You could say She tends to belittle people.

That is, to treat them as inferior or insignificant.

I don't know an idiom that would express the sadistic pleasure of inflicting pain in others either physically or mentally, but there's a word borrowed from German.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as: schadenfreude: enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others; a feeling of enjoyment that comes from seeing or hearing about the troubles of other people.

EDIT:

However, Wikipedia describes an equivalent English expression: Roman holiday: metaphor from the poem Childe Harold's Pilgrimage by George Gordon, Lord Byron, where a gladiator in ancient Rome expects to be "butchered to make a Roman holiday" while the audience would take pleasure from watching his suffering.

The term suggests debauchery and disorder in addition to sadistic enjoyment.

You could say that person A often " puts people down ".

See definition 1(c) of "put down [phrasal verb]"

at the Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary entry for the verb put .

I am a native speaker of English, and I am familiar with the word "schadenfreude".

But I feel that, at least in English, "schadenfreude" carries no implication that there is communication between the people of any kind.

If person A heard that person B is in a tough situation and feels joy, that's probably "schadenfreude", but I don't think that's the situation kim123 is trying to describe.

I don't know of a word or phrase that captures everything you are describing.

I think to make himself feel good sounds fine.

So I recommend a few ways to change the first part of your sentence.

I provide this simplified model: Person A

__ Person B to make himself feel good.

Aside from the other good answers, I think bully (mentioned in the comments) and ridicule are also possible.

bully transitive verb 1 : to treat (someone) in a cruel, insulting, threatening, or aggressive fashion : to act like a bully toward • bullied her younger brother) (M-W)

ridicule : to laugh at and make jokes about (someone or something) in a cruel or harsh way : to make fun of (someone or something) (M-W) The context should imply that B would feel bad.

Crudely, you can say crap on (mildly offensive) or shit on (offensive): shit on somebody — phrasal verb with shit uk  /ʃɪt/

us  /ʃɪt/

verb present participle shitting, past tense and past participle shit, shat or shitted offensive to treat someone very badly and unkindly:

He made his money by shitting on other people.

(Cambridge Dictionary)

Lastly, you don't need it, but I think it's idiomatic to include just in the sentence.

It stresses the idea that Person A only does that to make himself feel good.

It makes A look really bad.

Person A

__ Person B just to make himself feel good.

I feel strongly that there is a phrase for this --

but I just can't think of it!

Eventually I stumbled upon something like building yourself up by tearing others down .

It returns quite a few search results (if not for that exact phrase, then several sub-phrases), but doesn't seem to be a direct quote of anyone in particular --

although I guess that's pretty much what idioms are.

What I'm about to suggest is not an idiom or a phrase, but a very specific word which has the exact same meaning as the title.

Sadist

a person who gets pleasure, sometimes sexual, by being cruel to or hurting another person - Cambridge Dictionary

You can say that A is being sadistic towards B .

This word often has a negative sexual connotation associated with it, which is why I personally wouldn't recommend using it.

( By the way, I'm a little surprised that nobody even thought of it. )

Bucket Dipper

There is a kids book, which I don't recall the name of.

In the book, all people are said to have imaginary happiness buckets.

The amount of happiness in it can get more or less.

Bucket fillers fill their buckets with happiness by being kind to others and in the process, fill others' buckets too.

Bucket dippers try to fill their own happiness buckets by dipping into others' happiness buckets (i.e. stealing their happiness by being mean and putting them down).

But they can never really get a bucket brimming with happiness; sometimes they just keep trying.

It's a useful observation about how some people work.

Your potential answer, "Feed ego at cost of others" does describe exactly what you want.

"Feed ego" is a positive term and "cost of others" is a negative.

The negative aspect affects the victim (the one being blamed) but the one doing the blaming will have a positive gain on their ego (thus feeding their ego).

Overall the effect is negative to an outside perspective but to the one trying to feel good the effect is a positive one or, in this case, they wouldn't be doing it.

You are describing the most common, obvious form of verbal abuse.

Verbal abuse is a form of psychological abuse.

Question: Are there a stable expression for a situation when  Person A blames B and tells how B is bad in order to make himself (A) feel good ?  I would say something like "feed ego at cost of others", but I google it and it looks like "feed ego" has rather positive meaning in English and means "making feel good by doing good work or receiving a compliment".

Idiom for making others feel bad to make myself feel good?

Your suggestion of "Feed ego at cost of others" does describe exactly what you want.  The negative aspect affects the victim (the one being blamed) but the one doing the blaming will have a positive gain on their ego (thus feeding their ego).

Feed ego at the expense of others is a good example of what you're looking for. The victim (the one who is being blamed) will suffer a negative effect, but the one who is blaming will benefit in terms of ego. Overall, the effect is negative from the outside, but it is positive for the person attempting to feel better, or they would not be doing it.


Trade-off A trade-off (or tradeoff) is a situation that involves losing one quality or aspect of something in return for gaining another quality or aspect.

More colloquially, if one thing increases, some other thing must decrease.

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade-off

So I have to sacrifice capacity in order to gain speed.

Sacrifice: give up (something valued) for the sake of other considerations.

" Sacrifice ," Verb, Definition 2, Google

So I have to compromise capacity in order to gain speed.

Compromise: expediently accept standards that are lower than is desirable.

" Compromise ," Verb, Definition 2, Google

Not a singular word, but the phrase “opportunity cost” describes this situation well.

“The opportunity cost of higher speed is a loss of capacity.”

The verb “to gambit” comes from the world of chess and is sometimes employed in other field.

“He gambits this in order to get that.”

The root of the word is the Italian ‘gambetto.’

In the Oxford English dictionary I could only find gambit as a noun, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen it used as a verb in a phrase as well.

I kind of like the word 'compensation' for this, though there is some nuance.

It's used in chess as well

: He sacrificed his rook but his position is better so he has compensation.

It's used in other contexts as well of course: I was compensated.

(implies an original loss of something, potentially time or materials)

In your example: We will have less capacity, but this is compensated by an increase in speed.

The traditional phrase is "a sprat to catch a mackerel".

This dates from the mid 19th century—for example, see this Oxford Reference —and is still current: for example as the title of a book published in 2010 .

Question: For example I want increase the speed of a memory system in a computer but this will cost more money or decreasing the capacity will also gain more speed.  So I have to lose capacity and money in order to gain speed.More general example,  when losing one quality in return gaining other quality in more technical perspective usage .  So I'm wondering if there is a word out there for this?

Is there a word for losing something in order to gain some other thing?

"Compensation" is used in this context, as it implies an original loss of something, possibly time or materials.   Another saying is "using a sprat to catch a mackerel".

The word 'compensation' is used in other contexts as well as in chess. It's used to describe something that has been lost or gained. The traditional phrase is "a sprat to catch a mackerel"


Two is the most frequent (spelled frequent ) sounds fine to me.

Alternatively, you could write something like

The number two is the most frequent value in the given array.

I think the "one word" you are looking for is mode .

It is mathematical terminology.

In the given array, two is the mode .

mode

The mode is the value that appears most often in a set of data.

(Wikipedia)

" Most frequent " seems reasonable to me.

If you really need a single word for some reason, you could choose commonest : commonest superlative form of common :

most common.

common Occurring or happening regularly or frequently; usual. For a mathematically-rigorous word

, you should use mode : mode ( statistics )

The most frequently occurring value in a distribution.

Some more suitable words: Predominant, Preponderant, Principal.

All can be used to mean "most frequent", and are better known than "mode" (

which is rarely if ever used by anyone who isn't a mathematician) while also sounding more professional than something like "commonest".

E.g. "The preponderant number is 2".

You could say " prevalent " or " abound "

For arrays the fixed phrase

"most frequent value" is widely used.

In mathematics the term "mode" is common.

Here's a good explanation of what a mode is - Most frequent values in array .

As the question mentions an array of numbers, seems to me mode is absolutely the correct answer (and had I got here quicker

I think that would have been my one-word answer).

This used to be taught at primary level in the UK (until 2015), so not obscure terminology :)

Question: Let's say I have the next array of 9 numbers: 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1. I want to say that 2 has the highest frequency in the array. But I thought I could write this in one word. I also thought of "2 is the most frequent". Which is the best way to say that a number is the most frequent in an array?

How to say "this number is the most frequent" in one word?

Predominant, preponderant, principal, prevalent are all suggested. However, in mathematics the term  "mode"  is common.

Some more suitable words: predominant, preponderant, principal. All can be used to mean "most frequent"

Some more suitable words: Predominant, Preponderant, Principal. All can be used to mean "most frequent", and are better known than " Mode" is rarely if ever used by anyone who isn't a mathematician.


The anatomical term for it is the thenar eminence :

However, this is a scientific term, known mostly to medical students and doctors.

It's not in general use.

I had never even heard of it until I started googling just now.

A few sources say thenar prominence .

If you're wondering, both "eminence" and "prominence" come from a Latin verb meaning to project or stand out, and are often used this way in anatomy .

Dictionaries also report thenar as a noun, true to the Greek word (for the whole palm) from which it is taken, but from my quick survey, it appears that today "thenar" is used mainly as an adjective, as in " the thenar crease ", " a thenar muscle ", " thenar pain ", " a thenar pad ", " thenar atrophy ", and more .

In common language, it's called the ball of the thumb , the fleshy part of the thumb , the meaty part of the thumb , the base of the thumb , the heel of the thumb , the butt of the thumb , the pulpy part of the thumb , or even the muscley part of the thumb .

Since people so rarely talk about it, when people need to refer to it they invent a descriptive phrase on the fly, but often they invent the same phrase.

The words "fleshy" and "meaty" suggest its consistency most clearly.

People sometimes even independently invent the same word, "muscley".

"Muscley" is much rarer than "thenar", and feels awkward and even childish, especially in writing, yet the average person could guess what you meant if you said "the muscley part of your thumb" and would have no idea what you meant if you said "your thenar eminence".

