In AmE, if you want another word to refer to a child farting, then you could use toot or poot .

I could not quickly find a reputable dictionary entry for this particular usage of toot , but it is simply an extension of its dictionary meaning (OALD): toot

A short, sharp sound made by a horn, trumpet, or similar instrument.

There is an entry for poot in the OALD US informal Break wind.

‘somebody just pooted’ There are two from Wiktionary: toot , poot

For context, there are many euphemisms for fart .

"Breaking wind" as used above is one.

Another is passing gas (TFD): pass gas Euph.

to release intestinal gas through the anus.

Someone on the bus had passed gas.

It smelled awful.

Something I ate at lunch made me pass gas all afternoon.

This can apply to any person.

Finally, the formal word is flatulence (M-W): flatus expelled through the anus

In England a trump is wind that comes out of an arse (and has been for decades to my own personal knowledge so has not arisen from recent world events).

My favourite is from Blackadder: NURSIE: ...and letting off such great and fruit-some flappy woof-woofs!

One can scarcely...one can't believe one's tiny nosy! -- Blackadder 2

- "Beer" Although, this is not a commonly used phrase, except by fans of Blackadder.

You could consider the verb to parp ( Collins ).

Its original and standard meaning is "a honking sound", like the sound made by an old rubber car or bicycle horn.

The word is onomatopoeic (it sounds like what it describes).

But in the right context people will recognise that you are talking about the sound the baby made, or indeed the entire farting behaviour in which the baby engaged.

The word itself is not considered impolite, although the topic still might not be considered tasteful in all forms of company.

I believe it would also be acceptable to use the noun a parp although you might not find that in frequent use.

My child's nursery (in London) called them "windypops".

We still use it.

I'm not sure how common it is, but I think in context

it's fairly obvious to a native speaker.

My mother used 'blowing off' as a euphemism for fart.

In our family, they were called a 'scuse', because we had to say 'excuse me' after doing one (as young children, not as babies).

Dictionary.com records 'scuse' as a general abbreviation for 'excuse', but I cannot find any reference to 'a scuse' anywhere on the internet (so far).

Question: What is the appropriate word for "to fart" regarding babies?  As "to fart" is declared as  impolite  in the most dictionaries there needs to be another word for it regarding babies? Like "pupsen" vs. "furzen" in German.

"to fart" in child language

Parp may be a polite alternative to fart, although it may not be frequently used.

You could consider the verb  to parp . In the right context people will recognise that you are talking about the sound the baby made, or indeed the entire farting behaviour in which the baby engaged. The word itself is not considered impolite, although the topic still might not be considered tasteful in all forms of company. It would also be acceptable to use the noun  a parp although you might not find that in frequent use.


In the usual context of these words, as others have pointed out, one invariably says 'according to the law'.

However, you can use 'according the law', just not in the context you're referring to.

To illustrate: In areas of open lawlessness, according the law the respect it deserves can be difficult, if not impossible to achieve.

This obviously uses 'according' as a verb, not a preposition as in the example sentences.

I mention this usage as I don't think "No, according

the law is completely incorrect," or

"Only “according to the law” is correct" are entirely correct.

Kevin notes: This usage is dated and seldom used anymore.

When an average person hears the words according and law , the first thing that probably comes to their mind is the expression according to the law .

So, no, according the law is incorrect.

You should always say according to the law .

according to something is actually a set phrase in English and you just can't leave the to out from it.

It's part of the expression and therefore it must be there.

Nor can you say according of the law .

Again, that's just incorrect grammar.

However, according the law would still be grammatically correct, but it would mean a completely different thing.

In this case, according is the present participle of the verb to accord which means to give or grant something to someone.

For example: Accord the law the necessary status in society is a task of the highest priority if we are to build a fair and just legal system.

" According to " is a set phrase in English to indicate where something is specified.

You can't just drop the "to" and expect it to have the same meaning.

The verb to accord has a number of meanings; the only sense in which it could abut a noun phrase like that is as a transitive verb; example: "

I was according the law the respect it deserves".

That's unlikely to be the sense intended here.

“According the law” is ungrammatical.

Only “according to the law” is correct.

"According to" is certainly far more common in current usage.

I cannot imagine dropping the "to" except perhaps in some unusual, perhaps archaic, construction.

OED lists according as an adverb and notes that it's "usually" according to .

They also list a second sense as according as .

M-W and Macmillan list

according to as a preposition.

Question: Is it grammatical to say "according to the law" instead of "according the law"?  If so, is there any difference in meaning?

Is it grammatical to say "according to the law" instead of "according the law"?

Without to "to", the sentence does nto have the same meaning. One may say "I was according the law the respect it deserves". However, this is unlikely to be the sense intended here. Therefore, only “according to the law” is correct.

“According the law” is ungrammatical. Only according to law is correct.


two year course is correct and is used as an adjective (known as a compound adjective) to describe the length of the course which in this case is two years long.

Other examples of compound adjectives are: a three day weekend.

a four metre rope.

a six cylinder engine.

a three year vacation.

Compound adjectives can be hyphenated or separated with spaces.

I do not know what you mean by "the answer is."

This gets into the weeds of descriptive versus prescriptive grammar.

The first thing to realize is that "two years course," "two year's course," and "two years' course" sound exactly alike.

In terms of spoken English, you will hear that set of sounds frequently enough to consider it idiomatic.

You will also hear "two year course," which is indistinguishable from "two-year course," so that sound combination is idiomatic as well.

From a prescriptivist orientation, it is preferable to write "two-year course."

The noun phrase "two-year" is being used as an adjective to modify "course.", and adjectives in English do not form plurals or possessives.

As others have said, the idiomatic answer is that you form an adjective phrase "two-year" to describe something relating to a period of two years (the plural is always dropped in this sort of construction).

The hyphen ought to be used, though many people will write it without one.

See this table from the Chicago Manual of Style (which includes "fifty-year" on page 2).

However, sometimes you will see similar phrases with a possessive construction.

Some that spring to mind are "two weeks' notice" or "eight hours' sleep".

The difference from your example is that here the time is quantifying how much notice/

sleep you get, and I don't think you will see this construction except where you would ask something like "How much XYZ do you have?"

(You wouldn't say "How much course has Suresh joined?")

No-one has yet pointed this out, but your option (1) would be wrong even for this construction because your apostrophe is in the wrong place: for the possessive of a plural ending in "s" like "years", put the apostrophe after the "s".

two year (or "two-year") describes the duration of something, and sounds natural when used to modify "course" as if "two year" was an adjective.

This means a course which lasts for two years; it's common enough to see modifiers like this used in an uninflected form (plain "year"), rather than an inflected form.

two year's refers to the end-point of something.

Side note, this is more properly written as two years' , since the "two" means that "years" needs to be plural.

This one isn't normally used with a noun like "course"; instead, it would much more common to hear it with "time".

e.g., "Suresh has joined a course which ends in two years' time".

The version with the apostrophe could in theory be used as a straightforward possessive, but I can't think of any idiomatic cases where we do that in English with time durations.

And lastly, two years refers to a duration on its own.

"a course lasting two years", for instance.

You should know that the apostrophe in the first answer makes it into the genitive case.

Then it would mean "belonging to the two year", which does not make sense.

It is a common mistake these days, but it is still totally wrong.

It started with fruit sellers labelling their wares "apple's" and "pear's"; nobody knows why they suddenly started making this error.

So it is called "greengrocers' apostrophe".

Edit: corrected

Question: Suresh has joined a _____ course.  Options:  1) two year's  2) two years  3) two year  the answer is two year.but two year's sounds to me more logical.can you explain the nuance?thanks in advance.

two year or two year's

Using the apostrophe would mean "belonging to the two year", which does not make sense. This common mistake started with fruit sellers labelling their wares "apple's" and "pear's", and nobody knows why they suddenly started making this error. As a result,  it is called a "greengrocers' apostrophe".

You ought to know that the apostrophe makes it into the genitive case in the first answer.
Then it would mean "the two year," which makes no sense.
These days it's a common mistake, but still completely wrong.
It began with fruit sellers labeling their products 'apples' and 'pears'; no one knows why they suddenly made this mistake.
It is therefore called the 'apostrophy of greenhouses.'


दिल लगाना has nothing to do with love!

Rather, you can consider that as मन बहलाना .

The meaning of this phrase in Hindi changes according to the usage of it in a sentence.

Study this: उसका वहा पे

दिल

नही

लगता|

(Literal translation: her heart is not attached/involved there) -

She's not happy there!

So, yes, in a way, you attach your heart with something or someone you like.

But it is not always love.

If you want to talk about the intensity of love, there are many ways.

One such way is: He loves her so deeply that he cannot live without her.

For non-native speakers of Hindi, we have this idiom to talk about one's heart being happy doing something or being with someone.

That something/one could be animate or inanimate object.

दिल (pronounced: dee-l) means heart , and लगाना (pronounced: la-gaa-naa) means attached .

Together they translate:

heart attached/involved.

That isn't an idiomatic expression in English, but it's not weird, and the meaning is quite clear.

In fact, it's rather pretty.

The closest idiomatic expression in English might be "He had his heart set on her."

But you could use that in contexts where you weren't in love.

For example, "he had his heart set on the prize" would mean getting the prize was very important to him.

I like your expression better.

The most similar English idiom to your provided one would be:

He has given her his heart

Similarly you can say "his heart belongs to her."

Here's some more soppy romance stuff:

she stole his heart

he has given himself to her his heart

is no longer his [to command] etc.

If the question is about idiomatic expressions of love, any of the following would be candidates:

She is the apple of his eye.

She is head over heels about him.

He takes her breath away.

He fancies her.

He has eyes only for her.

She is smitten by him.

They are going steady.

They are a match made in heaven.

etc.

To say, "he attached his heart to her," isn't specifically known as an idiomatic expression of love, but it would generally work since it doesn't idiomatically refer to anything other specific thing.

