The more idiomatic expressions that you hear used are "You make me whole" and "You complete me".

I had to think a bit about why that sounds funny to me.

While whole is indeed both an adjective and a noun, so there isn't anything grammatically wrong with the sentence, the question "your whole what?" comes to mind.

This is the reason for Subjunctive's comment.

While we see what you are driving at, we just don't say this.

She is your whole something , such as world or life.

"You complete me" would be very proper, but "You are my whole", based on the tendency of most to take things in a sexual nature might lead to you getting slapped...

"You are my whole" is not an English idiom, nor is it a complete sentence.

Here are some similar poetic statements:

There is a song titled You are my everything.

There is a popular country song whose refrain includes the lines:

There goes my life.

My future, my everything.

And another popular song 's refrain includes the lines: you are the one That I've been searching for my whole life through In American culture, if a young man says something like this to his girlfriend, he is taking a big risk.

Many women want a man who has a life of his own, and is not dependent on a particular woman for his happiness.

They appreciate it if they can make him happy -- but they might think less of him if he is not confident that he "can survive" "with or without" her.

In writing it sounds weird (because if she is "whole" it means that she's better off without you, so "my whole" makes no sense), and phonetically it's completely rude and vulgar.

I suggest you look for some other expression.

There are a few good ones in other answers.

Question: I want to say to my girlfriend that she is everything for me. And my question is if I can say her this thing by the sentence "You are my whole".  I made a little googling about but I didn't find a clear answer.

Can I say to my girlfriend "You are my whole"?

You are my whole is not an English idiom, nor is it a complete sentence. Also, phonetically sounds rude and vulgar.  The more idiomatic expressions that you hear used are "You make me whole" and "You complete me".

You are my whole' does not sound right. 'You complete me' and 'you make me whole' are good alternatives.


In Christian theology, "demon" is a category of beings, the set of angels who rebelled against God.

"Devil" is one specific individual, the leader of the demons.

There is only one devil but there are many demons.

"Devil" is sometimes used to refer to any evil person, as in, "Joe is a devil".

But I think that's a metaphor.

Like people will say of a smart person, "Wow, Bob is a real Einstein".

Demon and devil can be used as synonyms to refer to a wicked person.

So I think these words can be used interchangeably in the same sense as the sentence presented by the OP.

In this sense, both the words can be used in the singular and plural, for example, "Be careful - he is a demon/a devil (not the devil) or they are demons/devils".

I would say that, using them toward a person would be basically equivalent, referring to evil, and would probably be a metaphor or simile depending on context.

However, in theology or fiction there are several different connotations

Demon A demon is any of several types of evil creatures from another plane of existence.

Most frequently, red or purple or black.

Devil

The Devil (with the definite article), refers to a specific entity.

(see Wikipedia .

Usually presented as a red humanoid with horns, or sometimes appearing as a human, in either form, wings could be present.

In its plural, it refers to any of the servants of the Devil with similar appearances.

There is a subtler, connotations based, difference that neither of the answers have touched on so far.

A Devil is strongly associated with religion and sin.

In almost all contexts a devil, or the devil, represents evil.

Although it may sometimes be light-hearted; "You devil!

" could be playful, depending on tone of voice.

A demon does still appear in religious contexts but is also found in other references to the supernatural.

Although they can be monsters, demons are sometimes not portrayed so negatively.

They can be romanticised, for instance "

Sweeney Todd; the demon barber of fleet street.

" or in Kubla Khan "By woman wailing for her demon-lover!".

Demon and devil come from theological terms and still retain those meanings.

A wicked person could be called a demon and be meant to be a supernatural demon, or said to act devilishly and meant to be literally "like the Devil."

The other answers provide great background on those.

In modern non-religious usage: Devil/devilish can mean mischevious (like a sneaky child), or something that strongly appeals to the senses and would be tempting.

A food or woman could be described as devilish .

Devilish can mean evil, but usually diabolical takes that role.

Demon is associated with the concept of obsession ("he studied every hour of every day like a demon.")

doing something so well (or other quality)

that one might not consider the person doing it human.

Can imply obsessive or obsessive-like dedication to the skill.

First thing that comes to my mind is speed demon .

The devil has a unique shape, derived from the Greek god Pan, the god of shepherds and flocks.

He had the attributes of a goat, horns, legs and tail of a goat.

The Christian religion took over the figure and made him the epitome of everything evil and the oppponent of God, which the Greek Pan was not at all.