(They might take the latter as a compliment .)

Some of these on-the-fly phrases are a little ambiguous, though, since more than one part of the hand on or near the thumb answers to the description, as you can see by googling for those phrases and seeing what people are talking about.

This is why doctors and scientists prefer non-vernacular terms taken from Latin or Ancient Greek.

One more term is mount of Venus , which seems to be used only in palmistry .

However, outside of palmistry, this term has another meaning , part of a tradition called " landscape pornography ".

Pictures from Duke University and this blog .

Here's my educated guess about what happened (not fully checked out).

As "thenar" is a noun in Greek, it was adopted as a noun in Renaissance Latin (e.g. in this translation of a 4th-century Greek medical encyclopedia, where it's defined as "the space between the index finger and the thumb"—not quite the modern meaning).

The -ar ending makes it look like a Latin adjective (or an English adjective derived from Latin).

It turns out that science and medicine have a lot of occasions for using "thenar" as an adjective, to distinguish various kinds of things: creases, muscles, homologous structures in other animals, etc.

So, as the adjectival use gained prominence, its use as a noun atrophied.

The noun use is not extinct today—see, for example, here —but its use as a noun seems to have declined starting around 1900 , and today "thenar" seems to be most commonly found as a modifier on a noun, most frequently "eminence".

The part you circled is the "base of the thumb", although I don't think of it as soft, more like "fleshy".

Edit:

other answers have suggested "thenar", as a shortening of " thenar eminence ".

The underlying Greek word θέναρ just means the "palm of the hand", but I doubt anyone who is not either a palmist, a speaker of classical Greek, or a hand-surgeon would recognize the word.

It's called Thenar Thenar the soft part of the hand at the base of the thumb (Cambridge Dictionary)

By googling "fleshy part of the palm" I found that it is called in English " Thenar ".

Based on "Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary© Farlex 2012" The word thenar is a noun, not an adjective.

From these dictionaries it seems that there is no need in the additional word eminence .

Walt Whitman called it the "chuff of your hand" (in "Song of Myself").

This has always stuck with me, but a bit of searching seems to reveal that, surprisingly, nobody else has called it that.

I at least would have understood "chuff", but not "thenar" (well, not until I saw the other answers, anyway.)

It is called 'ball of the thumb'.

Question: What is the soft part of the palm called in English?   I don't know the name even in my native language, so I cannot look it up in the dictionary.

What is the soft part of the palm called in English?

The anatomical term for it is the thenar eminence. However, this is not generally used. In common language, it can be referred to as the  ball of the thumb or the  fleshy part of the thumb.

The anatomical term for it is  the thenar eminence, known mostly to medical students and doctors. Dictionaries report  thenar  as a noun, true to the  Greek word for the whole palm. In common language, it's called the  ball of the thumb, the fleshy part of the thumbs, the base of the fingers, the heel of the hands and the butt of thumb.


The word you are looking for is born .

Also you can try found , given , or taken - none of these mean "self-made" but they do refer to a transfer of something X to you, versus you making a new X. A third suggestion is to use the idiom pulled out of thin air.

There is no common English word that conveys the meaning you want.

(or at least, none that I can think of right now) I've offered below two phrases that are relatively common (and essentially idiomatic) that come close to what you want, but there may well be others.

It is always very hard to suggest options, when the context is somewhat figurative.

Fashion doesn't just make itself.

It is made. or Fashion doesn't just appear out of thin air.

It is made.

It's a bit of an obscure answer but you could say: Fashion does not exist ex nihilo.

Ex nihilo' is a Latin phrase meaning 'from nothing'.

Usually it's used in a theological context (e.g. discussing God creating the world 'from nothing' in a biblical context), referring to the idea of the universe being created 'ex nihilo' (from nothing).By using the phrase 'ex nihilo'

you are giving emphasis to the fact fashion

does not just 'come into existance (from nothing)'.

If you are looking for a word that means something like without "involvement of some external factor" you might want to try spontaneously .

From Oxford Dictionaries: 1.1 Without apparent external cause or stimulus.

The adjective, spontaneous , can actually mean exactly what you want: 1.2 (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause.

So you could, theoretically, plug it right into your example.

Unfortunately, this is not the most common meaning of the word, and the sentence would not sound quite right.

On the other hand, a much more common and unambiguous way of saying this would be to use the adverbial form of the word: Fashion does not arise spontaneously .

It is made.

The word or phrase you should pick will depend on the context that you want to use it in.

If you want it to mean exactly what your question states (self-created) and are using it as a single-sentence explanation somewhere, there isn't a single, concise word that I know of that will do this.

You will have to pick a phrase that (I think) will sound clunkier, and the best phrases use the auxiliary verb do , not be (is), which ruins the symmetry between your two sentences.

If you are intending to use it as a piece of poetic language to more stylistically get your point across, e.g. as a slogan, or as part of a longer essay where the sentiment is explained more fully, then you can use language that doesn't mean exactly what you want say, but carries something of the correct connotation.

If the former is the case then you could use the phrase "just appear" (or "just appear out of thin air", or "just appear out of nothing").

The use of "just" gives emphasis to the effort required.

Fashion doesn't just appear.

It's made.

If the latter is the case, and especially if you think your audience has a significant Christian makeup, then you could use the word begotten .

Begotten essentially means "fathered", so carries the same sort of meaning as "born", but one of the most famous uses of the word is in the Nicene Creed (which many Christians will know) in the line "begotten not made" .

Saying the opposite of this famous quote would give it some poetic style.

That said, the word is "church language" and quite old-fashioned, so it could sound odd to some people.

Fashion isn't begotten.

It's made.

"Fashion does not just spring into existence by itself ."

That is a common way to say it.

The problem with using born is that it's actually incorrect.

Merriam-Webster says that born means "deriving or resulting from".

Suggesting that it's not born is contradicting the second statement.

Fashion cannot exist before it is born by the creative mind.

-or

-Fashion doesn't exist before it is born by the creativity of man.

You could also say that fashion is not self-born .

Being that I'm not sure exactly what the intent of the statement is, it's difficult to give an exactly appropriate answer.

If your statement is only an example and you're really seeking to convey the meaning that it doesn't create itself, self-born would be appropriate.

Addressing your example as directly and closely as possible, I would suggest "fashion is not self-born, it is manufactured" i.e. fabricated.

Although the best phrase to describe the concept you're asking about ( spontaneous generation ) doesn't fit very well in the example sentence, there are a number of other phrases not directly related to creation that may work instead.

In addition to those already presented on this page, another option would be "in a vacuum".

Fashion doesn't come out of a vacuum, it is made.

Fashion doesn't arise in a vacuum, it is made.

In a vacuum" means that something isn't affected by external factors (1) (2) .

Or simply "on its own".

Fashion doesn't exist on its own, it is made.

Fashion didn't arise on its own, it was made.

"On its own" means without the help of others.

I have not seen this mentioned, but I would use the word 'Instantiation' so; Fashion is not self-instantiating.

It's made.

Though this is probably more a technical term from the Software Development world.

Question: Like in this sentence:   Fashion is not ________ . It's made.     Obviously I can not write "made" in the blank, because it would imply an involvement of some external factor. I want a word which refers to create itself on its own or by itself.  "It's made" implies that some external thing like humans or designer are responsible for making it.

What is it called when something creates itself by itself or something is made by itself?

Although this depends on the context, suggestions include "Fashion doesn't just appear, it's made"; or "Fashion doesn't just appear out of thin air, it's made".

The word or phrase you should pick will depend on the context that you want to use it in. If you want it to mean exactly what your question states, there isn't a single, concise word that will do this. The best phrases use the auxiliary verb do , not  be  (is), which ruins the symmetry between your two sentences. You can use language that doesn't mean  exactly what you want say, but carries something of the correct connotation. Fashion isn't begotten. It's made.


You might be looking for hypocrite .

hypocrite someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in way that shows these are not sincere:

He's a hypocrite - he's always lecturing other people on the environment but he drives around in a huge car.

(Cambridge Dictionary)

I'm not entirely sure what "self-entitled" means.

Perhaps entitled to yourself?

I think the word you're thinking of is simply entitled , which has a few different meanings.

I think the one you might be think of is the following.

Note that it doesn't seem to fit.

entitled adjective (usually disapproving) feeling that you have a right to the good things in life without necessarily having to work for them • He's so entitled! • The college attracts both the entitled children of wealthy parents and a large number of scholarship students.

(OALD)

With respect to @Max I wish to add that " hypocrite " is a noun, while you can also use the adjective " hypocritical ".

Also notice that this word carries an offensive degree.

I know you are looking for a single word, yet I wish to add that there is an idiom: Not walk the walk - Not to back up one's talk with action.

Usually in combination with " talk the talk

" talk the talk ...

walk the walk -

If you say that someone talks the talk but does not walk the walk, you mean that they do not act in a way that agrees with the things they say.

A phrase to mean the same thing would be "

He doesn't practice what he preaches "

In Russian we have the word " противоречивый " - inconsistent that means: if a person says that something should be done in a certain way but doesn't do it himself, or says one thing but does the other, or claims for a certain behavior toward him but expects another.

In this case he's inconsistent, or his actions are inconsistent, or his words are inconsistent, or even both.

If you are not of equal social status: Hypocrite (or self-entitled) isn't the right word here.

Take a king for example, he expects you to bow before him, but he won't bow before you.

If you are of equal social status: The person might still not be a hypocrite.

Think of a smoker that tells you not to smoke.

It's a good piece of advice, but he isn't following his own directions.

Just because someone doesn't do what he is preaching doesn't make the advice is bad or the person is a hypocrite (or self-entitled).

So to conclude everything, you could say his ratio of giving advice (or having expectations) vs. following own advice (or fulfilling the expectations from another man's perspective) is bad.

But there is no word for it that I know of.