The closest that I can think of is to find a way into someone's heart .

Example: When he proposed to her the first time, he got rejected.

But he didn't give up and later was able to finally find a way into her heart and make her love him.

A common way to express a similar sentiment in English would be:

She stole my heart , I cannot live without her.

To catch is more common than attach in that context, a catch is also the hook on a door.

You can catch someone's eye, and catch someone's fancy, and yet hearts are rarely caught.

They are bewitched, charmed, stolen, put under a spell.

There are other very useful words other than attach, Snag and Hitch laced up , captured , bridled , and you may use litterary licence and use a new combination of word which pleases you and coin a new term.

Ensnared is a gothic way of saying it, and laced up is a figurative one.

In french they also say accroche-coeur very often and coup-de-coeur.

Question: I am Indian, not a native English speaker.  I can't figure out the English expression. We Indians use  दिल लगाना  literal translation  ' to attach heart ' which implies to be in love with someone in Hindi. Please help me to understand this or provide other English expressions that implies to be in love   For example:   He has attached his heart to her,  now he cannot live without her because he loves her so much

How do I express दिल लगाना in English? It literally means 'attaching heart.'

The closest idiomatic expression in English might be "to have your heart set on someone or something".

He had his heart set upon her could be the closest idiomatic phrase in English.

"He had his heart set upon her" could be the closest idiomatic phrase in English.
But in contexts you were not in love, you could use it.
For instance, "he had his heart set on the prize" would mean that it was important to him to get the prize.


It is called a "sleeve."

Although the primary meaning refers to that part of clothing which covers the wearer's arms in part or in whole, by analogy

it has come to mean a tightly fitting, tubular protective covering.

See Merriam-Webster for a more detailed definition.

A historic term for a coffee cup sleeve would be zarf -- it traditionally refers to nondisposable Turkish metal sleeves but has also been used to refer to the disposable paper ones.

(Disclaimer: I've only once heard a sleeve actually being referred to as a zarf at a coffeeshop, and it was a "hey did you know" kind of thing from the barista)

It is called " Coffee cup sleeve ", and it is known also in the following names: coffee sleeves

Grip cup sleeves Coffee clutches Coffee cozies (refers mainly to those that they're for multiple use)

Hot cup jackets Paper zarfs Coffee collars

Hot cup holders ( Source ) Searching these names on internet stores prove that the most of them are in use in the market.

By clicking on the links you will see the results in Google images, and there you will find a lot stores which use these names.

I've certainly heard these corrugated cup-coverings casually called coffee condoms by college kids around campus (with the occasional “ribbed for her pleasure” snickers).

As might be expected of a coinage like this, Urban Dictionary offers the most baldfaced definition of this bit of street slang: Coffee Condom

The name for the sleeve that goes around your handle-less paper coffee cup to insulate the drinker's hands from hot coffee.

Similar to how a latex condom is designed to protect you from sexually transmitted diseases

the "coffee condom" is designed to protect your hand from the hot cup of coffee.

Java Jacket Smithsonian Magazine

from 2013-08-13 had an article on “How the Coffee Cup Sleeve Was Invented” containing a more detailed history of this device, including this small bit:

Jay Sorensen invented the Java Jacket in 1991 as a solution to a common problem—hot coffee burns fingers.

The idea emerged in 1989 when he was pulling out of a coffee shop drive-through on the way to his daughter’s school and a coffee spill burned his fingers, forcing him to release a scalding cup of coffee onto his lap.

At the time, he was struggling as a realtor in the years since closing his family-owned service station in Portland, Oregon.

While the coffee accident was unfortunate, it gave him the germ of an innovative idea: there had to be a better way to drink coffee on the go.

Sorensen ended up patenting his Java Jacket idea, and he sells a billion (B-I-L-L-I-O-N) of these a year.

But the one you get at Starbucks is ever so lightly different enough that they got their own patent after Sorenson got his.

An earlier patent for such a device was granted back in 1964:

And there have been many others besides that one.

The Smithsonian article also mentions one called a portable coaster back in 1947.

On the the more technically accurate side, the complete term would be coffee cup sleeve .

It's surprising that no one here actually mentioned that it even has got its own Wikipedia page.

Follow this link for the details.

A “warmth protector thingy” can also be called an insulator , but sleeve , coffee sleeve , or even cardboard sleeve are all acceptable.

Coffee condom should be used very selectively.

Question: I recently got into an awkward situation when I wasn't able to ask for a 'warmth protector thingy' in Starbucks, and wasn't accurately able to describe it, so could someone tell me what you would call the brown paper thing covering the plastic cup of coffee? I struggle to find it anywhere because it's hard to describe, hence why the title is badly phrased. edit: would zarf be socially acceptable to use in a casual environment?

What is the brown cardboard covering coffee cups called in English?

On the the more technically accurate side, the complete term would be  coffee cup sleeve . A “warmth protector thingy” can also be called an  insulator , but  sleeve ,  coffee sleeve , or even  cardboard sleeve  are all acceptable.


You wouldn't normally refer to yourself as "this" without using a personal pronoun in the predicate.

I usually say, "This is she," but my usage is probably a bit overly correct.

Probably, most people say "That's me."

(Even though the objective "me" is technically incorrect here.)

Regardless, "this is speaking" is neither correct nor natural grammar.

Like @joiedevivre, I was taught from an early age to say This is he , but this is rather formal, deriving from centuries of directive that only nominative pronouns should follow a copula.

In practice, this is unnatural for a native speaker; a well-educated person who is careful to state that is he in writing will say that's him in casual conversation and not think twice about it.

The nominative forms are nowadays used almost exclusively as subjects.

On the other hand, This is he is far better than

It is I , which may provoke uncontrollable laughter unless you are quoting the Bible, or perhaps a comic book superhero.

There is no single formula for responding to a question like May I speak to Jinsook?

or Is Jinsook available?

Any of the following might be acceptable:

This is Jinsook speaking.

You're speaking to Jinsook /

You're speaking to her.

Jinsook speaking.

Speaking.

This is Jinsook.

This is she.

This is.

Jinsook here.

(not Jinsook is here )

I'm Jinsook /

I am Jinsook.

That would be me.

That's me.

You can insert Yes in front of any of these, with a pause, and some people will also use them in combination with one another, separated by a pause.

Thus, if you have heard other people saying This is speaking , it may have been a conflation of two separate responses that should have been separated:

This is, speaking

This is speaking in any way sounds incorrect to me.

In addition, If you are answering the call, you don't refer yourself as a 'third person!'

So, it should be 'This is Jinsook Lee speaking.'

However, I'd refrain myself using that, and rather would go with the commonest one:

This is Jinsook...

I definitely concur with Bob, and disagree with Maulik V about not using the third person.

On the phone is about the only place I find using the third person about me as a natural thing, normally when specifying who in the household or business is "on the phone".

"ACME Industries, Ted speaking.

" would be a perfectly acceptable opening, as would: "ACME Industries, this is Ted" You could stretch it out by saying: "ACME Industries, this is Ted speaking"

but you cannot abbreviate it, by removing the name.

"This is he" works as a confirmation of who is on the line, but it is still a bit awkward, but

"This is him" is even moreso.

Talking on the phone does not always involve natural language.

We often use hand gestures while on the phone.

While that may be natural, it is not very useful.

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Q: Is this John Smith?

A:

This is, speaking ... makes perfect sense, but certainly isn't all that common.

Simply saying "Speaking."

as suggested by @CinCout is what I grew up hearing my father say on the phone, though.

I am a native speaker, and I usually say "This is Bob"...

I have heard "speaking" from time to time, and also "this is" but I have never ever heard "this is speaking"

the construction does not make any sense without the comma as suggested above, but even that would be extremely rare.

In informal situations "it's me" would probably be used, especially with younger people, but in business it would be considered very informal

"This is speaking" sounds completely incorrect to me.

I would wonder if I had misheard or missed part of the conversation due to a faulty phone line.

"This is ..." would normally be used like:

This is fun.

This is a knife!

Personally I answer the phone with my full name and nothing else, so that the caller knows immediately they have reached me (assuming that is their goal).

In your case you could say: Jinsook Lee.

Or variants:

Jinsook here.

Hello, Jinsook here.

Jinsook Lee speaking.

Once again, don't say "This is speaking".

If I heard that I might think you had said "Therese speaking" and wonder if I had dialed the wrong number.

Question: When you answer the phone, I'm wondering if 'This is speaking' is correct instead of 'This is he speaking.'please tell me the correct expression.

'This is speaking' is correct on the telephone

"Speaking" and "This is Bob" are often said, but not "this is speaking"  "It's me" is sometimes used in informal situations.

I am a native speaker, and I usually say "This is Bob"…I have heard "speaking" from time to time, and also "this is" but I have never ever heard "this is speaking"


I'd just call them "staples".

A set of staples joined together like this can be referred to as a "staple strip" or a "strip of staples", as in Eran's answer, but English speakers don't use this term very often.

Instead, most speakers simply refer to them as "staples" in normal speech.

That doesn't mean you can't talk about strips of staples.

You can talk about whether a stapler takes half strips or full strips, for example – the shorter ones take half strips.

But in common speech, it's usually most natural to just say "staples".

By the previous answers here, I found the following things: In Wikipedia they're called paper staples .

In Cambridge dictionary they're called simply staples .

Checking in google images shows that the boxes that contains them, call them simply staples .

( See here for example)

Staple strips , by googling I found mainly as a term that can refer to paper staples, but not as name of product title for them but just generally referring to what it is called.

I found also that " staple strips " as a product title name refers mainly to the staples that are not for papers, but for example for thicker things than paper or fences etc.

For "paper staples strips" there are only 5 results in google.

Stapler needles is a name that less common in English speaking countries (for example, by googling I found 972 results , in which 46 results in the UK or 774 results in the US for "stapler needles").