A demon is a bad spirit who can have any shape.

Demons can even be invisible and they occur mostly in folklore.

Question: As far as I recognize, people use "demon" as a kind and can be used in plural form yet devil is not being used in plural.   He is a demon, stay away from him!  He is the devil, stay away from him!   So what's the difference? In which situations I use demon and devil?

The difference between "devil" and "demon"

Demons are bad spirits, evil creatures from another plane of existence. They may  be invisible and they occur mostly in folklore. In Christian theology, "demon" is a category of beings, the set of angels who rebelled against God. Demon and devil can be used as synonyms to refer to a wicked person.  "The Devil" is one specific individual, the leader of the demons and it represents evil. There is only one devil but there are many demons.

Demons are bad spirits in theology. The devil is their leader. Both terms can be used to describe wicked people.

Demons are bad spirits in theology.
Both terms can refer to wicked people.
The devil is the leader of demons.


It's a shortened form of Explain

like I'm five years old.

I'm not sure whether this already has the status of an idiom, but it's quite frequently used.

The meaning is quite literal:

Explain a complicated subject in a way a five year old can understand.

The phrase means 'explain it to me in very simple terms, as if I were only five years old'.

Whilst someone using this might mean that they really don't understand, it is also possible that the person asking suspects that the person explaining doesn't really understand either and is only parroting jargon.

It means, "Please explain it to me in the simplest possible terms, as one might explain it to a five-year-old child.

" I sometimes say that to someone who is explaining technical matters of computing to me, for instance, where I am reasonably computer-literate but know little or nothing about programming or the inner workings of my laptop.

Does this make sense?

It's not an insult, it's just a request for a patient, easy to understand explanation.

To fully answer this question, one must first examine the underlying assumptions of the statement

"Explain like I'm five", mainly, what does it mean to "Explain" and what is the relevance of being "five".

Let us first elucidate the bourn of this directive.

For the sake of clarity, we should begin by prescribing to the aesthetic justification of Occam’s razor.

As Thomas Aquinas stated, "If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments [if] one suffices.

" With this in mind, it is most likely that an unobfuscated exegesis is being solicited from the requester.

In Stephen R. Shirk’s book, “Cognitive Development and Child Psychotherapy”, he states that “By recognizing the implications of the self-definition in a social and psychological context, the 15-year-old’s response can be said to be developmentally advanced relative to that of the 5-year-old.”

One can only assume that the intersection of the definitional self and the subjective self is the key factor in having chosen “five” as the conditional context for the desired exposition.

"Explain like i'm five" simply means that the explanation should be elaborate at the same time very easy to understand.

The situation should be explained in its most elementary form, as one would explain something to a five year old child.

The explanation should be detailed and should be elaborate enough, yet explained in its simplest form.

This phrase is used primarily in the academic and professional world, and typically in one of three scenarios.

In one situation, the person requesting the explanation does not fully understand the concept or situation being discussed, and is requesting a basic explanation that uses simpler terms.

The explanation will probably include a number of oversimplified analogies.

In this scenario the person asking might not have a personal relation at all to the subject matter; however, academics and professionals from nearly related fields may use this phrase to indicate some interest in their colleagues' work.

Here, it would mean something like, "I'm not sure I understand, but I am interested - please explain this idea to me."

In another situation, two persons may be having a professional discussion in which a superior is asking a subordinate (or potential candidate) for a brief demonstration of real understanding.

This typically takes the form of a question posed during a job interview, but is also occasionally used during other certification interviews.

In this context, it means something more like "Please demonstrate for me that you understand the most essential elements of the subject."

The final scenario is also typically between two working professionals, but is spoken more abruptly, in a manner that indicates frustration or impatience.

In this situation the meaning becomes "I am very busy, but I need to fully understand what you're trying to explain.

Slow down, and give me the most important parts.

" This usage would typically follow some kind of inter-disciplinary interaction concerning a growing problem.

One might imagine an accountant explaining his changing needs to a software engineer.

Let me explain this to you, like you were only five years old... ...

it means, making a complicated matter easy to understand.

Like you would do for a little child with limited understanding.

Question: In my recent  question , I got this  link  in an answer.   Here, ' Explain like I'm five ' is written. I tried to find its meaning on the Internet, but I got only an acronym ELI5.   Is 'explain like I'm five' a phrase or an idiom? What does it mean?

What is 'explain like I'm five'?

It means, "Please explain it to me in the simplest possible terms, as one might explain it to a five-year-old child.