Someone who calls the scorched kettle black, and is meanwhile scorched black themselves, is a pot .

As in the expression, " the pot calling the kettle black ": "The pot calling the kettle black" is a proverbial idiom that seems to have been of Spanish origin, versions of which began to appear in English in the first half of the 17th century.

It is glossed in the original sources as being used of a person who is guilty of the very thing of which they accuse another and is thus an example of psychological projection.

(Wikipedia)

What about Pharisee ?

A Google search gives as second definition:

a self-righteous or hypocritical person Wikipedia give some more explanation here : Because of the New Testament's frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous rule-followers (see also Woes of the Pharisees and Legalism (theology)), the word "pharisee" (and its derivatives: "pharisaical", etc.)

has come into semi-common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person who places the letter of the law above its spirit.

Jews today who subscribe to Pharisaic Judaism typically find this insulting and some consider the use of the word to be anti-Semitic.

Note the last sentence, though... See also Matthew 23:3

So you must be careful to do everything they tell you.

But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Question: What is it called when someone expects you to act or do something a certain way, that they consider "right" or "acceptable", but does not act or do what they expect from you, to you in return?   Is there another word or term other than "self-entitled", if that is even a fit, itself?   It's been driving me crazy trying to pin point a word that fits this description.

A word to describe someone who expects you to act one way but does not act in the same way

"Hypocrite" is the term used in this context.

A hypocrite is someone who says they have moral beliefs but behaves in a way that shows these are not sincere. For example he's always lecturing other people on the environment but he drives around in a huge car.


Do you understand the word "chain"?

If not, look that up.

Suppose you use a chain to, say, tow some heavy object behind your truck.

If the object is heavy enough, the chain might break.

Where will it break?

At the weakest link.

The point being this:

Suppose you made a chain with 100 links, 99 links of case-hardened steel and one link of tin.

Then you try to pull the heavy object with it.

What will happen?

The tin link will break.

It doesn't matter how strong the other 99 links are.

If just one link is weak, the chain will break.

The overall strength of a chain is not the strength of the strongest link, or even of the average link.

The overall strength of a chain is the strength of the weakest link.

This is often used as an analogy for other cases where one poorly-designed part can cause an entire machine to fail, or where one incompetent person can cause an entire organization to fail, etc.

People may say, "Fred is the weakest link on our team", meaning, Fred's laziness or incompetence or whatever flaw will make the team fail no matter how well everyone else does.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link .

It means that if you want to know the level of strength of a chain (i.e. how strong is it) then you have to check which link ( chain made of links - see here ) is weakest and then the level is determined by this one.

It means that even though the rest of the links in this chain are strong but anyway because one link is not strong as they are, therefore you can break this chain while you break the weakest link...

Think about a chain made of 20 links.

19 links are made of strong metal but one link is made of thin plastic.

Then the strength of this chain is determined by this weak plastic link, because when you break this plastic link you actually break the chain and then the rest metal links don't really matter...

It's a metaphor that is used to compare a group of something to a chain and the impact of a single member.

If you have a chain holding something and one of the links breaks, the chain itself isn't useful anymore hence

when it is used, it is comparable to saying: A group is only as strong as its weakest member.

Chains are constructed from multiple links of (usually) metal joined together.

Because of this, the strength of the chain relies upon the strength of the individual links in the chain.

If you were to test the strength of the chain (e.g. by pulling on both ends simultaneously), then when the chain breaks it would generally break at a particular link.

It would break at that link because it would be the weakest link in the chain.

Therefore the strength of the whole chain is equivalent to the strength of the weakest link in it.

This saying has become a metaphor for the strength of any entity that is made up of multiple parts, usually that entity is a group of something, e.g. people.

It effectively means that no matter how strong most of the chain is, even if there's one weak part, it could break the entire chain.

It means you need to eliminate all weaknesses for there to be no risk that the 'chain' could fail.

Imagine you had 7 people running a race as a team, and the team had to finish together, at the same time.no matter how fast your FASTEST person is, he can not finish until EVERYONE else finishes at the same time.

Therefore the SLOWEST person on the team affects the speed of the fastest runner.

The ENTIRE team is as slow as the slowest person.

The slow person is the "weakest link" Just as a chain, with individual links that can hold many tones...if one of the links can only hold 2.2 pounds, or a kilo, or whatever measurement you choose to use, the entire chain, no matter how strong, breaks when the weakest link breaks.

Any single link breaking, causes everything to fail.

The statement A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link is a metaphor.

The analogy here, is of a chain where, the strength needed to break the weakest link , is all that is needed to break the chain .

This is a commonly used metaphor, for example:

Sam is completely out of shape.

I don't want him on our volley ball team; a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

In this example, Sam, who is out of shape could cause the team to lose in a volley ball match, being analogous to the weakest link.

If you are running a marathon, the success of the team depends on every participant.

You have to run the race as if it is your last.

If any member of the team is not physically fit, not agile, runs too slow and even drops the baton, the race is lost.

It doesn't matter how agile the other participants are.

The one that drops the baton is the weakest link

Question: A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.   What does it mean?   The entry from Wikipedia about  chains  shows:    A chain is typically made of metal. A chain may consist of two or more  links   But I didn't understand this quote about chains.

What is the meaning of the quote "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link?

This means that even though the rest of the links in this chain are strong, one link may not be as strong as they are. Therefore, you can break this chain by breaking the weakest link. This is a metaphor that is used to compare members of a group and the impact of each person, as in "A group is only as strong as its weakest member".

It's a metaphor for comparing a group of things to a chain and the influence of a single member. If one of the links in a chain holding something breaks, the chain as a whole is no longer useful. When used, is equivalent to saying: a group is only as strong as its weakest member. It means that, even if the rest of the link in this chain are strong, because one link is weaker than the rest, you can break the chain while breaking the weakest link.


A possible one-word synonym for "make (sth) constant" is "stabilize".

However, "stabilize" suggests that the thing being stabilized (in this case, the pressure) was unstable, which might not always be the case.

Your sentence could be improved if you extraposed what does not need to remain in mid position:

This method makes/keeps the pressure in a container constant when its temperature / when the temperature inside is less/lower than 10ºC.

I think "keep sth constant" makes more sense that "make sth constant".

Otherwise, if the condition was not constant and becomes constant by applying a method, "stabilize" could be a more appropriate choice.

It is grammatical to bring the word constant to the front of the sentence in that situation so that it comes after makes : This method makes constant the pressure in a container when its internal temperature is less than 10℃. or to place it after container : This method makes the pressure in a container constant when its internal temperature is less than 10℃.

Compare:

He wished to make known a feature of so-called "small clauses".

He wished to make a feature of so-called "small clauses" known.

P.S.

You can also substitute the verb keep for the verb make as user Gustavson says in his answer.

I think keep is better here than make .

What about fix ?

This method fixes the pressure in a container when the temperature in the container is less than 10℃.

What about " stabilizes "? to cause something to become fixed and stop changing, esp.

in order to keep it from becoming worse, or to become fixed and stop changing: These medicines stabilize your heart rate and lower blood pressure.

So, in your sentence, This method stabilizes the pressure in a container when the internal temperature is less than 10℃.

If the implication is that the pressure is otherwise yoyoing up and down, this should work quite well for you.

Alternately, you could rearrange your sentence slightly to avoid repeating words and bring "make" and "constant" closer together:

This method makes the pressure in a container constant when the internal temperature is less than 10℃.

This doesn't require a new term, instead cleaning up the text.

Opposing constant forces meet at a point called an equilibrium.

The single-word verb form of this is equilibrate .

This method equilibrates the pressure in a container, when the temperature in the container is less than 10℃.

Question: This method makes the pressure in a container when the temperature in  the container is less than 10℃ constant.   This is just an example I created.  In this example, the words "make" and "constant" are away from each other. Is it possible to rewrite this in such a manner that "This method makes constant the pressure..."? or is there a single word  as a substitute for "make .. constant"?

Is there a single word as a substitute for "make .. constant"?

"Stabilizes" could be used as a one-word term. However, this can be rewritten to clean up the text by bringing "make" and "constant" closer together, as in "This method makes the pressure in a container constant when the internal temperature is less than 10 degrees"

This doesn't require a new term, instead cleaning up the text.

When internal temperature of a container is less than 10°C, this method stabilizes the pressure. Alternatively, to avoid repeating words and bring "make" and "constant" closer together, you could rearrange your sentence slightly. When internal temperature is below 10 °C, the method keeps the pressure constant.


It is called a pen cap

Do you know where the cap for this pen is? is an often heard question for small children after they've been drawing.

There are a few different names for it, which vary in preference depending on your locale.

I've heard pen cap and pen lid , and while doing some further research on this question top seems to be a word used as well.

For the most part they can be used interchangeably, though some people will insist lid is incorrect.

Lid is the natural word for me, so your mileage may vary.

In England, pen lid tends to be preferred, with pen cap also being used.

This may be subject to regional or age difference though (Britain has a very high level of regional difference).

Pen top would be least common.

It would possibly be used to indicate the top end of a pen distinct from its bottom, but very unlikely to be used to refer to the lid itself.

I would call this a cap in American English.

In American English

a lid is often thought of as a flat item that covers something.

It often snaps or holds in place somehow.

For instance, the floppy plastic cover on top of a can of peanuts would be a lid.

A cap has similar purpose to a lid, but it is slightly different in that a cap will typically completely encompass the object that it is covering, whereas a lid usually rests on top.

Webster's defines a cap this way: Something that serves as a cover or protection especially for a tip, knob, or end Source

Pen top is also used by native speakers.

As in: Where is the top of this pen ? and Have you seen my pen top ?

I've used it on two continents and no one has indicated my dialect usage is not natural.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/20600/Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩

Question: What is the cover of the head of a pen called in English?   In my native language it is simply called a cover.

What is the cover of the head of a pen called in English?