I think it can tell everything about this usage.

They are called staples.

Definition from Merriam Webster dictionary here

In our office we call them staple sticks or staple cartridges .

But usually when you ask someone to give you those, you never mean to ask for singles, so even if you ask for just "staples", I'm sure you'll get a stick of them.

I have always said "a row of staples" for the actual staples stuck together that you put into a stapler.

In the US, Swingline is the most known brand of stapler and here is the usage for row of staples

They're staples Just wanted to point out that one of the world's largest office supplies companies based its name on these little things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staples_Inc .

From a marketing perspective, it has a dual meaning - a "staple" is typically a basic ingredient or material so widely used or consumed that it's considered essential to an everyday process.

For example, rice and potatoes are staple foods in many parts of the world, cotton is a staple element of clothing.

By labelling themselves Staples, the office supplies company acquires the linguistic side effect of describing themselves as essential/being sellers of essential things

In India, I have heard them called "stapler pins" most often.

See, for example, listings on various shopping sites: eBay India Stationery Hut (seems to be an Indian site) Flipkart (Indian site) Or various news articles: FSSAI bans stapler pins in tea bags from January 2018 - The Hindu Business Line , July 24 2017.

‘Indecent obsessions’: A peek into life as a kleptomaniac, compulsive liar - The Hindustan Times , August 20, 2017 (emphasis mine): Pencils, erasers, sharpeners, notepads, paper clips, even stapler pins – over the next nine years, Dandekar would stockpile stationery he never really wanted, and certainly did not need. 29 stapler pins removed from 10-month-old baby's oral cavity - Daily News & Analysis , May 6, 2015.

a "bolt" of staples is what you call the attached line of staples.

As already answered, most people would just say they were "staples":

I need to put some more staples in my stapler.

It may also be called " a block of staples " as they are stuck together.

Another alternative is that they may be referred to as a cartridge .

Usually, a "cartridge" is a container with something inside, but the fact that the staples are sort of stuck together with a very fine adhesive makes them more than just "some staples".

It is a single, collective object designed to be put into a stapler, and for that reason, I think "cartridge" is acceptible.

They are called: Stapler Needles or Staple strips .

Question: What is the  filling  of the  stapler  called in English? (you can see it in red circle in the attached picture).  I looked for this word in my native dictionary but I didn't find this word.

What is the filling of the stapler called in English? (picture attached)

They are called staples or staple strips.

A set of staples joined together like this can be referred to as a "staple strip" or a "strip of staples", but English speakers don't use this term very often.


Funnily enough (given that it's quite a distinct expression that has a meaning of its own) I don't think there's a commonly accepted word in English to describe it.

I would go with @Eran's 'Sturgeon Face'.

(To clarify, a sturgeon is a fish that looks like it has that facial expression.)

Even though the definition that @Eran

quoted calls it an 'excessive frown', a frown is generally thought to involve the eyebrows more than the mouth.

This just demonstrates the paucity of vocabulary in English when it comes to talking about such expressions.

For the second photo, I would call that a furrowed brow .

That doesn't necessarily imply that it's compassionate, but it does imply worry.

You could say a brow furrowed with compassion .

The first is what I would call a grimace to make an expression of pain, strong dislike , etc.

in which the face twists in an ugly way: Either the verb or noun, scowl , would be appropriate too to look at someone or something with a very annoyed expression

The second picture showing Bernie Sanders is simply a frown , or you could call the furrows in his forehead, worry lines to bring your eyebrows together so that there are lines on your face above your eyes to show that you are annoyed or worried

Although this isn't a word for it per se , most books I read express this emotion by saying "X looked impressed".

Although the "looked impressed" may be vague, this sort of expression is usually associated with looking impressed.

Here are some google image search results when searching for "impressive meme" and "impressed expression"

This expression is very similar to a shrug (minus the hand gesture), but a shrug expresses an entirely opposite reaction, usually indifference.

The second one is best described as a frown , as people have already pointed out.

Google search yielded the term "Sturgeon Face".

Sturgeon Face is a participatory photo meme that involves turning down one's corners of mouth so that it forms an excessive frown (From

Know Your Meme )

I would say that first reaction falls under Impressed .

Given the severity of the expression, maybe very impressed .

Impressed - The feeling of amazement which arises when it is difficult for a person to imagine something that he or she has encountered being any better than it is.

Question: How to desribe a person reacting with this face?   Alternatively, I'd appreciate if you suggested me a word to describe this kind of compassionate frowning:

What do you call Obama's face expression "not bad"?

This expresison might be described as "impressed".

Impressed - The feeling of amazement which arises when it is  difficult for a person to imagine something that he or she has  encountered being any better than it is.


Just add a was or is after the date.

Practically speaking, it doesn't really matter which one you use.

Either one will work equally fine: August 22

nd , 2012 was the day my life changed forever and

the day I met you.

The sentence would actually sound a lot smoother if you rewrite it like this: August 22

nd , 2012 is the day when my life changed forever because it was the day when I met you.

You can make it even shorter: August 22

nd , 2012 changed my life forever because it was the day I met you.

Or shorter still with the day I met you as a parenthetical statement: August 22

nd , 2012—the day I met you—

changed my life forever.

You could start the sentence with the preposition on On August 22, 2012, my life changed forever when I met you for the first time .

Like @Bilkokuya, I too find the current wording is essentially best, I would just change the punctuation slightly (and remove a word).

I would switch the first second comma for a colon, and change the word 'and' into an hyphen m-dash (or n-dash if you're a rebel).

Spaces should be removed from around your dash (but it looks ugly so be even more rebellious and leave them in if you feel like it).

August 22, 2012: the day my life changed forever – the day I met you.

As Bilkokuya says 'Any other phrasing makes it sound like a story, and loses the significance.'

As others have said, leave the words and change the punctuation.

August 22, 2012—the day my life changed forever, the day I met you.

But if you need a true sentence (requiring a verb) rather than a phrase, how about, August 22, 2012 was the day my life changed forever—the day I met you.

This is perhaps more a style question than a usage one.

For me, putting a coordinating conjunction like and before "the day I met you" weakens it compared to the original phrasing.

I think there should be a progression "August 22, 2012"

[mundane], "the day my life changed forever" [special], and finally "the day I met you"

[incomparable].

Note:

This answer assumes that the reason your life changed forever on that date was because of meeting this person.

You can use several different approaches.

You could insert the verb after the date.

You could paraphrase the sentence.

You could use a preposition before the date.

(3) August 22

nd , 2012, was the day when my life changed forever and the day I met you.

nd of August, 2012, changed my life forever because it was then that I met you.

On 22 August 2012

my life changed forever because I met you that day.

You could use this style guide to help you.

You could rephrase it like this: It was the year 2012, the 22 nd of August when my life changed forever because I met you.

It depends - most would agree that your sentence is not strictly grammatical with out a main verb.

But semantically, the sentence works quite well, and delivers a strong declarative statement about the date as a subject (it's all subject) and its personal importance to the writer.

This form, used prudently, is generally acceptable for informal language, and is a matter of style and emphasis, but it is generally unacceptable, for formal use in particular, not to have a main verb.

So as a matter of style, it is a dramatic way to introduce a subject.

I would point out that the original does not make it clear that the reason the writer's life changed forever on that day is because someone was met on that day.

It could just be a coincidence.

The meaning is a bit vague or ambiguous in this regard, which isn't a bad thing.

The following, somewhat reduced, has a similar feel, is grammatical and perhaps a bit less ambiguous, but is not as dramatic.

August 22, 2012, the day I met you, my life changed forever.

a version of: The day I met you, August 22, 2012, my life changed forever.

a version of: My life changed forever on August 22, 2012, the day I met you.

Certainly, August 22, 2012, the day I met you, the day my life changed forever, is a fine way to begin a story about that day.

Yes, it presents a grammar issue

but it's not serious if it is done intentionally (and infrequently), and there's nothing inherently wrong with ambiguity

- these are devices for writers, some things are better left open-ended and then unpacked in the telling of a story.

Question: I want to say:   August 22, 2012, the day my life changed forever and the day I met you.   My only problem is that I don't know how to start a sentence with a date. If someone could help me with this that would be great thanks.

How do I start a sentence with a date?

You could insert the verb after the date, you could paraphrase the sentence, or you could use a preposition before the date.  For example: August 22nd, 2012, was the day when my life changed forever and the day I met you", "22nd  of August, 2012, changed my life forever because it was then that I met you", "On 22 August 2012 my life changed forever because I met you that day", or " It was the year 2012, the 22 nd  of August when my life changed forever because I met you".

You can use several different approaches. You could insert the verb after the date.   You could paraphrase the sentence.   You could paraphrase the sentence.


My first thought was to give someone props : give props to (one) To praise one and show them respect.

Thank you, but I have to give props to Jeanne, who organized this entire event for us.

(TFD) props noun, ( usually used with a singular verb)

Slang.

proper or due respect or recognition; credit: I give him props for putting up with annoying customers.

(Dictionary.com)

That's well-known here in the US.

There's a relevant post on ELU:

What's the etymology of “props”?

Notice that props itself is not used as a verb in this sense.

We don't *prop or *props someone to mean that we praise them.

Kudos is originally used to praise and honor someones achievements, but is also used to show respect in popular culture nowadays.

For example, you could congratulate your friend on passing a test by saying: Kudos to you for passing that test!

That is quite a feat.

Be mindful that kudos is a singular form, even though it looks like a plural.

Big-up or Big-ups is used to acknowledge respect

The term diss is certainly slang.

All dictionaries that I checked list it as such.

So, the opposite of it should probably also be a slang word.

Thus, one possible antonym of the word diss that you might consider would be the term respek (see definition #4 in Urban Dictionary) which was popularized in the early 2000s by the satirical fictional character Ali G portrayed by British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen.