The phrase means to explain something in simple terms, as if to a small child.


I don't think it's incorrect to use the to come to form (and here

you may find several examples).

However, you should put a determiner (like the ) before the word office :

I can't come to the office.

It is fine to use several to 's in the same sentence: I want to try to learn to ride a bike.

Here we can see three to 's in the same sentence.

The Original Poster shouldn't change their example.

It's a fine sentence.

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

The two uses of the word "to" are fine but the sentence as a whole sounds weird to me (as a native British English speaker).

In my opinion, there should be a "the" in there after the "to":

I am not able to come to the office.

This can be taken as an extended comment on Araucaria's succinct (and entirely correct) answer.

Technically, you're not using the single word 'to' twice; the first instance of 'to' is inexorably wrapped up with the word 'come', as the two words together form the infinitive form of the verb 'to come'.

The second instance of 'to' is indicative of direction, placed immediately before a destination (in this case, the office).

They have entirely distinct meanings in the sentence.

In other words, these instances of 'to' are homophonous , but not synonymous .

English has many homophones (such as 'mean' or 'bat'), but 'to' is one of the most commonly used, and commonly confused.

The use of "to come" is the infinitive form of "come", in English.

It's also commonly called a helping verb .

The second "to" is the preposition of the prepositional phrase, "to office".

As it stands, your sentence does make sense, and would not sound or look strange.

That being said, I would recommend adding the article adjective "the" between, "to" and "office".

The resulting sentence would be: "I am not able to come to the office".

the sentence

"i am not able to come to office" is correct.

because here both "to" have their own meaning first one for infinitives and second one for preposition and alternative for the same could be

"i am unable to reach the office"

Although the word "to" is used twice in one sentence, it is used in two different ways.

The first use is as an "infinitive."

Specifically, "to come.

" Many other languages have infinitives, but they often have a suffix to the verb, as opposed to a separate word.

The second use is as a directional preposition, to, in the sense of "toward" or "into.

It's a confusing point in the English language, but you're not really using the same word twice.

More like two "similar"-looking words in two different ways.

It's correct.

Here in the US replacing the second to with into is also acceptable in conversation.

"I am not able to come into the office." or

"I am not able to come in today" If you're speaking to someone you work with, it's implied you're talking about the office.

Question: Is this sentence correct or not?    I am not able to come to office.   Can we use "to" twice or can we write this sentence in a better way?

Too many to's? 'I am not able to come to office'

This is correct and it is fine to use "to" several times in the same sentence. For example:  I want to try to learn to ride a bike.

The sentence is correct, using several to's in a sentence is fine.


To go camping means to go to the wilderness (or semi-wilderness) for a few days or a week or so, alone or in a small group, sleeping under the stars or in a tent.

You might cook meals over a fire.

To go to camp means to go a compound that has been built in a wilderness area, with cabins, a cafeteria, sports facilities, a pond or lake perhaps with canoes, or a swimming pool.

There will be dozens or perhaps hundreds of other campers there.

They will usually be grouped by age, and they will typically be children, or young teens, not adults.

There will be organized activities in which the campers are expected to participate.

There are other kinds of camps that do not involve wilderness, but they would not be relevant here, since you have asked in the context of "go camping".

I go to camp explains your reason for going.

Why do people go to the park on weekends?

Some go to watch birds, others go to fish.

I go to camp.

I go camping simply tells of an activity you like to do.

Jane goes birdwatching most weekends in the summer.

John likes to go fishing.

Me?

I go camping on weekends.

Both sentences are grammatical, but they are used in different situations.

As a footnote, TRomano has given a different interpretation from mine, but neither answer is wrong.

He is using camp as a noun , which is another way your very brief sentence could be interpreted.

"go to camp" means going to a place called "camp" "camp" generally reffers to a place where someone has set up and organised activity (maybe for pleasure, maybe for training), typically (though not always) involving staying overnight and living in close proximity with the rest of the people doing the activity.

It may involve actual camping (staying in tents) or there may be some kind of fixed accomodation.

"go camping" means to go and perform the activity known as camping (likely in combination with other things).

Camping means going to stay in a tent or similar.

Possiblly in the wilderness, possiblly on a campsite.

Possiblly as part of an organised group, possiblly not.

Camping is an activity.

Camp is a place.

To "go to camp" generally implies going to a particular camp, which encompasses certain types of activities, thus implying that such activities will be engaged in at camp.