Pen cap, pen top and pen lid are all used.

There are a few different names for it, which vary in preference depending on your locale. Lid is the natural word for me, so your mileage may vary. In England,  pen lid  tends to be preferred, with  pen cap  also being used. It would possibly be used to indicate the top end of a pen distinct from its bottom, but very unlikely to refer to the lid itself.


Stuffy doesn't work here.

One way I see it is that the smoothie is itself clogged (doesn't really make sense).

You could call it dense or thick , but I think you might be looking for filling : filling adjective 4.

Food that is filling makes you feel full when you have eaten it. • Although it is tasty, crab is very filling. (Collins Dictionary)

No, that's not a good use of stuffy .

Though Merriam-Webster only lists it as the third definition , I'd say the most common use of "stuffy" in conversational English is to mean, as MW says: oppressive to the breathing

You might say a room that's a bit too hot and very humid is "stuffy".

The word you're looking for is probably filling : (of food or a meal) substantial and satisfying Although dictionary.com lists "filling" under the British Dictionary Definitions heading, as an American English speaker, I'd say it's a pretty common word in the U.S. as well.

It'd be common to hear that a certain dish or meal is "filling" because it seems to literally fill your stomach.

Even if it doesn't actually literally fill your stomach all the way, something that's "filling" makes you feel full.

As the other answers have noted, "stuffy" is not the word to use here.

An alternative to "filling" might be "substantial", which seems to get to the point you were going for with "stuffy".

Indeed, Merriam-Webster has , as its second definition: ample to satisfy and nourish : a substantial meal

Perhaps "stodgy" would be a word that works for you/is what you're thinking of when you're considering stuffy (of food) heavy, filling, and high in carbohydrates.

"he loves stodgy puddings" synonyms: indigestible, starchy, filling, heavy, solid, substantial, lumpy, leaden "rich, stodgy puddings"

However, the other answers are guiding you towards using a positive descriptor and that's the approach I'd take.

It would be better to say a smoothie is "light and easily digested", rather than "not too stodgy", because it's better to use a "positive" than use a "not negative" even if they usually are interpreted to mean the same thing.

Politicians tend to use not-negatives.. they will say "well, you're NOT WRONG", which can be interpreted to be saying "you're RIGHT", but actually still leaves them some room to say "but you're not right either"..

I agree with the others re stuffy; "stuffy" is generally used to describe an atmosphere that seems hard to breathe, like in a party where there are no open windows.

It's probably due to elevated levels of carbon dioxide; humans are quite good at detecting elevated levels of CO2 and perceiving the air as being "not very fresh".

It may also be accompanied by high humidity and or stale smells

I use the word light .

If at all you want to eat, eat light food; we are having a full-course meal very soon.

light food are light in calorie, light on stomach , and digest quickly.

I only had a cup of smoothie for lunch

so I'd get hungry pretty soon afterwards.

This is because smoothie is not very stuffy.

It digests easily and fast so that my stomach becomes empty very soon.

As stated above, "filling" is the one-for-one replacement here, but another option is the idiom "sticks to your ribs" .

This implies that the food is substantial enough that it stays in your stomach for a long time (sticking to your ribs from the inside), keeping you feeling full for longer.

An example: I was considering getting a grilled chicken salad, but I might go for something that sticks to your ribs more, like a steak.

Additionally, some of your example sounds a little bit odd to a native speaker.

We don't say "a cup of smoothie" and we don't refer to smoothie as an uncountable quantity.

Also, some of your tenses are strange.

I'm not sure if the speaker is speaking about a past event or relating foreknowledge of a future outcome.

Assuming that it's referring to a past event (consuming the smoothie), I would change your example to the following:

I only had a smoothie for lunch

so I'll be getting hungry pretty soon, considering they aren't very filling.

It doesn't stick to your ribs like a burger would.

This is because smoothies are not very hearty .

hearty [hahr-tee] adjective – dictionary.com substantial;

abundant; nourishing: a hearty meal.

"Heavy" is like "Filling", but with a more negative connotation, as in "What can I order that's not too heavy?"

"Their food is so heavy and rich, I need a diet the next day.

"I avoid a heavy breakfast on race day."

Question: Scenario:     I only had a cup of smoothie for lunch so I'd get hungry pretty soon  afterwards. This is because smoothie is not very  stuffy . It  digests easily and fast so that my stomach becomes empty very soon.   Question, does the word make sense here? If not, what's the word for a food which does not digest easily and remains longer in your stomach so that you wouldn't feel hungry for a longer period of time?   (Note: "Hard" is not precise)

Use of word "stuffy" to mean "not easily digested" (or word suggestion)

Heavy, filling, substantial and stodgy can be used.

Perhaps "stodgy" is a word that comes to mind when you think of stuffy (of food) that is heavy, filling, and high in carbohydrates.
indigestible, starchy, filling, heavy, solid, substantial, lumpy, leaden "rich, stodgy puddings" synonyms: indigestible, starchy, filling, heavy, solid, substantial, lumpy, leaden
The other answers, on the other hand, suggest using a positive descriptor, which is the approach I'd take.
It's preferable to say "light and easily digested" rather than "not too stodgy," because it's preferable to use a "positive" rather than a "not negative," even if they usually mean the same thing.


This construction is common in speech, and in writing which emulates speech.

The initial noun phrase acts as a discourse marker to announce a shift of focus to a new or resumed topic; it will usually be emphasized with stress, pitch, and prosody—often a falling pitch similar to 'comma intonation' or rising pitch similar to 'question intonation'.

In writing it should be followed by some sort of disjunctive point, such as a comma, dash, question mark or colon.

Most of them are my brothers, but John, he's my husband.

The construction is perfectly grammatical, but it is rarely used in formal writing, which lacks the accompanying vocal resources.

Formal writing has other methods for achieving the same marking: Most of them are my brothers; John, however , is my husband.

As the sentences stand, the pronouns are normally redundant however, there are some circumstances where you would use it with some modifications in punctuation.

The first is in poetic usage where the extra pronoun is used either as a matter of form (this construction is common in folk music) or to preserve metre, e.g:

Mary

she went to the store For to meet with the man she adored

And she watched by the hour

While he measured out flour And loitered around by the door Fol a diddle de roll, etc.

Another common construction is in response to a question.

For example: Q: Who is this John you keep mentioning?

A: John?

He's my husband.

So overall it is not how native English speakers would usually construct a sentence in casual conversation or writing but

neither is it wrong nor particularly inelegant.

Yes, but you are punctuating the sentence improperly.

To record this kind of phrase in English, we use the em-dash to set the appositive apart from the rest of the sentence.

This gives: John— he's my husband— [rest of sentence].

Mary— she went to the store— [rest of sentence].

We use the em-dash to separate the appositive here, as opposed to the more typical comma, because the appositive phrase is an independent clause.

You could reword the sentences as follows to make the comma fit in.

John, my husband, [rest of sentence].

Mary, who went to the store, [rest of sentence].

That said, both formats are grammatically correct and indeed common in spoken English.

The emdash is often represented in written English in keyboard-recorded media via the digraph '--', rather than the more traditional character '—'

ell.stackexchange.com/users/18605/Please stop being evil

The construction is called "left-dislocation topicalization".

Here's a paper 1 about the phenomenon, which defines the term in the introduction:

In this paper, I will investigate the information-structural properties of two English structures which utilize word-order variation for such purposes.

(1a) and (1b) provide examples for the constructions.

(1) a. Tom, I like.

b. Tom, I like him.

The common name in the literature for the configuration in (1a) is "Topicalization" (abbreviated as TOP henceforth), while (1b) is most commonly called "Left-Dislocation" (abbreviated as LD).

On English Topicalization and Left-Dislocation from an Information-Structural Perspective, by Péter Szűcs

This is common in informal English.

You add extra information about the person you have just mentioned.

As StoneyB marked in his answer such extra information can be " emphasized with stress, pitch, and prosody ": John, he's my husband, has just gone to the shop.

Henry, oh, he's working in the garage.

Oh, come on, that George of yours, he isn't a nice person.

Depending on what punctuation mark is placed the meaning is different.

Mary?

She went to the store.

John!

You naughty kid!

Get here immediately!

Question: Is it correct English to write “John he is my husband,” or, “Mary she went to the store?”  I hear this construction  frequently from TV and Radio Journalists. Is there a name for this construction?

Is it correct English to write "John he is my husband," or, "Mary she went to the store?"

This can be used with the correct punctuation. Em-dashes are used as follows: "John— he's my husband— [rest of sentence]". Alternatively, sentences can be rewritten with commas, as in: "Mary, who went to the store, [rest of sentence]." Both formats are grammatically correct and common in spoken English.

You're correct, but you're punctuating the sentence incorrectly. In English, we use the em-dash to separate the appositive from the rest of the sentence. To make the comma fit in, rewrite the sentences as follows. This yields: John— he's my husband— [continued]. Mary— she went shopping— [end of sentence]


You need an apostrophe to mark a possessive case here.

However, the possessive case doesn't refer to ownership in such examples, instead it refers to the meaning " is intended for ": A patient's guide to [X] A student's guide to [X]

A teacher's guide to [X]

This means that this guide is intended for students, teachers or patients.

Example

" The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ", " The Student's Guide to Becoming a Nurse ", " The Teacher's Guides To Technology

And Learning ".

An edit based on FranklinCovey Style Guide: For Business and Technical Communication by Stephen R. Covey : Possessive case vs Descriptive nouns.

First of all let's distinguish the difference between the possessive case and the descriptive uses of nouns: The Teacher's Guide (or Teachers' Guide) - Possessive case

The Teacher Guide (or Teachers Guide) - Descriptive nouns

The traditional use of the possessive (with an apostrophe) is less common today, especially with corporate names.

The name for a guide for teachers is open to all sorts of possibilities.