And it can definitely be used as an inside term (a term that's typically understood only by people who know certain facts and context).

Examples: Stop dissing me, man.

Instead, show me some respek . — I nailed his ass five times in a row in Warcraft today. — Total respek , man!

Ali G talks about how respek is important (don't forget it's comedy): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqtg_JFGh6I

I have heard ‘spec’ used in UK as a positive reinforcement of a person’s integrity, a shortened form of ‘respect’.

You mention that diss is slang.

You didn't mention whether you wanted your result to be slang.

Here are some less slangy results: prop (as in "prop him up", slightly different than "give him props" as noted in Max's answer )

give kudos [to] (again, a variation of usage from another answer,

this time Lars Mekes's answer ) several others: compliment, envy / be jealous, follow, praise (or "singing his praises"), glorify, honor, elevate, dignify, give homage, venerate

"Stroking" is verbally boosting someone's ego, with praise or gushing admiration or fawning.

It seems to me the perfect absolute antonym to "diss", which isn't just about disrespect, it's about trying to tear someone down and damage their ego.

"Bob, that was really the best, your stuff is the best, you're the best."

"Aww, Betty, thanks

but you really don't have to stroke me like that."

Word Sometimes: word up From generally the same culture as 'diss' comes the single word exclamation: word, signifying respect or agreement with the person spoken to.

The Urban Dictionary definition of "word" is "Word"

has no single meaning, but is used to convey a casual sense of affirmation, acknowledgement, agreement, or to indicate that something has impressed you favorably .

Diss can be used as a verb or as a noun.

Similarly, it's antonym should be the same.

Complement is the closest word I can think of.

He dissed me.

He complimented me.

That's a bad diss.

That's a good complement.

Question: I learn that 'diss' is a shortened version of "disrespect" Urban Dictionary: diss   For example, try to diss me, man.   What's the opposite of it? I searched 'spect' as shorthand for 'respect'. Nevertheless, it does not feel as strong and smart as 'diss'  Note: 'Diss' is a extremely popular in China as cyberspeak for joking with each other.

The antonym of "diss"

Kudos  was originally used to praise someone's achievements, but is also used to show  respect  in popular culture nowadays.  For example, you could congratulate your friend on passing a test by saying:   "Kudos to you for passing that test!", meaning "That is quite a feat".

Kudos is originally used to praise and honor someones achievements. It is also used to show respect in popular culture nowadays. Be mindful that kudos is a singular form, even though it looks like a plural.


In the US at least, this person would be a fellow student , a friend from college or a friend (or acquaintance) from school.

Personally I've never heard "university mate."

Also I've never seen or heard "an university" anything.

It would be "a university" something.

Because "university" starts with a Y sound, a consonant in this case.

A "classmate" is only for a student who's sitting in the same class with you.

I haven't heard "schoolmate" but I don't know why.

A person who attends the same college or university as you, from a more technical perspective, should probably be called your collegemate ( college is more or less a general term for an institution of higher education, at least, in North America) rather than your schoolmate, but I wouldn't say that this term is common enough that you will ever hear someone actually say it in real life.

I've definitely never heard anyone use it.

Though, technically speaking, it does exist in English.

More realistically, you would probably just say something like people who go to the same university as you or people who study at the same university as you or simply fellow students from my university .

The word classmate , on the other hand, would be a term that's used to refer to someone from your class regardless of the kind of educational institution that you're attending.

It can be a high school, college or university.

Your classmates are simply people who are in the same class as you.

A few comments from the UK. "

An university" used to be current 200 years ago.

See for example Google ngrams.

Also I recall seeing more than once (but cannot now trace a reference)

the definite article being used at about that time, as if there were only one university.

(There had been two in England for centuries).

"Uni" is now very commonly used in spoken BrE but is newish.

The older informal term abbreviated the word from the other end: Varsity.

So, for an older generation: the answer would have been "a Varsity friend".

In formal BrE, "at college" is potentially confusing because there are lots of colleges in the UK that are not universities - and there used to be many more that have now become universities, and some of them were previously known as "university colleges".

The AmE use of school to mean university is also confusing for us.

And all the more confusing for everyone is that both 'college' and 'school' are used in BrE to refer to aspects of universities.

When I was an undergraduate I was a member of a college which was not in itself the university, and I am now associated with the School of Mathematics and Statistics in a British university, but that school is likewise not a university in itself.

What this all adds up to is that there seems not to be a single word answer in BrE.

I personally would use "fellow student".

Since nearly every university in the U.S. has a school nickname, it's very common and well understood to call other students by the nickname.

This reference would cover students attending as well as alumni.

For example, if you and your friend go to the University of Georgia, you could say, "Michelle is a Bulldog too."

We went to the pre-party and the bar was full of Bulldogs.

I've never heard the term schoolmate.

I've heard classmate, but that is specifically for someone in the same course as you.

Where I grew up (near San Diego), we would generally refer to other students at our same school as peers .

Since peer is a very general term, you could also qualify it, like school peers or class peers.

In Germany we have a special word for that "Kommilitone", opposed to "Mitschüler" what means schoolmate, or "Klassenkammerad" what would be "classmate" so let's see what auto-translate-tools get for that...

so I'd say "fellow student" seems the most correct choice, even though it's not "a single word"

Yes, schoolmate is perfectly acceptable.

At least in AmE, where school is used interchangeably with college or university in informal speech.

In BE, it seems like it would not normally be used this way as school is normally not used beyond secondary education.

schoolmate noun 1.

a companion or associate at school.

A classmate.

As noted in some other answers (which specifically disagree with using this term in this way), using the term "classmate" can be a bit controversial.

If you are in at least one class as the person, then the term is applicable.

In saying this, I am using the word "class" as meaning a group of people who meet at the same time, under one instructor.

However, even if I have someone who started at the same time as me, and graduated at the same time as me, we could still be classmates.

For instance, a person born around 1977 may have graduated high school around 1996, and was part of the "class of '96".

(Likewise, then, those who got a bachelor's degree four years later would be the "class of 2000".)

If I wanted to refer to such a person, I would feel right in saying that we were in the same "class", since the word "class" has multiple meanings.

Note that if the person is one grade ahead or behind you, you may still attend college at the same time, while not being in the same class.

So this term would only apply to some of your co-students.

" fellow student " is what I hear most often and probably the most common term.

One could possibly think up " co-student " but it's not a real word.

Question: Can I call that person a  schoolmate ? Or is that a wrong word because a school isn't a university? In that case, is it common to call that person a university mate?

What do you call someone who attends the same university as you?

You may say "fellow student" or "collegemate", although it is more common to say "people who go to the same university as you". "Classmates" can be used, but this simply means people who are in the same class as you.

Collegemate is a term used to refer to someone who attends the same college or university as you. "Classmate" is more common, but not common enough that you'll ever hear someone use it in real life. A " classmate" is used to describe someone from your class regardless of the educational institution you're attending. Your classmates are simply people who are in the same class as you, in high school, college orUniversity. The word  classmate is more or less a general term for an institution of higher education in North America.


A "whole piece" of garlic is called a head of garlic .

Hence, How much garlic do you want?

How many heads of garlic do you want?

“Garlic” is an uncountable noun.

So you should say "How much garlic do you want?", not "How many garlic(s) do you want?"

The whole garlic consisting of cloves is called a “head” or “bulb”.

So you can also say: How many heads/bulbs of garlic do you want?

How many cloves of garlic do you want?

Garlic is a bulb, and referred to as such.

When shopping you can ask for "three bulbs of garlic".

You can also say "garlic head" or "head of garlic".

For example, "Wrap each garlic head in foil and roast for 30 minutes".

A garlic bulb (or head ) is made up of multiple cloves .

Most recipes call for one or more cloves of garlic, but you typically buy garlic by the head or bulb .

So - I may buy three heads of garlic, and use four cloves from one head in a recipe.

Not all English speakers agree on whether "one piece of garlic" means a clove or a head.

That's the real problem here.

You can observe this cultural disagreement playing out in some of the other answers.

Your question: "How many pieces of garlic?" is technically a correctly-formed English sentence, but is ambiguous and open to misinterpretation.

It is best to always ask "How many cloves?" or "How many heads?" to avoid the ambiguity.

but it's also okay to say How many pieces of gravel do you have now?

Yes and no.

You wouldn't say that to someone who just had a load of gravel delivered, you'd stick to "how much gravel" (and they'd probably reply with X number of tons or loads or bags or similar); "how many pieces" would be unanswerable.

But if you were asking about the number of pieces of gravel someone had in their hand, for instance, it would be fine.

Then, how about garlic, which is another uncountable noun?

I know I can say two cloves of garlic, but what should I say if it's a whole piece of garlic?

The "whole piece" of garlic is called a "head" or "bulb,"

so you'd use one of those terms instead of "piece," which could be ambiguous.

This will be situation-dependent.

If you're going the shopping and are asking how much garlic someone wants you to buy, you'd ask "how much" or "how many heads/bulbs" because you're not going to closely examine each head as you buy it to try to figure out how many cloves it has in it.

But if you're helping someone cook and they ask you to peel the garlic for the recipe, you'd probably ask "how much" or "how many cloves" they want you to peel (and even if you ask "how much," they'll likely answer in cloves).

Question: I learned that we should say   How much  gravel do you have now?   since "gravel" is an uncountable noun, but it's also okay to say   How many pieces of  gravel do you have now?   Then, how about garlic, which is another uncountable noun?I know I can say two  cloves  of garlic,but what should I say if it's a whole piece of garlic?   How much garlic do you want?  How many pieces of garlic do you want?   Are both okay?

How many pieces of garlic? How much garlic? uncountable noun

You should say "How much garlic do you want?". However, you might also refer to "cloves", "bulbs" or "heads" of garlic, in which case you can ask "How many cloves/bulbs/heads of garlic do you want?"

