I saw this sign next to the smoking area.    It says   Please smoke  with good manners  in the area surrounded by planters.   The part "with good manners" sounds a bit weird to me. Is it just me, or is it not idiomatic?  One can have/teach/forget manners   He dressed well and  had  impeccable manners.  They  taught  him his manners.  I'm sorry, I  was forgetting  my manners.   but "with manners" seems a bit off, doesn't it? How would you say it?

Please, smoke with good manners

When speaking generally of politeness, consideration, and other positive social behavior, good manners are something you  have , not something you  do  (as with one's  habits  or one's  nature ). This may reflect a difference of cultural perception, but I think more likely that it is simply a poor translation from Japanese.

This is a poor translation from Japanese and while it is not uncommon to see "with good manners" the use of "courteous" would be more appropriate.


There are 2 ways to express the country of birth.

born as a(n)

[American, Canadian...] rewritten as: [American, Canadian...]-born born in [America, Canada...]

It is similar with the pattern: (adjective)

- ("past participle" of a noun) e.g.: short-sleeved = with a short sleeve fast-paced =

with a fast pace Compare with: (adjective) - (past participle) American-born = born in America

"American-born" means that someone was an American citizen from birth.

It doesn't necessarily mean they were physically "Born in the USA."

"America-born" does mean they were physically born in the USA.

For most countries, that does not necessarily mean they are a citizen of the country where they were born, but the USA is an exception to that general rule, because of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Note: there are a few exceptions to the US "citizenship by birthright" rule, such as children of foreign diplomats working at embassies in the USA who are not born inside the embassy itself (which does not count as "US territory")

but in a hospital which is in US territory.

"American-born" is the common phrase.

Firstly, it's best to think of it as as a set phrase that refers to citizenship, rather than country of birth.

While you might be understood if you say "America-born," the phrase will sound odd to a native speaker, and most people will simply assume that you meant to say "American-born" and attribute it to a fluency error.

Secondly, a searchable term for the second part of compound words like American-born is a hyphenated suffix .

Hyphens have several uses, one of which is to connect modifying words, especially when needed to clarify or separate words that could be parsed incorrectly.

For example, consider the sentence fragments below: American born abroad.

Someone who is currently an American citizen but who was born outside the USA.

They may or may not have been an American citizen at birth.

American-born abroad.

A person (or people, plural; the fragment is ambiguous without context) currently living or traveling outside the United States.

This person was an American citizen at birth.

In practical usage, the hyphen here syntactically allows the grammatical but non-colloquial phrase born as an American to be converted from a verb plus modifying clause into a single compound word.

In either case, American is actually eliding "American citizen."

Therefore, a native speaker would generally understand American-born to mean "born (as) an American citizen."

Because English is a satellite-framing language , phrases that denote motion or manner often require or imply a preposition or prepositional phrase.

If it helps, you can think of American-born as meaning "born into American citizenship."

"America-born" is not a common phrase.

While probably grammatical for certain usages, the phrase "America-born" is simply not one that you are likely to hear or read .

If you wanted to say that a non-US citizen was born in the USA, you would say something like

A <nationality> born in the US.

The nationality would generally be expressed as an adjective like Chinese, Canadian, or Dutch (implying the noun citizen ).

There are some exceptions.

For example, you're more likely to hear "An Irishman/Scotsman born in the US" than something more contorted like "An Irish UK citizen born in the USA."

Nevertheless, such phrases are still generally understood to reflect citizenship rather than cultural or racial identity.

When talking about identity, the phrase is generally <adjective>-American such as Irish-American, African-American, and so forth.

You'd best regard it as an idiom.

There is no logical reason why you shouldn't say "America born"

: it's exactly parallel to "factory made".

We just don't.

Perhaps there is a distinction between country of birth and citizenship at birth?

To be honest, I think it's ambiguous: I would avoid describing myself as British-born or German-born (I was born in Germany with British citizenship) because I don't think it would communicate clearly.

But I would tend to assume in the absence of clarification that "British-born" refers to citizenship, not to geography: I was born British in Germany.

In comparison to another phrase mentioned; another factor to consider: "factory" is not a proper noun, but a common one.

On the other side, "America" is a proper noun.

The country in question is always a proper name as well, and in English, proper names cannot be modified by an article or other determinants.

Nor do they modify other words.

This carries over, in that we also say "American made" or "French made", rather than "America made" or "France made" when referring to the manufacture of items.

We would say "France made a mistake" to refer to the government of France doing something, but not "France-made clothing".

The other difference is that in "France made a mistake" it is a noun + action structure.

By understanding them as proper names it should become clear that the supposed alternative phrases must be ungrammatical.

The word "America" refers to the country itself, while "American" refers to being of or related to the country called "America".

Proper names are simply not adjectives or modifiers - they refer to a specific thing.

The prase "factory made" uses a common noun, which can be used in this way because it isn't a specific reference.

One exception here is that you might say "Dearborne made", but this exception exists because there is no general referential term meaning "from, of, or related to Dearborne";

ie.