In The Teacher Guide , the noun " teacher " functions as an adjective and not a possessive.

This form, without the apostrophe, would appear in titles and in news headlines (which often omit apostrophes) .

But notice that other options are possible (and correct) .

The best advice is to decide for a single document whether you want to use a descriptive or a possessive.

Then be consistent throughout that document.

If you use the S, it must be "A patient's guide", which implies that the guide is possessed by a specific patient, or "Patients' guide", which implies that the guide is for multiple patients.

I would argue the latter is more grammatical, although the first seems more common.

I think one could justify both.

The first could be justified as being specifically for the reader, who is a patient.

Alternatively, one could call it "A Patient Guide", although this risks being confused with the adjective "patient", which would describe someone or something that is tolerant and will wait without complaint.

With some contexts (e.g. "A doctor guide") this would be fine.

Here, I think it's slightly ambiguous and best avoided.

I haven't gotten a single example of "A patients guide " over searching on Google, so "A patient 's guide " is appropriate here.

It's also same for "A parent's guide " and "A student's guide " .

Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writers and Editors says: No apostrophe is generally used today [1998.

-p.a.s]

with plural nouns that are more descriptive than possessive.

Examples they give are "steelworkers union", "managers meeting" and "singles bar".

I think patients guide fits in that group nicely: After all, the patients indeed do not actually own it.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/15471/Peter - Reinstate Monica

"A patients guide" would be a guide about patients.

A patient's guide" would be a guide FOR a patient.

Part of the issue is that you have an "A" at the beginning of your title.

Such titles, as pointed out by others, feature singular nouns -- you might have a book about insurance called "A Patient's Guide to Patience."

However, there are other publications whose titles start with "The" -- and these can go either way.

The Boy's Guide to Greatness" or "The Boys' Book Of Survival" are two examples.

When these "The" titles are singular, there is usually an adjective included: "The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra" or "The Married Man's Guide to Adultery" or combined forms like "The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue."

Titles like these sound a bit traditional or even old-timey.

No surprise, then, that "Ladies' Home Journal" dropped its "The" a while ago.

The key in this case is that Teachers Guide is Plural Possessive .

Proper form is "Teachers' Guide".

The apostrophe goes at the end.

Check out this "Advanced (plural) possession" video from the Khan Academy.

Question: I am working on one of my employer's websites, and we have a video guide up for patients of how a particular procedure works. The guide was previously titled "A patients guide to [X]", but I have corrected it to "A patient's guide to [X]" as I initially felt that that was correct, and Grammarly also agreed. However, now I'm not so sure. Which do I go for?

"A patients guide" or "A patient's guide"?

If you use the S, it must be "A patient's guide", which implies that the guide is possessed by a specific patient. Alternatively, one could call it "A Patient Guide", although this risks being confused with the adjective "patient", which could be ambiguous.

If you use the S, the title must be "A patient's guide," which implies that the guide belongs to a single patient. In some cases (e.g., "a doctor's guide"), this is acceptable. The first could be justified as being written specifically for the patient reader. It could also be called "A Patient Guide," though this risked being confused with the adjective "patient". It is ambiguous here and should be avoided.


Receptacle <-- receives something Container <-- contains something Sender <-- sends something A receiver uses his receptacle to receive something.

Then he puts it into his container (memory) to keep it contained and safe.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/receptacle 1375-1425; Middle English (< Old French) < Latin receptāculum reservoir, equivalent to receptā(re) to take again, receive back (frequentative of recipere to receive ) + -culum -cle2

An instructive synonym for receptacle in an electrical sense is socket (discussed in depth here under difference between “socket” and “outlet” ).

Socket can't usually be a synonym for container .

A major part of the difference in use is to do with the purpose.

You can call a litter bin a trash container or a trash receptacle .

In the former case you're emphasising storage, in the latter, you're emphasising acceptance.

You may have been a little unlucky with your choice of dictionary.

Merriam-Webster has "one that receives and contains something", Cambridge has "a container used for storing or putting objects in" (emphasis mine in both cases).

A trash bin may be called a trash receptacle or a trash container, but a power receptacle would not be called a power container.

The "receiving" done by a power receptacle, in my connotation is that it receives the plug from the device to be powered.

There is some overlap

but, as others have mentioned, the root of "receptacle" is "receive" and the root of "container" is "contain".

Google Search

You could look to the common phrase, "place the item in the proper receptacle", and derive that receptacle is a more specified type of container; a container designated to receive a particular item.

Consider where trash is sorted by different materials; glass goes into the glass receptacle, paper in the paper receptacle, etc.

The difference is in what the object is used for.

When I see "container" I think of something people put stuff into that the want to store for some indefinite period of time, then remove and use.

When I see "receptacle" I think of something that people put stuff into for a specific reason, that someone else is going to remove to use for whatever purpose.

Examples:

I put my leftover dinner in a plastic container so I can take it to work tomorrow.

I dropped the empty can in the aluminum receptacle.

"Receptacle" can also refer to where you plug electrical cords, but, in AE at least, it is more often called an "outlet".

Question: Generally, both "receptacle" and "container" refer to an object that contains some other object(s). What are the differences between these two words? Do they differ in meaning, usage, or origin?  I searched "difference between receptacle and container" in Google but the only two relevant results ( [1] ,  [2] ) can both be summarized as "They are basically the same thing".

What are the differences between "receptacle" and "container"?

The difference is in what the object is used for.  Container often refers to storage of something for a period of time, then remove and use, such as putting leftovers in a plastic container. Receptacle often refers to use for a specific reason, as in a receptacle for empty cans.

The distinction is in the function of the object. When I hear the word "container," I imagine something into which people place items that they want to store for an indefinite period of time before removing and using.
When I hear the word "receptacle," I think of something that people put things in for a specific reason and then remove for whatever reason.


This is a latent problem.

Latent problems lie undetected until they manifest themselves in a failure.

More widely, anything can be described at latent if it is present but undetected.

For example a disease could have latent symptoms - you don't know that you have the disease.

I think there are more basic answers with the connotations the asker is going for.

Such a thing is "taken for granted" (phrase used in Kat's comment) or treated as a "given".

If you are responsible for providing it, you have a "thankless job" -- you do essential work in the background and will get more attention for the one time it goes wrong than the thousand times you do the job

right.

When something has always worked to the point that a breakdown is inconceivable and yet happens, that is a "black swan".

I think I know the kind of thing you are talking about.

For instance, in film production, things like focus and keeping the microphone out of the scene are only noticeable if they go wrong.

When you drive, you only really think about your brakes if they don't do as you expect.

But, if that's what you mean, then I don't think there is a word in English for it.

The concept comes up often enough that variations on the description "

that's the sort of thing that you only notice when it doesn't work"

is one I've come across a number of times.

So, if there is such a word, I don't think very many people know it.

To borrow a term from organizational theory: hygiene factor A hygiene factor is a something that does not generally contribute to satisfaction when present, but causes dissatisfaction when absent.

Having good hygiene doesn't make a person more likable, but having bad hygiene would make others have a negative opinion of the person.

If you can use a twist on an idiom, I think an un squeaky (or quiet ) wheel would work well for this.

The traditional saying is The squeaky wheel gets the grease/oil meaning that the most noticeable problem (or complainer) will be tended to first.

(See, for example, Wikipedia's page on the saying or Cambridge Dictionary 's definition.)

Following this meaning, a wheel which doesn't squeak (isn't causing a problem) is not going to attract attention.

A couple of examples of the phrase used this way:

[T]here is a strong tendency [for decision makers to focus on] the steps that are known from the outset to be fraught with danger, the "squeaky wheels.

" Consequently, they tend to overlook the more subtle or hidden risks in any relatively nondangerous or routine step in the plan.

This is what I refer to as "the unsqueaky wheel trap." —

Irving Lester Janis, article in Information Systems:

Failure Analysis , John Wise & Antony Debons, ed., 2012

I suspected the Unsqueaky Wheel hadn't gotten enough oil.

Being undemanding in a hectic home, she was easily overlooked — Judith Ruskay Rabinor, A Starving Madness: Tales of Hunger, Hope, and Healing in Psychotherapy , 2013

You question specifically asks for a term that stands for two failures, one of which remains hidden until the other's failure.

There are a few terms from specific disciplines that do this.

In genetics , its an "unexpressed" or "suppressed" gene.

The unexpressed gene lacks an unlocking enzyme not normally present, while the suppressed gene stays turned off in the absence of a normally occurring blocking enzyme.

When a genetic error elsewhere makes the unlocking enzyme or fails to make the blocking enzyme, we get an abnormality.

In espionage , its called a "sleeper cell.

In software , its called a "Time Bomb" or "Logic Bomb" virus, if deliberately placed, or a "conditional capture" if its an undetected mistake not found during normal program operations.

In statistics , its sample "covariance", which drastically reduces the true power of multi-variable correlations.

In systems diagnostics, its a "cascading failure".

I like "latent" as the expression of an inherent, perhaps unknown, failure mode; but, it doesn't automatically imply that something abnormal must occur before it comes to light.

Any of the discipline specific terms up indicate the dual, dependent nature of the failures.

Good hunting.

The closest I can come to this meaning is "oversight", which actually has several meanings: oversight (noun): watchful and responsible care, regulatory supervision an inadvertent omission or error.

Example: The company claimed the accounting error was simple oversight , but the prosecutor countered that it actually counted as criminal negligence.

Because none of the committee was directly responsible for managing the investigation, its failure was due more to oversight than incompetence.

In a software context especially, you could use: Background task - something process that runs unattended; Deamon - a task running in the background, without graphical elements.

I've called the types of devices which are noticeable only when they fail as "spleens".

The spleen is an organ found in mammals and reptiles whose operation is completely unnoticeable so long as it is healthy, few people even know its function even if they know its name.

However, damaged or diseased spleens are very painful and very dangerous.