How many pieces of garlic? is technically a correctly-formed English sentence, but is ambiguous and open to misinterpretation.

Garlic is an uncountable noun. So you should say "How much garlic do you want?", not "How many garlic(s)?" The whole garlic consisting of cloves is called a "head" or "bulb"

Not all English speakers agree on whether "one piece of garlic" means a clove or a head. "How many pieces of garlic?" is technically a correctly-formed English sentence, but is ambiguous and open to misinterpretation.


As far as I know, that would be called takeout (sometimes referred to as takeout food).

At least, that's what I've most commonly heard my American and Canadian friends say when talking about a prepared meal that you take home with you or someplace else instead of eating it where you bought it.

I guess the reason it's called takeout is because you literally take it out of the building.

Examples:

I would like a medium French fries, a bottle of coke and a hamburger.

Make it takeout, please.

Although that would probably work, a more common way to say it would be make it to-go :

I would like a medium French fries, a bottle of coke and a hamburger.

Make it to-go, please.

I think you use takeout more in other contexts like

I got takeout for dinner last night .

Not when ordering.

It depends on the type of restaurant too.

For example, if you go to a fast-food restaurant, you would ask for to-go.

If you go to a casual dining restaurant, you might ask for takeout.

At a very fancy restaurant, you only eat there and taking it home isn't an option.

Pizza is a special case though.

If you go to a pizza place, you order carry-out.

We usually call it carry out , take out , or to go here in America.

Example:

Would you like that meal to go or to stay?

This phrase is most commonly used when you are at a fast food restaurant, and they ask you whether you wish to dine there, or take the food with you.

I also see this used if you are seated at a restaurant and you want to take home some leftover food.

You might say: can I get a to go box, or can I get this to go?

Is that carry out or dine in?

Is that take out or dine in?

These are two phrases you might more commonly hear if you are ordering at a restaurant, they might ask you if you wanted to just pick up a meal you ordered, order a meal to take home, or eat there at the restaurant.

It can vary in the United States, but in general, for fast food it's referred to as "To go".

For example, when you order at McDonald's, the cashier will ask "Is that for here or to go?".

For places where you typically call in to place your order, and either pick it up yourself, or have it delivered (Chinese, pizza, etc.), it's called "takeout" or "delivery", respectively.

For example, if someone says "I'm going to grab some Chinese takeout", they place their order, then go pick it up at the place.

I think this is the closest parallel to the British "takeaway".

If they said "I'm going to have some Chinese delivered" or "Want to get some Chinese delivery?

" they place their order then have it delivered to their home.

Some regions use "carry-out" instead of "takeout".

"Takeout" is referring to food that is not consumed in the place

it's prepared" "To Go" and "Takeout" refer to the same thing, but are used in different contexts.

At the point of actually ordering, "To Go" is used to communicate that the food should be packaged for travel.

This makes the food "Takeout".

So basically "Takeout" food is "To Go" and "Dine

In" food is not "To Go"

In the UK "takeaway" often refers to what in the US is called "delivery".

Someone brings the food to your house.

So, "carryout", "to go", "delivery".

Doggy bags are for leftovers.

No one orders a meal in the form of a doggy bag.

Question: What's the American English equivalent to the British "takeaway" when referring to prepared meals that are intended to be eaten elsewhere?

American equivalent of British "takeaway"

"To-go", "carry-out", "take-out" or "delivery" are used used in this context.

For fast food, it's referred to as "To go" in the United States. For places where you call in to place your order, and either pick it up yourself, or have it delivered it's called "takeout" or "delivery". Some regions use "carry-out" instead of " takeout" for Chinese or pizza delivery, and "carry out" for pizza. In the UK, the term "to go" is used for takeaway food.


As you noted, "chandelier" does normally refer to larger, more ornate pieces than this, despite its literal meaning of "candle holder".

In general, a light that is fixed is called a "light fitting" or "light fixture" (in contrast to desk lamps, or standing lamps that are pieces of furniture and can be moved).

A light fitting could be a "ceiling light", a "wall light" a "floor light".

This is a ceiling light.

John Lewis (a department store chain in the UK) describes this particular style as a "multi-armed ceiling light" https://www.johnlewis.com/browse/furniture-lights/ceiling-lighting/multi-armed/_/N-7cq4Z1z0hyhp

This one, in particular, is a 5-arm ceiling light

Thus, there is no specific name for this type of light fitting, but they can be described using common words.

A type of lamp which does not hang low from the ceiling is called a semi-flush ceiling light , Semi-flush is a ceiling light that attaches to the ceiling with a stem or part that creates a gap between the ceiling and the light.

The adjective twisted describes the form of the glass shade and … there are two types of ceiling lights.

The one is flush , and the other is semi flush .

Flush ceiling lights are lights that are close to ceiling fixtures.

In other words, they are close to ceiling lights.

In fact, most of them have no gap between the fixture and the ceiling.

These ceiling lights are designed to look modern and functional.

They offer a consistent and exact level of brightness, whether it is warm or white.

On the other hand, semi-flush ceiling lights or semi-flush mount lights are those that have wider gaps between the fixture and the ceiling.

If close to ceiling lights or those that are close to ceiling fixtures emulate the moon or the sun, semi flush lights emulate the classic chandelier.

Nevertheless, both types can be made in various designs that can perfectly fit any interior.

[source]

The adjective swirl is used to describe how the arms cross each other Note that the number of light bulbs is described 3/5/6 or 8 light , thus the ceiling lamp posted on the OP's question is a (modern) 5 lamp semi-flush ceiling light.

The particular word chandelier basically means candle holder , but for most people evokes as you say a large, ornate fixture.

That may change, but in the meantime I stick with the more generic light fitting for any lamp holder , and I'd have said multiple light fitting, but it does appear the industry has settled on multi (-) arm (ed) to describe these things.

I wish we could resurrect manifold ¹ [as the adjective] for this, it’s the perfect word — it means something has multiple parts, and often refers to something with a branching structure, such as an exhaust manifold ². ¹

a pipe fitting with several lateral outlets for connecting one pipe with others; especially : a fitting on an internal combustion engine that directs a fuel and air mixture to or receives the exhaust gases from several cylinders ² the manifold that receives the exhaust gases from each of several engine cylinders

In AmE, and no doubt elsewhere too, the terminology for lighting fixtures is quite varied and specific to the industry.

Not every style has a widely used generic name, or fits neatly into a category.

Phrases that would come in handy for you trying to describe this image to a company over the phone, if you were shopping for such a light, say:

It's not a pendant style ceiling lamp; that is, it doesn't hang down from the ceiling on chains.

Rather it has five rod-like but undulating polished metal arms

each of which terminates in a frosted sconce .

While all the suggested terms are accurate and accepted, it is perfectly fine these days to call any multi-armed ceiling lamp a chandelier, no matter how fancy or plain.

To say otherwise is wordy and overly specific.

The main difference is between lay speakers and professionals.

A designer or lamp manufacturer would refer to such a lamp generally as a fixture because all built-in lighting is referred to as a fixture.

They would want to distinguish it from a more formal chandelier, which might have additional hanging pieces like strings of crystals that might may need space accommodation and expense.

Watching the remodeling shows on cable TV, any multi-armed lighting fixture can be and is often referred to as a chandelier by professionals and lay people alike.

I think that the most generic way to refer to this type of ceiling light fixture would be a simple-style 5-light chandelier or a simple-fashion living-room chandelier .

At least, that's what most online furniture stores call it ( simple-style chandelier ).

Although it might not sound like it, it is still a chandelier, any way you slice it.

Just a more modern version of it, I guess.

Question: What is this kind of lamp called? To call it simply a " lamp " doesn't makes sense to me, nor to call it a " chandelier ", since I've noticed that "chandelier" refers to an impressive group of lamps which hang from a ceiling. I would like to know what this usual kind of lamp facility is called?   NB honestly I don't know what to call it even in my native language.

What is the name of such a "lamp"?

Both "chandelier" and "fixture" can be used in this context.

It is fine to call any multi-armed ceiling lamp a chandelier, no matter how fancy or plain. The main difference is between lay speakers and professionals. A designer or lamp manufacturer would refer to such a lamp generally as a fixture. More formal chandeliers might have additional hanging pieces like strings of crystals. These might need space accommodation and expense.


The usage of how to to ask a question is a direct translation from the learner's own language: it is not correct as a question in English.

The expression is used in titles, for example "How to win friends and influence people" In English, a how-question is formed by taking a normal sentence, making a question in the usual way (by applying subject-auxiliary inversion ) and then adding how in front of it.

I get a visa I do get a visa - add do because there is no auxiliary verb

Do I get a visa?

- invert subject and auxiliary

How do I get a visa?

- add how

Are you talking of asking some guy

How do I kill an insect ? , versus How to kill an insect ? ?

If so, I believe the latter is not grammatically correct.

I think How to is used more in titles and such (not in the question form), for example: How to kill all the insects in your house in less than 3 hours .

If you are asking the question directly to a person or group of people then How do I feed a lion?

is grammatical.

However we can also be making the point that it's a problem to do a task and say Ah, but how to feed the lion?

That's the question.

Here we are not explicitly asking a specific person for an answer, though in conversation we are open to receiving answers.

I suspect that these two cases are sometimes confused by non-native speakers.

The phrase "How to play tennis" is noun phrase.

It does not contain a finite verb and is not a complete sentence.

It is not a question.

It means "the method of playing tennis" Noun phrases are useful: They can be used, for example, as headings in a piece of writing.

They are building blocks of complete sentences

He taught me how to play tennis.

This is a complete sentence with a subject, verb and two objects.

It is not a question.

"How" can also be used in questions, but it needs the inverted verb to be a question.

How does he play tennis?

In English, whether something is a question or a statement can depend on its context or delivery.

For example: Salesman:

Hey, have I got a deal for you!