China ->

Chinese, France ->

French, Dearborne ->

Question: I tried but failed to wrap my head around the grammar for the term "American-born" (and all other similar expressions - "Canadian-born", "French-born", ...etc).Is it a set phrase or is there some grammar rule why the term has to be American-born, not America-born ?

why "American-born", not "America-born"?

"American-born" means that someone was an American citizen from birth and is the common phrase. While you might be  understood  if you say "America-born," the phrase will sound odd to a native speaker, and most people will simply assume that you  meant  to say "American-born" and attribute it to a fluency error. While probably grammatical for certain usages, the phrase "America-born" is simply  not one that you are likely to hear or read .

American-born is more common and America-born would suggest the person was physically born in the US while American-born means the person was a US citizen from birth.

American-born is more common. America-born would suggest the person was physically born in the US while American-born means the person was a US citizen from birth.


I suggest "having the upper hand".

Oxford defines this as: have (or gain)

the upper hand ( phrase ) Have or gain advantage or control over someone or something. and provides this example sentence: Just when Claudius thinks he controls Hamlet, it is really Hamlet who has the upper hand over Claudius .

"To hold all the aces" means having overwhelming advantage, the metaphor coming from bridge or pretty much any card game.

Re a previous contribution: "an ace up one's sleeve" means more of having a secret weapon rather then being in an advantageous situation.

To "have {someone} over a barrel" is such an idiom.

You might also want to look at idioms for the weaker side's negotiating position.

These often involve two bad choices.

For example, "between a rock and a hard place"

Another possible choice is "in the driver's seat", meaning that the person so described is able to direct the outcome.

Collins says: in the driver's seat ( phrase ) If you say that someone is in the driver's seat, you mean that they are in control in a situation.

Now he knows he's in the driver's seat and can wait for a better deal .

A colorful phrase is in the catbird seat , defined as "in a superior or advantageous position".

A vulgar alternative is mentioned in this question .

If you want to use a rather informal idiom that has had some recent usage, you could use I have the high ground Referring to the military advantage you get from an elevated position, from having the high ground .

This has recently been used in a scene from Star wars Episode III , in which Obi Wan asks Anakin Skywalker to give up, as he has a superior fighting position.

Source: Urban dictionary google ngram viewer suggests, that this has been around for a while, at least in writing (which is hardly surprising, as user rubenvb suggested - thanks for that)

If you are able to determine who is selling product to whom, and who is most capable of setting the price at which goods are traded, then you can refer to it as either a buyer's market or a seller's market .

This refers to who has the upper hand in negotiations.

In a seller's market, this means that you (the seller) are only one of few vendors of a given product, and the customers' demands are high enough that you know you'll always sell your good, and therefore are able to charge whatever you want.

Even if some customers are unwilling to pay your price, there will be enough customers/demand that you will sell your products.

If I charge $1000 per glass of water, and I put my stand in the Sahara desert, then I do so because I know that water is a seller's market in the otherwise dry desert.

Customers will have to buy from me and they have no position to refuse my price if they need the water.

In a buyer's market, there are a lot of vendors of the same product, and there is not much demand for the product.

If a customer does not buy your product, they will go to another vendor, leaving you with unsold products.

This means that the buyer can dictate what they will buy and what they won't buy, and sellers are racing each other in order to steal each other's business.

If a buyer is more inclined to buy from an airconditioned shop, that means that in a buyer's market, the sellers are strongly incentivized to aircondition their shops just to ensure that they can get the customers they need.

Think of it as two market vendors who keep having to lower their prices just to make sure that the customers come to them instead of their competitor.

Leverage

While not necessarily an idiom, “

having/holding leverage ” is a good description of negotiations where one side has more power or advantage than another.

If you are in a stronger position in a negotiation, consider the idiom: have an ace up your sleeve

For example: I'm well prepared for the negotiations.

I've got an ace up my sleeve.

Source:

Learn English Today

negotiation idioms

heheh, Australian chiming in.

We* have an expression:

To have him by the short and curlies .

Collins states: to have someone completely in one's power.

I'll leave it to you to work out what 'short & curlies' are, but as a hint, it refers to hair.

Though it's origin is probably from the UK

Quite simply, to "have the advantage", as in They have the advantage in the negotiations

This is distinct from "have an advantage.

" Having an advantage means you have some sort of asset or quality which will help you.

Having the advantage means you are already in control of the situation.

Question: Is there an idiom that means that you are in a very strong negotiation position in a negotiation? If there's no such idiom can you think of an idiom that means that you are in a stronger position than someone or something else? I am thinking of using the word in an essay on the U.S.-China trade war.

Is there an idiom that means that you are in a very strong negotiation position in a negotiation?

I suggest "having the upper hand".  Having/holding  leverage ” is a good description of negotiations where one side has more power or advantage than another. Alternatively, having  the  advantage means you are already in control of the situation.

“Having the upper hand", "holding all the aces, "having the advantage" "having someone by the short and curlies", "having an ace up your sleeve", "having/holding leverage", "being in the driver’s seat", "having someone over a barrel", "having the high ground" and "being in a superior or advantageous position" are all possibilities.

the upper hand ( phrase ) Have or gain advantage or control over someone or something. and provides this example sentence: Just when Claudius thinks he controls Hamlet, it is really Hamlet who has the upper hand over Claudius .