This is not a well-known usage of the word

but I've found that people understand it easily.

Question: I'm looking for a word that would describe a phenomenon of noticing things only when they go wrong. "A thing that's only noticeable when it goes wrong is ... "

Word for something that is only noticeable when it goes wrong?

This is known as a latent problem.
This is a problem that is latent.

This is a problem that is latent.
Latent problems lie undetected until a failure occurs.
More generally, if present, but undetected, nothing can be described latent.
For example, you do not know that a disease can have latent symptoms.


They are essentially identical in the example you've given.

However, "founded" has a bit weightier connotation.

It's not just that something was started at the time given, it's that the thing is a well-known institution.

It also needs to be an institution to be founded , while you can establish almost anything.

You could say Google was founded or established

You might say a law was established, but you would not say it was founded

In literal terms: We found or establish companies or institutions.

We establish temporary guidelines, rules, protocols, and laws.

However, figuratively we can say: The law is founded on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

This policy relating to billable hours is founded on our firm conviction that work is far more important than family and free-time.

We expect our associates to work at least six days a week, and on Sundays whenever the situation requires.

First of all, the word "found" has multiple definitions/meanings, including the definition of being the past tense of the word "find".

I will ignore that as your question demonstrated your desired focus.

To "found" something like an organization or a city basically means to begin it.

If I start a city, giving it a name and getting it to be legally recognized by a larger government, then I founded the city.

However, the term "establish" could also refer to the point when something became viable, longlasting, or true.

For example, there was once a city that was created on the last day of the year 1912.

In the 1920s, economic hard times led to closing businesses including lumber mills.

In the 1980s, the city had a strategy of providing nice land for cheap, hoping to attract some businesses to move to the city.

The strategy worked; in 1982, they attracted a Japanese company enough to place their American headquarters in the city.

In 1986, they also attracted a company whose product was a newfangled thing called computer software.

Although the city was formally founded in 1912, which was the day that this place became established as a city , it was really the investments in the 1980s by Nintendo and Microsoft that led to Redmond, WA becoming established as a technical hot spot with significant worldwide influence.

Maybe the city of Bellingham

, WA had rosier prospects to have significant economic impact in 1911 (as Bellingham had already been founded in 1904), now now Redmond's role as an economic powerhouse has been firmly established .

Basically, "founded" refers to the start of something rather official, while "established" refers to the beginning of something that has remained, and something can be established over a longer period of time.

Here's another example, showing events that happened over periods of years:

e.g., the United States of America's found ing fathers lived in the late 1700s, but it was during World War 2 that America established itself as a worldwide leader known as a superpower.

One way I think we could look at it, perhaps, is correlate 'found' with another related word 'foundation'.

Visualise foundation, and its connotation, as being that firm solid base on which further structures are built.

Imagine erecting a building without a foundation - That doesn't sound too assuring, does it??

Of course, the foundation, no matter how solid & long-lasting, is kind of meaningless, unless something is built on it.

Hence, TOOGAM's example of Redmond seems quite accurate.

I also agree with the fact that one difference between found & establish is in terms of 'permanence'.

As I have seen some real world examples, founder means who generated an idea of any institute or organisation but the organisation is established by somebody else.

For example my father founded an organisation but the establishment of firm is done by me.

There might be a difference in the year of founding and the year of establishment.

Question: Google was  established  in 1998.  Google was  founded  in 1998.    In Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary, both  establish (2a)  and  found (1)  share the definition below:   to begin or create (something that is meant to last for a long time).   They are especially confusing in the case of creating a company or organization, as in the example above indicate.  How do you differentiate them?

What's the difference between "found" and "establish"?

They are essentially identical in the example you've given. You could say Google was founded or established. In literal terms:  We found or establish companies or institutions. We establish temporary guidelines, rules, protocols, and laws. However, figuratively we can say:   The law is founded on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

In the example they are essentially the same.
The "founded" connotation is however a little weightier.
Not only did something began at that time, but it's a well-known institution.
It also needs to be founded and almost anything can be established.
You might say that Google was established or created
You could say that the law has been created, but that it has not been established.

Literally we found or establish companies or institutions.
We have provisional guidelines, rules, protocols and legislation.
But figuratively speaking, we can say that the law is based on equal pay for equal work.


"It is two years since Paul and Jane moved to Paris." is still correct, even though less common.

For example, have a look at this quote by Sally Brampton (which is the best example Google spewed out at a quick glance

— I'm sure there are many more to find)

It is two years since I emerged from depression

and I no longer want myself dead.

I want myself alive.

You might also want to have a look at English Grammar in Use : a reference and practice book for intermediate students of English by Raymond Murphy.

As Sprottenwels says in their answer (emphasis mine):

"It is two years since Paul and Jane moved to Paris." is still correct, even though less common .

You could make this more common by inserting the word now : It is now two years since Paul and Jane moved to Paris

AndyT's variation on Sprottenwels' answer is probably the most natural sounding, but I'll offer this alternative (which is similar to a comment by Jim)

It is Paris to which Paul and Jane moved two years ago This variant emphasises

Paris (i.e. where they moved to) rather than the two years

(i.e. when they moved), which might be desirable depending on the context.

However, it's a slightly old-fashioned construction.

The only similar quote I could find was from Jean Paul Sartre in his essay

" What is Literature ":

It is Paris to which writers from the provinces, if they are well-off, come to practise regionalism

It is the case that Paul and Jane moved to Paris two years ago.

There are many ways in which English speakers, and even writers, extend sentences without materially altering the meaning.

Any assertion may be prefaced with one of these:

It is true that ... Believe me when I say ... Actually ...

The fact is ...

I can tell you ...

It is the case that ... In using the latter, the speaker probably feels that the added phrase lends a note of authority or formality.

It is often used when alternatives to the assertion have been suggested or implied.

Just to demonstrate that there are several ways to solve this problem, here's another one in idiomatic English.

It is the third year that Paul and Jane have spent living in Paris.

You can't change the verb, but you still have a ton of flexibility since the subject of the sentence hasn't been nailed down for you.

Question: Paul and Jane moved to Paris two years ago.      It is...     If the starting words were "it has" I could have written "It has been two years since...". But the auxiliary "be" is used instead and I am not allowed to change it. I don't have a single idea what the solution might be.

I need to rewrite this sentence while keeping the same meaning and starting with the given word(s)

It is  now  two years since Paul and Jane moved to Paris.

You could make this more common by inserting the word  now :   It is  now  two years since Paul and Jane moved to Paris


The sentence structure with the copula 'be' requires a complement.

An adjective, a noun or a noun phrase must follow is .

But there is none of these things in the sentence.

The problem is with the word "often".

It is an adverb (of frequency) and as such it is used for modifying action verbs or adjectives (none of which is the case).

As an adverb it cannot be a complement of the sentence subject "it".

A correct sentence would be: It's quite common to hear such rumors these days.

where common is an adjective, hence fulfilling the minimal requirement for completing the phrase

"It is quite...".

If you want to use that sentence structure (which is still passive voice) you must use common not often .

"Often" is an adverb that tells us the frequency of an event in time :

She often comes to this restaurant.

The man doesn't often tell the truth.

That species is not often seen in this climate.

"Common" is an adjective that can refer to frequency in time or spatial distribution:

Alligators are common in Florida.

In parts of Los Angeles, it's not uncommon to run into a famous actor while out shopping.

It's common to hear news stories that paint the President in an unflattering light.

Since you use the pronoun "it" as the subject, you must use an adjective and not an adverb.

On the other hand, if you do change it to active voice, you can use "often" to modify the verb "hear":

We quite often hear such rumors these days.

The same sentence using the passive voice: Such rumors are quite often heard these days.

It is quite often to hear...

ungrammatical We can ashcan dummy "it" and

twist that around like this, using to hear nominally, since non-finite forms of the verb have nominal status ( To err is human ): To hear is quite often.

ungrammatical Often is not a valid predicate adjective.

It isn't an adjective, but a word expressing frequency.

Another way of putting it is that adverbs (like often ) do not license an infinitive complement in the way that adjectives like easy and common do:

It is easy to see...

It is not uncommon to hear...

I apologize that I haven't the skill to offer a definitive grammatical analysis, but is the case of common vs often similar to less vs. few ?

People regularly confuse less (the quantity of a single item, "my toast has less butter than yours...") with few (the quantity of multiple items, "I have fewer sticks of butter than you do...").

In the OP's context, I believe common would mean "how frequently everybody does it" (a timeless context) and often would mean "how frequently it happens [to me]" (a context based on time).

To maintain the passive voice, the OP's statment would then have to be, "such rumors are heard quite often these days."

Therefore, to answer the OP's question...

Now, here's where the amature really kicks in.

The use of the word often is wrong because it's trying to modify the predicate to hear but should be modifying the subject rumors because you can't quantify to hear but you can quantify rumors .

The problem is that if you use the verb "to be" you need to add a predicative , such as a noun or an adjective, to describe what the subject is.

An example using adjectives is

It's quite often sad/scary/reassuring to hear such rumors these days.

And an example using nouns is:

It's quite often a surprise / a nightmare / a miracle to hear such rumors these days.

If you don't notice the problem with the original sentence, maybe the following trick can help.

In all these sentences, the logical subject is the phrase "to hear such rumors these days".

Try to change the order, putting this phrase at the beginning, thus getting rid of the "it", and at the same time removing other unnecessary parts ("quite" and "these days"): the "core" of the sentence is To hear such rumors is often.

Do you notice, now, that something is missing?

It would be natural to ask: "...

It is often what ?"

So, you need a predicative.

A possible solution, as Ashwin Schumann suggested , is to replace "often" (which is an adverb and can't be a predicative) with "common" (which is an adjective and therefore can):

It's quite common to hear such rumors these days.

An alternative solution, if you don't want to change the word "often", is to use another verb, for example "happens" instead of "is": It happens quite often to hear such rumors these days.