Customer:

Really?

Salesman: Really!

Sentence 1 is worded in the form of a question ("Have I"), but the intent is to make a statement.

Sentences 2 and 3 contain the same text, but #2 is a question while #3 is a statement.

"How to" can be used in a question, particularly when someone is asking a question of themselves (e.g. "How to win?"), but its natural function is to cue a reader to expect a heading or title (e.g. How to cook a potato ).

Question: Can I use “How to” instead of “How do I” when I ask a question? And will it be grammatical?  I often notice some English learners use “How to” when they ask a question.

Can “How to” be a question?

"How to" is used in titles, for example  "How to win friends and influence people".  In English, a how-question is formed by taking a normal sentence, making a question in the usual way (by applying  subject-auxiliary inversion ) and then adding  how  in front of it. For example: How do I feed a lion?

This is a direct translation of an appropriate question in other languages, but is not used in English. "How to___" is used as a title of instructions, but a question would usually start "How do I ____?"


In detective stories, you'll often read the expression he narrowed his eyes If your eyes narrow or if you narrow your eyes, you almost close them, for example because you are angry or because you are trying to concentrate on something.

More often than not, when someone is thinking deeply, English speakers will focus on the creases in the forehead, which is called a frown When someone frowns , their eyebrows become drawn together, because they are annoyed, worried, or puzzled, or because they are concentrating.

Perhaps the word you are looking for is to squint but it does not imply that you doubt something, you squint because you want to look at something with your eyes partly closed in order to see better (LDOCE 5th version).

But here's an alternative for squint : to narrow one's eyes - to partly close them, especially to show that you do not trust someone

One oft-used verb for this is squint : squint ( v. )

To look with the eyes partly closed, as in bright sunlight, or as a threatening gesture; to look askance, as in disapproval.

The word is often used in conjunction with suspicion.

A Google Books search yielded a heap of entries with squint suspiciously , such as: The village, Burns thought, had the look of a distrustful old man squinting suspiciously at all outsiders.

People from the parking lot at the front of the store began wandering over, staring or squinting suspiciously.

When he left the head table, he cast a squinting, suspicious gaze around the arena.

His eyes were small wet holes pressed between a couple dozen layers of wrinkles, probably from a lifetime of squinting suspiciously at people.

I believe you mean that look that Fry had when he was in doubt his friend Bender was impersonated by someone else:

This is indeed squinting , and it is a recognisable expression of suspicion in some cultures, but not universally.

In general, squinting means just that: to look at someone or something with one or

both eyes partly closed in an attempt to see more clearly or as a reaction to strong light.

There are some good answers here already, but another couple of terms that come to mind are furrowing one's brow or knitting one's [eye]brow[s] .

Furrowing describes an expression where you create wrinkles on your forehead/brow (as one creates furrows in the ground when plowing it) either by raising your eyebrows or tensing the muscles around the eyes in the way you describe.

Knitting one's brows refers more specifically to pulling your eyebrows together, which also produces the effect you described.

Edit: I just found an interesting list of terms/expressions describing various facial expressions: https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/thesaurus-category/american/to-make-a-particular-facial-expression

Similar facial expression for a scowl , but scowl has slightly more angry connotation.

scowl ( v. ) to look at someone or something in a way that shows anger or disapproval

scowl ( n. )

an expression on someone's face that shows anger or disapproval

Not mentioned so far: to glower .

glower (v): Have an angry or sullen look on one's face; scowl.

Glower is appropriate if you narrow your eyes in anger or threat.

As an illustration of the difference between looking sleepy , squinting , and glowering , see this clip from the movie Get Shorty

There are some kinds of half-shut eyes , here are some of them: 1)

While a person is very tired and he is about to sleep, or alternatively before death or if having a structure of such eyes.

It can be called simply " half-shut eyes " or " half closed eyes "

I saw his half-shut eyes.

( reference ) N.B.

Sometimes it may be called: piggy-eyed or " pink eye ".

While suspecting in something or having a concern or a thought about something: half-shut eyelids or "half closed eyes".

"A woman at the information desk with half-shut eyelids managed to tell me that the KLM flight was delayed with no ETA."

( reference )

The officer looked at him narrowly through half-closed eyes...

( reference ) 3)

While a person want to improve his eyesight (by changing the shape of our eye and letting in a limited amount of light that is more easily focused) : squint or less common blink (see definition No.1)

Why can people see more clearly when they squint their eyes?

( reference ) 4)

While conveying a glance: " bedroom eyes " Marilyn Monroe's signature look was her bedroom eyes.

( reference )

That half-closed 'bedroom eyes' look actually makes women think you are SHIFTY, not sexy.

( reference ) 5)

Pathological disability to close the eyes completely (for example due to a malfunction in a facial nerve): Lagophthalmos (or Nocturnal lagophthalmos if it is at night)

He has Lagophthalmos .

He can't close his eyes completely.

So in the end of the day, the choice depends on context.

But in your case I would consider the option No.2 here.

Question: It's not under any influence of alcohol! It's just a  gesture.  Eyes are half closed with creases on the forehead and some tension in the muscles  around  the eyes. Such expressions are made when you  doubt  something or find something suspicious.   I'm trying a lot but not finding even a single image! Why? Because I don't know what it is called!

What do we call the half closing of eyes?

To narrow your eyes, to squint, to frown, to furrow your brow or to knot your brow are all used to describe such an expression.

Expressions focusing on the eyes include "narrowing his eyes", e.g. if you are angry or concentrating, or "squinting", e.g. if you do not trust someone. Other expressions focus on the eyebrows and forehead, e..g "frowning", "knitting his (eye)brows".


*"Haley found remark disrespectful" is ungrammatical, so you'd be unlikely to hear a native speaker say it.

What you're likely hearing is the "the" being reduced, likely with almost no vowel sound.

Sometimes the "th" might sound more like a "d", as well.

e.g., a native speaker might pronounce it like either of the following, in casual speech: Haley found th' remark disrespectful Haley found d' remark disrespectful In such cases, I'd often expect the first "e" in "remark" and/or "disrespectful" to be heavily reduced, as well.

In extreme cases, you might even get the "d" in "found" dropped, so under the right circumstance, you could have a pronunciation which sounds like: Haley foun' d'remark disr'spectful Where "d'remark" would be "the remark" in well-enunciated speech, and "foun'" would be "found".

I'm a native English speaker, and we do say the "The" It's true that if you are speaking quickly it will all get blended together, but we definitely don't omit it.

In my dialect (British, West Midlands), it actually comes out as: "Hayley foun' the remark disrespectful."

The D in found is very, very heavily reduced in this sentence.

In fact, forcing myself to enunciate the D as well as the "The" seems really unnatural.

Perhaps this is why a non-native speaker could miss the different sounds?

But regardless, the grammatically correct sentence definitely includes the "the" and I can't imagine somebody omitting the word fully even in casual speech.

Native speakers don't "omit" the entire word, but many of them will strongly de-emphasize the vowel sound in the and essentially merge it with the start of the next word.

It's not quite an elision of the syllable, because you can still hear it, but it's very fast and nearly omitted.

Typically this happens if the following word starts with an unstressed syllable.

For example, a native speaker would likely sound like they were saying:

I found the entire exchange disrespectful.

or:

I found the statement disrespectful.

but: I found th'remark disrespectful.

Others have already given good answers, but for what it is worth, I'm an U.S. speaker and would naturally say " Haley foun'

the remark disrespectful " just like @Psiloc mentioned.

But I would guess many Americans would also say " Haley foun da remark disrespectful " where "the" almost sounds like "da" attached to "found".

To add to the dialect versions, northern English dialects will often pronounce "the remark" as "ut-remark" with a glottal stop (spelled "t'remark" if you want to write it down).

This is very easy to mishear.

It's standard for Yorkshire, parts of Lancashire, and parts of Derbyshire.

You won't hear it further south, and when you get further north (up into Cumbria, Northumberland and Tyneside)

then you have different accents again which also don't do this.

We definitely say it.

As other answers have pointed out, the 'd' and the 'th' can get blended together, and the 'e' doesn't have much emphasis on it.

But you can always hear the syllable, no matter how mangled the pronunciation is.

Put simply, no matter how fast we're speaking, it takes us longer to say "found the remark" than "found remark".

It's been obliquely mentioned a few times here, but I thought it might be worth spelling out:

Not only is the reduced to th' when a native-speaker says this, but found is also reduced to foun' .

A native-speaker will typically pronounce the D on "found" only if the following word begins with a vowel.

So when you're listening, you're merging foun' with th' to make something like founth (which sounds very much like found ), and therefore it sounds to you like there is no the .

A native speaker would pronounce "found remark" as "foun' remark", and there would be no d/th sound between the words.

What you are hearing as the end of "found" it actually the "the".

The part that most likely is being omitted is the 'd' in "found".

Like "foun the remark"

In my dialect (mid-southern american) we tend to pronounce it like "found th'remark".

Subtle differences in the sounds formed are not necessarily conveyed to the listener.

Try this test: Choose a quiet place and native speaker.

Speak the word facts then the word fax .

I tried this and my mouth formed the two words differently, but the listener could not hear the difference.

So although I would pronounce the phrase foun' d-th' remark , the listener will not hear the subtle changes the mouth makes switching from d to th .

Question: Haley  found the remark  disrespectful and felt she couldn't keep quiet,  the sources said.   I heard someone read this, and I can hardly hear "the" between "found" and "remark".

Do native speakers pronounce "found the remark" without the "the"?

Haley  found remark  disrespectful is ungrammatical, so you'd be unlikely to hear a native speaker say it.  If speaking quickly, the words may all get blended together or shortened, but the "the" in this case is not omitted.

This is not grammatical in English. What you are hearding is probably the word being unstressed and blurred together with the words before and after it. In fact, the final 'd' on 'found' might have been omitted, while 'the' was reduced to a 'd' sound.


When you replicate something, you get a copy that's almost the same as the original, but not quite the same.

There is usually some sort of difference between the original and the replicate .

The original and its copy can have different sizes, for example.

But the most important difference between the two is their identity—the original and its copy are not going to be the same thing at least in terms of their identity!

An example that illustrates this best would be a replica of a famous painting.

A professional painter can make an exact replica of the Mona Lisa.

Even though the two paintings look exactly the same, we all agree that there is still a big difference between the two paintings!

The original costs millions of dollars because it's the original work of Leonardo da Vinci and the replica is just a mere copy of it.

So, the idea behind replication is that the replicate is always slightly different from the original at least in terms of its identity.

As for the other term, the result of the process of duplication is a duplicate which is an identical copy of the original in all of its aspects.

If you make a duplicate of the keys to your house, the duplicate is going to be absolutely identical to the original keys in all respects.

This means that a duplicate of something is as good as the original and can be used to replace it completely while this is usually not true for replicates .

Though they mean the same, they are not always interchangeable.

You need to study the context before using those words as synonyms to each other.

Say, for example, if there is a group of scientists and they are trying to do an experiment that has been previously attempted by someone else, they try to replicate the results.

The word 'duplicate' doesn't go there!

If I'm a good painter, I can replicate

the Mona Lisa, I cannot 'duplicate' it!

So, to answer this question, check twice before interchanging these words.

Likewise, when you lose your original driving license or any other document, you apply for a duplicate copy.

There, 'replica' does not work!

It should be noted that replication and duplication technically refer to processes , not any result or object that results from such processes.

Previous answers refer to the end result to determine which process has been followed (replication or duplication); ie that a duplicate is normally an exact copy of an original (such as a photocopy of a paper) whereas a replica is not necessarily to the exact specifications or dimensions.

However if is important to note that while the processes of duplication and replication may be different, the end result from both can still be identical .

For example: A computer programmer codes some software that produces a result.

Another programmer is asked to replicate that software.

The second programmer may use an entirely different method to achieve the same result .

However, in an entirely different example: if it is found that two people are performing the exact same task and the repetition of work is unnecessary, this is referred to as a duplication of work irregardless of whether the two are strictly following the same process, so there are clearly exceptions.

Finally, although the correct English terms for the results of duplication and replication would be duplicate and replica , it is not uncommon in colloquial speech to hear them referred to by their processes.

Incorrect, but nevertheless sometimes used.

In addition to the answers above, I would add that a duplicate mostly apply to objects, like an ID card duplicate in case of loss or damage, a line in a source code, a photocopy of a document...

The noun replicate was already stated by previous answers, but now, let's consider the verb to replicate Consider a crime scene witnessed by someone.

When asked from the police, the witness may for example replicate the gestures of the murderer to describe how the scene went.

In this context, it is more like mimics , trying to be as close as possible to the original action.

Now, consider software engineering.

The tester tells the programmer that there is a bug on the X module.

The programmer tests the module but is unable to find out what manipulations the tester did in order to the bug to occur.

He then calls the tester to show him what he did step by step.

The tester then replicates his actions and the bug is occuring again.

So, the verb to replicate may still infer copying something , but it could also be re-doing something , as the verb to duplicate is mostly making a copy of something .

In addition to the answers above, I get the impression that "duplication" generally refers to one duplicate copy (as opposed to triplicate), and sometimes a few (eg "I cut four duplicate keys from the original, and I still have the duplicate keys with me"), and the focus is more on the object being duplicated.

So you may have a duplicate that you used a different process to produce, as long as they are identical in all ways that matter.

A duplicate is also normally 1:1 scale to the original.

Whereas "replicate" seems to be more focused on the process and the result is the same or close to the same because you performed the same process, or at least you say you did (if its something you are selling to tourists).

A replica may be scaled up or down from the original and still be called a replica (eg "

He replicated his winning sales strategy from a small business beginning all the way up to a multi-million dollar company").

For instance You replicate old ships, not duplicate them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_replica (though they seem to like calling significant scale changes "models" not replicas)

Anyway, my 5c worth, based on my understanding of usage in Australia, sailing and computer science.

Duplication is making an exact copy of an existing ojbect (you duplicate the key of your house).

Replication is making many object from the same model, for example industry mass produtions, you replicate the same car model.

Question: What's the difference between " replication " and " duplication "?  According to Cambridge dictionary:   duplication   (n) : the act or process of making an exact copy of something.  replicate   (v. but the same definition for noun) :  to make or do something again in exactly the same way.  I really don't find any difference between them in the following context for example: when having two keys that they're really the same 100%. The can I say  "These keys are duplications / replications" .

What's the difference between "replication" and "duplication"?

A  duplicate  of something is as good as the original and can be used to replace it completely while this is usually not true for  replicas.

A duplicate is generally an exact copy, such as a photocopy or a copied key, while a replication could be a car built to the same model in a series, which may not be exactly alike in all respects.

A duplicate is generally an exact copy, while a replication could be a car built to the same model in a series.

A duplicate could be a photocopy or a copied key, but a replica may not be exactly alike in all respects.


If you put an opposite word of an adverb , it does not convert the word into the opposite meaning.

slow down cannot be turned into slow up to mean faster!

The word you may use is flared which means widening up.

Though it has limited usage and may not suit to your concern.

You wouldn't get the meaning you're looking for if you said 'taper up'.

The immediate thing that comes to mind when I hear 'taper up' is a tall building 'tapering up' toward the sky.

In this case the adverb is referring to the direction that the thinner end would point if it tapered to a point.

You could also say 'tapered to the right' for instance.

That doesn't mean that 'tapered down' always means that the tapered end points down, though. '

to taper down' is a verb phrase that means the same thing as 'to taper'.

The word 'down' in this case is not referring to the direction, but to the width getting smaller or lower.

It would be perfectly acceptable to simply say "became gradually thicker toward one end"

A baseball bat broadens out above the handle.

To taper just means to become thinner as the length increases, or as you move along the length.

down

is only used as a direction, it's not a phrasal verb .

There is a phrasal verb to taper off , but it has a different meaning: to diminish over time, not over space.

Both wider and thicker (in your question) have related verbs: to widen to thicken However, to thicken has connotations of food: to thicken the sauce .

To widen looks like the word you want.

The beam widens the further from the source it gets.

First, it's most usually used with "off", as in "taper off".

"Down" would be valid but a distant 2nd.

The nearest and most popular antonym to "taper down" would be "spread out", followed by "fan out", "enlarge", or "thicken"

In what context?

Gradually reducing something (like doses of medication) over time, is often called tapering down, (sometimes, tapering off), so logically we might expect gradually increasing something to be tapering up.

Oddly, I've never heard that.

However, "ramping up" is widely used in the context of gradually increasing something, for example, Tesla is ramping up production of its new car.

For something physical you can simply turn round and look at from the other end, I think "taper" is OK

but I agree "taper up" is a little strange, perhaps "widen" or "thicken" at one end is better.

AS your question already hit on, you're looking for the word "widen."

Question: The verb "taper" is defined in dictionaries as:   To become gradually  narrower or thinner  toward one end.   So, this word is often used with the adverb "down".  I am searching for a word that means To become gradually  wider or thicker  toward one end. Is it possible to use the expression "taper up" for the meaning?

Is the expression "taper up" incorrect?

If you put an opposite word of an  adverb , it does not convert the word into the opposite meaning.   The meaning would change if you said 'taper up'. There is a phrasal verb  to taper off , but it means to diminish over time, not over space.  "Flared", "spread out" or "fan out" may be used for "widening or tapering up".

While "taper down" or "taper off" are used, these are phrasal verbs and cannot be reversed in this way. Acceptable antonyms could include "flare", "spread out", "fan out" or "thicken".


From AussieEnglish.com (but as they say in that link, it would be familiar to Anglophones everywhere)... to nail [it / something] if you nail something or you nail it in a figurative sense it means that you have completed a task successfully, perfectly, impressively , or you’ve gotten something correct, you know, you’ve gotten something right.

Note - using this idiomatic expression (as in I've nailed that tricky job ) doesn't inherently include the sense of ...

and I'm proud of having done so , but in practice that would always be implicit.

In English we use a French word: voilà!

In context, its meaning is something like "I've done something pretty good, if I don't say so myself!"

or "What I've done is admirable, wouldn't you agree!"

You will actually encounter the word spelled wa-la by speakers who have heard it used but have never read it, or if they have read it, have not recognized it.

In British casual usage, to emphasise that the task was not merely completed (as "I've done it" might be taken to mean) but done well in a way satisfying to the speaker, people might say I've aced it

, I've smashed it, and further intensification is possible by preceding the verb with 'totally', 'completely', etc. 8 guaranteed ways to totally smash your ‘to do’ list in 2015

How I Smashed Out My Christmas Shopping In Two Hours Since starting with Sustain, I've totally smashed my goals his sassy kid totally aced his maths test

If I have just completed a twenty-year task, my exclamation would most likely be "Finally!", or perhaps "At last!"

If it's not a long, protracted project then the phrases like "Nailed it!" or even "Yesss" would be appropriate.

On short-term achievements I occasionally say "D*mn, I'm good!"

there you go : You're doing that well or correctly; nice job.

Example: There you go!

I knew you'd get the hang of it eventually!

This is the context provided by the OP: Say, I had been building a house for 20 years and finally built it Well,

then in that case, you could say something like this: Finally done!

With the caveat that it has acquired an ironic connotation , mission accomplished is appropriate for completing a long effort.

(It's) done and dusted .

adjective, not comparable

(Britain, idiomatic, of a task) Completed thoroughly and satisfactorily.

Wiktionary

"I've done it!"

has exactly the meaning you are looking for.