This verb doesn't require a predicative and therefore the sentence is correct.

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

Question: In  this question , which asks for transforming a sentence from passive voice to active, I left a comment as   It's quite often to hear such rumors these days.   However, @Brillig told me that sentence is not grammatically correct.  I want to know which part of this sentence is at odds with grammar. I am saying that because I asked them if my sentence is unidiomatic or ungrammatical and they said it's ungrammatical.

What is wrong in "It's quite often to hear such rumors these days."?

An adjective, a noun or a noun phrase must follow "is". The problem is with the word "often", which  is an adverb (of frequency) and as such it is used for modifying action verbs or adjectives (none of which is the case in this example). A correct sentence would be:  "It's quite  common  to hear such rumors these days", using the adjective "common".

The structure of a sentence with the "be" copula needs an addition.
You have to follow an adjective, noun or phrase.
But in the sentence there is no such thing.
The problem is the word "often." It is a frequency adverb and is used as such to modify action verbs or adjectives (none of which is the case). Like an adverb, the phrase "it" cannot be supplemented.
A right phrase is this: It's quite common to hear such rumors these days.


The usual term is make-up artist or makeup artist .

These may be professionals who work with actors in various productions like theater and movies, as well as in the modeling industry.

Here is more on this.

They may also be professionals who help "ordinary" people with their makeup, typically working in salons along with hair stylists.

From MW: cosmetologist noun : a person licensed to provide cosmetic treatments to the hair, skin, and nails : one trained in cosmetology : beautician EDIT TO ADD: From the NY State Division of Licensing Services website, emphasis mine:

The practice of "cosmetology" means providing service to the hair, head, face, neck or scalp of a human being, including but not limited to shaving, trimming, and cutting the hair or beard either by hand or mechanical appliances and the application of antiseptics, powders, oils, clays, lotions or applying tonics to the hair, head, or scalp, and in addition includes providing, for a fee or any consideration or exchange, whether direct or indirect, services for the application of dyes, reactive chemicals, or other preparations to alter the color or to straighten, curl, or alter the structure of the hair of a human being.

It is the responsibility of licensees to understand the Appearance Enhancement Law.

Also from MW we have cosmetician A person who is professionally trained in the use of cosmetics

It depends on what kind of makeup she applies, and in what context.

Somebody who works with actors and actresses on the set of a movie or TV production, or with models on professional photoshoots, is referred to as a makeup artist.

Somebody who works in a beauty salon with individuals who will wear the makeup in their daily life is referred to as a beautician, cosmetologist or aesthetician .

A person who works with makeup and specializes in it is a makeup artist .

A cosmetologist usually provides treatment to the skin, scalp and other parts of the body.

Some cosmetologists might do makeup as well, I think they also learn to do makeup when studying, but a cosmetologist usually has very little to do with makeup.

Search on Google for Hung Vanngo and Pat McGrath, whom are the two most important makeup artists

and I think your friend might be studying to become like them, and see how they're labeled/called.

You'll notice they're never called "cosmetologists".

Source: I'm a woman who is very much into makeup and skincare and goes to spas often.

They are usually called makeup artists.

In India it's a common practice to call them a Makeup Man.

Question: I have a friend that studies  make-up  in College and she is already a professional that works with it.  What is the name of this professional?    For example, a person that works with architecture is an architect.

What is a person that works with make-up called?

It depends on what kind of makeup she applies, and in what context.   Somebody who works with actors on a movie or TV set, or with models on photoshoots, is referred to as a makeup artist. However, somebody who works in a beauty salon is referred to as a  beautician, cosmetologist  or  aesthetician.

It depends on the type and context of makeup one uses; either makeup artist or aesthetician

It depends on the type and context of makeup she uses.
Anyone who works in films or TV productions or in professional shooting models together with actors and actresses is called a makeup artist.
Someone who works in a beauty salon, who is a beautician, cosmetologist or aesthetician, with individuals who wear make-up in their daily lives.


The writer of this article is probably a native speaker (or very good with English) but that doesn't mean the article itself is particularly well-written.

For example, there is a paragraph where the word "seemingly" is used at least three times, when once would be more than enough.

A pop-up feel" is not a very elegant turn of phrase.

It's not a typical or standard English idiom, so we all have to guess what the writer means by reading the rest of the paragraph: This North Caucasus bias was reflected in Yandex, Russia’s largest national search engine, reporting a sharp increase in searches about Myanmar coming from the region.

Support for the Rohingya cause across the region has a pop-up feel.

Many long-standing Islamic-themed Vkontakte pages have transformed themselves into 24/7 pro-Rohingya advocacy channels overnight .

It seems that "pop-up" means "appearing suddenly", or "without a long history".

It would have been better if the writer had used the common English idiom "to pop up overnight".

Support for the Rohyngya cause across the region has popped up seemingly overnight .

I would guess that here pop-up means roughly the same as temporary , i.e. something that emerged quickly, but is unlikely to last long.

The author of that sentence may be comparing the support for the Rohingya cause to other similar occasions.

When the plight of some people once catches the imagination of the general population (may be due to some tragic event heavily reported in the news), but is equally quickly also forgotten.

Compare with pop-up restaurant .

The Merriam-Webster definitions don't seem to explain a relatively new meaning.

"Pop-up" is used as an adjective to describe anything which is organized in a manner which may be border-line illegal, and it only intended to last for a short time.

A typical example would be a "pop-up shop" that is set up in a building that is temporarily empty - some of these operate literally for only a single day before closing again, to avoid any legal action.

Part of the customer attraction of the concept is in actually finding out about them (via social media, etc) before they close and disappear again.

Note, "pop-up shops" are now becoming a mainstream marketing technique, and organizations are renting out space for them, etc - the original "border-line illegal" implication is starting to die out.

A similar expression for one-off events that involve a crowd of people for a short time is "flash mob.

" That would seem a better description of some of the protests etc in the OP's link than "pop up".

I agree that the definition of pop-up is suddenly appearing , and this is probably what the author intends to convey. Wiktionary is a better resource for this word.

However, the full phrase is "pop-up feel".

To say that the protests appeared quickly is a fact, not a feeling.

I think that pop-up has a connotation of something artificially constructed .

Pop-up implies that it is not a natural phenomenon, but instead has an underlying purpose.

In politics, this is suspicious; it brings up associations like Potemkin village , astroturfing , and sockpuppetry .

The author doesn't seem to intend this connotation because it isn't otherwise addressed in the article.

In Los Angeles and San Francisco, "pop-up restaurants" are a trendy thing.

For short, they're just called "pop-ups."

A pop-up is a location that is open only for a few nights and usually features a trendy chef serving a special menu.

Finding out about these places is usually by word-of-mouth or Twitter.

The pop-up locations, by nature, are makeshift; more attention is paid to the food than to the surroundings.

Once the pop-up is gone, the space usually goes back to being to whatever it was before -- an empty storefront, a Halloween costume shop, what have you.

The writer may have been referring to the fleeting, fly-by-night, chaotic nature of the support for Rohynga.

Amusing article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/10/pop-up-restaurants-study-people-more-obsessed_n_7035394.html

Question: Support for the Rohingya cause across the region has a pop-up feel.   Source: Nouzie  I looked up  pop-up  in Merriam Webster:   1: pop fly  2: a component or device that pops up  3: a pop-up book  4: a pop-up window on a computer screen   I guess  pop-up   feel  has to do with the first definition,so does it mean the support of the Rohingya is very high, as a pop fly is? Or does it mean something else?

What does "have a pop-up feel" mean?

"Pop-up" can mean temporary, quick-to-emerge and unlikely to last long, as in a "pop-up restaurant".

I guess pop-up means roughly the same thing as provisional, that is something which has quickly emerged, but will probably not last long.
The author of that sentence could compare Rohingya's support with other similar events. When the plight of some people once catches the imagination of the general public (can be heavily reported in the news because of some tragic event), but it is also quickly forgotten.

Compare the pop up restaurants. "Pop-up restaurants" are a trendy thing in Los Angeles and San Francisco. A pop-up is open only for a few nights and usually has a trendy chef with a special menu.


The term in English is sick-bed or sickbed .

She lay in her sickbed, wracked by fever.

One of the duties of a pastor is to visit the sick-bed.

To be bedridden is having to be in bed because you are ill or injured.

For example, Jason was bedridden for a year after the accident .

Indeed, sickbed was a very common term in litterature especially around the times of Jane Austen, because people stayed at home in bed when they were ill, andoften in stories of kings the king lies on his sickbed/deathbed, historical famous scenes are often located at the deathbed and at the sickbed of a father or child.

Rather than using Latin to find new words for English, we normally add old words together, so we get riverbed, seedbed, flowerbed, hotbed, bedrobe, bedbug, bedroom.

There's an expression which sais: good night, sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite , for children.

The concatenations are possible because of the stress-timed intonation, same as arabic and italian but different from french which is rythmic, and because of the soft consonants of R and W and GH in english which makes longer complex syllables which have less percussion sounds and more ambigious and transitional, i.e. compare latin percussive rythmic words like "conviviality" "sonically" "écouter" with english soft words like "humerous" "heard" "sound".

the complex syllables means we can use less syllables than some other languages, because the syllables have varied sounds.

Yes, you can say "the bed of disease" but it sounds archaic.

For example: Family Worship (1841):

We cannot tell how soon we may be laid prostrate on the bed of disease and of death.

Richmond Enquirer (29 November 1811) Mrs. Poe, lingering on the bed of disease and surrounded by her children...

Baptist Missionary Magazine (1835):

In all these things there was no failure; but to administer spiritual comfort, to pray beside the bed of disease , to guide the devotions or enliven the hearts of others...

Dealing with the Dead (1856): Who would not wish to avoid that pain, which is reflected, for days, and weeks, and months, and years, from the faces of those we love, who watch, and weep, about the bed of disease and death !

Using "[noun] of [modifier]" in English sounds poetic or theatrical to me - something that you might say to dramatically emphasize a point, more than something you'd use in normal speech.

The more common ordering in day-to-day speech would be "[modifier] [noun]"; e.g., "sick-bed" (as other answers suggest), "winter flower", and so on.

With "bed of disease", there's also an ambiguity: "bed" can mean a place where something lives/grows, so without context I would find it hard to tell whether you mean "a place to rest from disease" or "a place where disease lives (or spreads from)".

It's been mentioned in 1006a's comment , but no-one's posted the expression I'd probably use for OP's context (if I didn't phrase things differently by saying I was laid up ).

Here's the usage chart...

bed rest

NOUN - Confinement of an invalid to bed as part of treatment (Oxford Dictionaries online)

Question: In Persian we have a phrase, whose translation would be "in the bed of disease". It means when you are ill and resting in bed. Can we use the same in English? What are equivalent phrases?

Can we say "bed of disease"

Yes, you can say "the bed of disease" but it sounds archaic. The term in English is  sick-bed  or  sickbed.

The term in English is  sick-bed  or  sickbed . You can say "the bed of disease" but it sounds archaic. The more common in day-to-day speech would be "[modifier] [noun]"; e.g., "sick-bed" (as other answers suggest), "winter flower", and so on.


I think a more likely construction would be: I’d give him nine out of ten for honesty.

He is honest on the scale of 9 out of 10 is not fluent or idiomatic.

If I had to express it with a scale, I would say something like On a scale of one to ten, his honesty is a nine.

or If you ranked honesty on a scale from one to ten, his would be a nine.

or He's a nine on a one-to-ten scale of honesty.

But really, it sounds awkward and clumsy to rank someone's honesty on a numeric scale; I would rather say something like "He is almost completely honest" or "He is nearly always honest."

That may be more of a stylistic issue than a linguistic one, though.

If you want short and pithy, you may have the wrong subject.

If you want short, pithy and dynamic, you may also have the wrong verb.

His honesty is 9 out of 10.

Without further context, we can't tell whether this places his honesty at a 90% occurrence rate or puts him in the 90th percentile of his peer group, but that's hardly relevant.

The one-to-ten rating scale is rarely used with precise measurements, and tends to represent nothing more than the strength of a gut-level reaction.

By the way, the scale isn't 9 out of 10.

The scale is 1 to 10 (or sometimes 0 to 10), the rating is the 9 out of that range.

Since it is a rating, we can use the verb "to rate": His honesty rates 9 out of 10.

If you're not comfortable with the verb "to rate", the less formal "to get" serves the same function: His honesty gets 9 out of 10.

The stative "is" implies that you don't expect the rating to change.

Dynamic verbs like "rates" and "gets" imply that the rating could change over time.

Perhaps is honesty rates a 9 this year, but next year his rating might drop to 3.

As a final note, the title of your question also works.

I don't expect any native-speaking reader to be confused or mislead by

He's honest (9 out of 10).

where the parenthetical functions as an abbreviated afterthought or aside.

I immediately interpreted it as "He's honest.

([I give/rate his honesty a] 9 out of [a 1 to] 10 [scale].)

" Someone else might interpret it as "He is honest (9 [times] out of 10)", which is practically the same general sentiment, if somewhat less generous.

The simple parenthetical may be poor style in a formal context, but it looks fine from the perspective of an informal, conversational register.

An option that maybe doesn't have quite the same meaning, but is certainly more natural-sounding, is: He is honest 90% of the time

Honesty is not about percentages.

Honesty is about personal gain.

If he's honest most of the time, but lies about the critical things that, in the proper social context, he should not lie about, then the "90%" rating is meaningless.

Some things do not make sense to evaluate in terms of percentages.

i.e.: "Oh, I don't sleep with 99% of the women I meet, I only slept with that one."

I think honesty falls into this category.

There is no fluent way to describe what you're trying to describe, because honesty doesn't work that way.

The concept itself is bizarre, so any description of it will be bizarre to begin with.

I'd like to also suggest the following:

He's a nine out of ten on the honesty scale.

This is idiomatic, and quite common in my experience.

Additionally, in my neck of the woods, we say something like this often enough: On a scale from one to honest, he's a nine.

Since we so often rate things from 1 to 10, it's left implicit that the adjective ("honest") is the value of a score of 10.

It's worth noting that this second construction is usually said with some sense of humour, since "a scale from one to honest" is, when taken literally, rather silly.

Someone who is perfectly honest, even to the point that it might actually sometimes be a problem rather than a virtue, is "honest to a fault".

So in this case, we might say, "honest, though not to a fault".

This nine out of ten concept seems dodgy.

If a retailer rips off 1 in 10 customers, I would simply call them dishonest, not "9 out of 10 honest".

A reputation for honesty is very sensitive to fairly slight blemishes.

Isn't there a more simple way?

Suggestions:

He is quite honest

He is rather honest

He is fairly honest

He is really honest

He is very honest Variant:

He is a [quite|rather|fairly|very|really]

honest person

Rating on scales from 1 to 10 is so common that it has become idiomatic to say things like: On a scale of 1 to perfectly honest, he’s a 9 where the 10 at the top of the scale is implied.

Examples of this construction:

On a scale of 1 to America, how free are you tonight?

On a scale of 1 to even, I can’t

On a scale of one to Britney Spears, how stressed are you?

Question: I'd like to describe a person that he is a honest person and add how honest he is but couldn't figure out. How can I say this?   He is honest on the scale of 9 out of 10.    Is this correct? Or is there any shorter form that native speakers say?

He is honest (9 out of 10). How to construct a phrase in which a person's honesty is scored on a scale?

To express degrees of honesty, one may say he is a [quite|rather|fairly|very|really] honest person.

Variant: He is a [quite|rather|fairly|very|really] honest person

Some suggestions: He is a [quite|rather|fairly|very|really] honest person


The giraffe's ear is falling off .

or The giraffe's ear has fallen off .

You can also say: The giraffe's ear is coming off . or The giraffe's ear has come off .

To be accurate, you wouldn't say something has fallen off (or come off ) unless it was completely separated from whatever it was attached to.

But kids are not always as precise with their language.

(Edit):

Also (as per BruceWayne's comment) The giraffe's ear fell off .

The giraffe's ear came off .

The ear on the giraffe is loose .

Or, in the possessive form, The giraffe's ear is loose .

Describing the attachment, or lack thereof, between the two components.

You can also use the word detaching , but it has other connotations if not entirely unsuitable denotation.

The giraffe's ear has not fallen off, it is still stuck, precariously, onto its head.

If it had fallen off it would have landed on the floor.

Perhaps the child meant to say it is about to fall off .

another way of describing this endearing zoological feature is to say: The giraffe's ear is lopsided

Oxford Dictionaries state

that lopsided means (emphasis mine):

“ With one side lower or smaller than the other.”

synonyms include: unsymmetrical, uneven, unevenly balanced, unbalanced, off-balance, off-centre, unequal, askew, skew, skewed, squint, tilted, tilting, crooked, sloping, slanted, aslant, one-sided, out of true, out of line, to one side, awry.

Does this help?

One of the ears of my giraffe wall sticker has fallen off.

Or if you want to say only part of the ear has fallen off: Part of one of the ears of my giraffe wall sticker has fallen off.

When stickers, paint, wallpaper, posters, and other such flat things that are stuck to walls come partially unstuck, native English speakers would usually say that they are peeling off the wall.

The verb fall off is reserved for when the object has come completely unstuck and is now on the floor/ground below where it used to be.

(In the case of paint, wallpaper, and other things that are intended to cover the entire wall, we say "peeling off" even when there are bits on the floor, because usually the entire wall hasn't lost its covering.)

In your case, we would say "the giraffe's ear has peeled off the wall" but "the giraffe sticker is peeling off the wall".

Also, adult native speakers would only say that the ear has fallen off if it has detached from the rest of the sticker .

The entire sticker can fall off the wall, but the ear by itself can't fall off without either taking the rest of the sticker with it, or tearing away.

But we might say that the ear has fallen down if we wanted to emphasize its new position rather than how it got that way (peeling off the wall).

I like the suggestion of

The giraffe's ear is coming off .

In this case I would stick with the present continuous (not came off) because the ear isn't all the way off the wall: it's still attached, either by part of the ear or by the rest of the giraffe.

If it eventually tears away from the rest of the giraffe so it's completely gone then came off would be more appropriate.

If you wanted to be more specific about the fact that this is a sticker , you could also use the verb peel , again in the present continuous: The giraffe's ear is peeling off (the wall).

Personally, because it's a sticker, I would probably say The giraffe's ear has come unstuck .

Or The giraffe's ear is coming unstuck .

With "come unstuck" you can use the present perfect, because the unsticking of the ear started in the past, and still is in effect now.

You could also use the present continuous because only part of the ear is unstuck, but more might be losing its sticky as we speak.

The first is better if you want to emphasize that the ear is detached from the wall, and the second is better if you want to emphasize that it's only part of the ear.

I wouldn't really expect a young child to use "come unstuck", though, especially in the perfect form.

(It might sound especially felicitous to me because of the famous line " Listen: Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time. " )

A more casual alternative that would probably work for a child is to use the verb unstick : The giraffe's ear is unsticking (from the wall).

Question: "The giraffe ear is  fell off ."   my son told me.  One of the ear of giraffe wall sticker is fell off.  What do we say for this? The rest (giraffe's body) is still sticking on the wall.  Only part of its ear is dropping.

The giraffe ear is fell off

The giraffe's ear is  loose
The ear on the giraffe is loose.

The ear on the giraffe is loose. Or, in the possessive form,   The giraffe's ear is  loose. Describing the attachment, or lack thereof, between the two components. You can also use the word  detaching , but it has other connotations if not entirely unsuitable denotation.