In American English, we don't have much in the way of idioms for this, as the previously answers demonstrate: "nailed it" is Australian

, I gather "done and dusted" is British, and "voila", from the French, is not really conventional English usage for what you have in mind.

When I completed the requirements for my graduate degree, and got the letter saying I had been approved for graduation, I posted to social networking the single word "Approved" and a photo of the letter.

Everyone got it, and the congratulations came pouring in.

There was no idiom that struck me as more appropriate than that.

My Dad would always say "that was a home run" after finishing a big project well or faster than expected.

Obviously, this comes from baseball.

'Sorted!'

As SE doesn't like pithy answers, I'll share a story of my late friend 'Kip' Carpenter, creator of the 'Catweazle' character and TV series.

He was looking for a wrap-up line for another script.

Eventually someone suggested 'Sorted!'.

And it was.

You raise your fist to the sky and shout "Excelsior!"

It's an English modification of a Latin word and has been used for more than two centuries.

Question: What is an idiom of:   "I have just finished a great job and I'm extremely proud of that"   For example, I had been building a house for 20 years and finally built it (and want everybody to know)  I thought "I've done it!" will do, but Google seems not to confirm that. Is there a simple idiom (just an exclamation)?

Idiom for "I have just finished a great job and I'm proud"

"I've nailed it!", "I've smashed it!", "I've done it!", "Sorted!", "There you go!" or "Mission accomplished!" are all used in this context.

I've done it" could have that meaning, but "I've nailed/smashed it" means that you've done exceptionally well, and can be intensified with words like 'totally', 'completely', etc. "Sorted!" has a similar connotation. "There you go" and "Mission accomplished" can be used, but some expressions like this can be used ironically.


I might use easygoing , which is synonymous with undemanding .

M-W lists it as any antonym of fussy , which can be applied to tastes in food or clothes.

One definition that fits this context is: easygoing ( adj ) relaxed and informal in attitude or standards

An example sentence might be:

Diane is really picky about what she eats, but her sister Jill is much more easygoing .

An idiom that might work is go with the flow , which Macmillan defines as: go with the flow ( phrase )

do what seems like the easiest thing in a particular situation

This may not a precise fit, but it could work depending on what you were trying to convey: Every time we go to the mall, Diane is really picky about clothes, but Jill just goes with the flow.

She'll pretty much agree to anything we suggest .

The phrase go with the flow

suggests a calm and accepting attitude.

We can use flexible , which is often used casually.

Formally, this is defined as: (of a person) ready and able to change so as to adapt to different circumstances.

In context: - "I'm hungry, let's eat!

Any preferences?" - "

Oh anything's fine, I'm flexible ."

I would suggest: undemanding (if speaking about food or requirements) casual (about clothing or attitude in general)

In colloquial speech (bear in mind I am a native British English speaker.

My colloquialisms may not be quite the same in American English)

you may hear: "I'm easy" in response to a question about tastes, likes, dislikes.

This conveys a casual attitude, that you have no specific likes or dislikes.

Or: "I'm not fussy" (informal) "I'm not particular" (slightly more formal)

If asked for a general preference, e.g. What type of X do you like ?

the most natural responses to my ears are: I'm not fussy .

I'm not picky .

I'm easy .

(adjective, sense 6)

Although easy can have a sexual connotation, most of the time it won't.

You'll get a knowing glance because of the double entendre , but people won't accidentally misunderstand.

If directly asked for a choice, e.g. What type of X

do you want ?

other possible responses are: I don't mind .

(verb, sense 3)

I'm not bothered .

I'm not fussed .

I would suggest unfussy .

It was my immediate reaction when I saw the question title.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/45825/Martin Bonner supports Monica

Easy , easygoing , and game are all good choices and already mentioned.

Since no one posted it yet, though, I'll also throw out laid back or laid-back .

The OED has it in the figurative sense of 'relaxed' since at least 1974 :

It's all cheerfully grotty and relaxed in the usual laid-back Montreal style.

Wiktionary is unsourced but claims it goes back to the '50s .

Really, any synonym for 'relaxed' is going to work here with a little context.

Some fairly popular recent slang would be chill or down for whatever .

The later can have sexual connotations as a general description, but works just fine in response to a focused question.

Whaddya wanna eat?

Man, I'm down for whatever .

A less popular but still sometimes used word is catholic (lower case "c"): 2 :

comprehensive, universal; especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests - a catholic taste in music Merriam Webster

Related to Martin Bonner's and Astralbee's answers, the best single-word antonym I can think of is unparticular : adjective :

Not particular; especially not exacting, fastidious, or fussy.

Relaxed is another good word: "Don't worry, she's pretty relaxed about food."

Merriam-Webster defines it as "easy of manner" which seems to fit your request.

"Relaxed" also comes up in a search for a translation of "fünfe gerade sein lassen" (literally "let five be even", i.e. don't insist on formalities, don't be fussy, be flexible — the German answer to your question).

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

A word that's very similar in meaning to the adjective picky would be finicky .

The opposite of finicky then would be unfinicky which is defined simply as: not finicky You could also consider the word unfastidious which, as with unfinicky , is simply the opposite of fastidious : not fastidious: not extremely or excessively careful, selective, difficult to please, etc.

In all honesty though, you would probably be better off sticking to not finicky and not fastidious rather than the contrived-sounding unfinicky and unfastidious :

He's not finicky about the food he eats.

So, when it comes to food, he's a person that's not very hard to please.

She's not very fastidious about the clothes she wears.

In fact, she buys most of her clothes in second-hand stores.

It may not be a special word, but in my experience, the most common antonym for picky is not picky .

"Where would you like to eat dinner" "

Oh anywhere is fine, I'm not picky.

"It's easy taking my daughter clothes shopping, she's not picky about brands.

"Did you see the guy Sheila was out with last week?

Looks like someone is not very picky..."

Question: What adjective would be used to describe an attitude where one is not too demanding about something (like the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc.).   I'm looking for a word that sounds fairly informal or colloquial.

What is the opposite of 'picky'?

Relaxed, easy-going, flexible, and undemanding can all be used in this context. Alternatively, one might say "I'm not picky", "I'm easy" or "I'm not fussy".

Relaxed' or synonyms like 'easygoing' or 'flexible' are often used. Someone's attitude could be described as undemanding or casual. When talking about our own attitude, we could say "I'm not fussy/bothered/fussed/picky", "I don't mind" or "I'm easy".


Both are used interchangeably and in colloquial speech

I'm fairly sure nobody would correct you for using either.

Technically, " at " doesn't mean you are actually in the lecture.

For example you might say that you have "arrived at the store", which could simply mean you have reached the exterior of the store and have not yet entered it.

You may even use "at" when speaking about somewhere you have not yet reached, for example "I'm at a concert tonight".

Saying you are " in " somewhere is much more specific.

To be completely correct therefore you should use "I'm at a lecture" when speaking about attending a lecture in the future or if you had arrived at the venue, and only use "I'm in a lecture" if the lecture is in progress.

@Astralbee has already answered but In your context, I think that the correct one is I'm in a lecture now If you're talking with someone using a mobile device

and you want to hang up; or if you want to end a conversation because you have to go to the lecture, you can use some additional particle for emphasizing the present moment

Sorry, I'm in a lecture right now.

Byeeee.

Sorry, I'm currently in a lecture.

Byeeee.

During my "research", I found this in a students forum online.

It seems that someone was a bit bored.

In my experience you are more likely to hear 'in a lecture' than 'at a lecture', although either version is acceptable, This is supported by this Ngram .

Relying on my experience again, the use of 'I am in (a particular location)' or 'I am at (a particular location)' is inconsistently applied for different locations.

e.g. I have often heard 'I am at the movies', but never 'I am in the movies'.

To me, the latter implies that the person is an actor in a movie.

Similarly, I hear 'I am at school' more often than 'I am in school', but I hear 'I am in class' more often than 'I am at class'.

At X is used if X is a place.

Some properties of places are below.

people can freely enter and exit at any time.

it's a wide open area.

someone could give you directions to it if asked.

it's considered a public event

So using at X to refer to a lecture can usually work, especially if the place is dedicated to hosting lectures.

Can you be in a place?

You can be inside of its borders, fences, or buildings.

If a lecture is taking place at a lecture hall, in X would be reasonable.

In X can also be used

if X has some notion of a session - sessions have a start and end (borders) and saying you are "in" them means you are there while it's happening.

Since typically all lectures are planned and have well-defined start and stop times (sessions), in X has a higher chance of being appropriate.

I would say "I am at the lecture now" is correct (though in practice "in" is also used (some answers here prove it)).

I'd use "at" because a lecture is a kind of event.

We would say "I'm at the meeting" or "I'm at the concert" for the same reason.

MyGrammarLab Intermediate by M.Foley and D.Hall explains it a bit differently though: To support my "event" idea, I'd like to refer to English Grammar in Use by R.Murphy:

Here are a few examples like that with "at"

+ event:

Both my friends are at the lecture.

At the lessons in our workshop you will be able to make any flower - exotic, bright and unique! Activities: Publication of compilation of speeches given at the seminar on international protection of human rights.

"In the lecture" is more like "during the lecture" (though my perception may be different from the one of some other people).

See the examples below:

She referred to Professor Jones's work in her lecture on Shakespeare's imagery.

In the second lecture you will learn about it.

Given all that, I assume "I'm at the lecture" is more grammatical.

Question: Which preposition is the correct for being present in /at  lecture?    "Sorry,  I am  in  a lecture now",  or "I am  at  the lecture now"?

Am I in or at lecture?

Both are used interchangeably.  You may even use "at" when speaking about somewhere you have not yet reached, for example "I'm at a lecture  tonight". Saying you are " in" somewhere is much more specific.

While there is some difference in meaning between the two and 'at' would be more correct, both are used interchangeably in colloquial speech and 'in' might be more common. The rules are somewhat inconsistent and confusing, so you could say "at school", but "in class".