However; going to camp does not necessarily imply actual camping, in the sense that there are football camps, baseball camps, basketball camps and so on in addition to organized summer camps, and all of which imply something different from going to a campground (or not) for a night or a week, whether in the backcountry or in a paved spot with water, electrical and sewer hookups at your local KOA campground.

Activity vs.

Intent/Purpose

I go camping weekends.

I go to camp.

What is the difference between 'go camping' and 'go to camp'?

From a colloquial standpoint, the first sentence is pretty unambiguous, but is missing some connecting words.

It sounds more natural to say "I go camping on weekends", implying that you go every weekend as "on weekends" denotes "on each weekend".

In very informal speech you might elide "on", but it sounds sloppy to the native ear.

The sentence would be much stronger if you added a descriptive phrase to indicate how often you go, or why you are going.

For example: "I go camping each weekend in the summer, and once a month in the winter."

On the other hand, "I go to camp" is pretty ambiguous, and depends a great deal on context.

For example, it might mean: I go to summer camp.

(A place children often go for recreation and supervision in the summer.)

I go to base camp after each climb.

(Something you might do if you're attempting to scale Mt. Everest.)

I go back to the camp after hiking the trail for a few hours.

(A reasonable answer to what your activity schedule looks like.)

I go to camp.

(A potentially reasonable answer to a question like "Why do you go to a national park every other weekend?")

I am going back to camp.

(A reasonable answer to "Where are you going now?") Other answers will doubtless address parts of speech and grammatical construction, but idiomatically or colloquially you should generally use the first form unless you're trying to communicate something rather specific about your activities.

Question: I go camping weekends.  I go to camp.   What is the difference between 'go camping' and 'go to camp'?

What is the difference between 'go camping' and 'go to camp'?

Both sentences are grammatical, but they are used in different situations.  To go camping  means to go to the wilderness (or semi-wilderness) for a few days or a week or so, alone or in a small group, sleeping under the stars or in a tent.  To  go to camp  means to go a compound that has been built in a wilderness area, with organized activities, cabins, a cafeteria, sports facilities, a pond or lake perhaps with canoes, or a swimming pool.

Camping is an activity, camp is a place.

Camping is an activity.
Camp is a place.


The God of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, basically) is traditionally a father figure, and the pronoun used is "he" (or

"He", if you're using the majestic capital).

Sometimes people will subvert this and use "She", either as a tongue-in-cheek substitution or as an earnest attempt at gender inclusivity, but in general, if you're talking about the God of a monotheistic religion, the pronoun to use is "He".

If you're talking about a higher being of a more personified pantheon (e.g. Greek or Norse myth), then use the pronoun appropriate to the gender of said higher being.

The one pronoun you never use for God, any God, is "it".

1 1

Well, OK, maybe Cthulhu.

Sometimes.

But it's best to just not talk about him/

her/it. :)

This question must be understood as a question of usage.

The primary source are the relevant books ( the books ).

They are so old that all possible copyrights have expired by now, so the books are easily found online.

Therefore, we can inspect which gender the relevant books ascribe.

You are asking on an English language site, so we'll inspect English translations of the books.

Note that there are all kinds of problems with translations; the question which gender historical texts ascribe to their gods would be harder to answer and involve critical examinations of language, culture and the text histories.

I'll give two examples for the difficulties involved, with the caveat that I'm not a theologician and have no knowledge of Hebrew.

Hebrew apparently has no grammatical neuter.

Every word is male or female.

That means that in Hebrew, god cannot be "it" at all for purely grammatical reasons.

Obviously that weakens the conclusions we can draw from god's original grammatical gender.

One of the words for the god in the Torah is Elohim, a plural; if we can believe the wikipedia entry about the subject , in Genesis 1:26-27 "Elohim" creates man and woman "in his image" (their image?).

The New York Times had an article by a Rabbi touching this very topic as part of a general examination of how gender appears in the Hebrew bible.

It suggests that YHWH, one of the names for god in the bible, was actually read backwards as "Hu/Hi ", meaning "he/she".

To me that sounds as close to "it" as you can get in a language which doesn't have "it".

But you are asking about English, so we'll examine English translations.

In English there is a grammatical neuter, so referring to god -- a person-like entity -- with "He" makes a statement about the physical gender ascribed to, well, him.

Torah : We find an English translation here , and the first book, the Genesis, uses "He" in the few cases it doesn't say "God"; for example in the fifth sentence: And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night.

(But remember the translation problems.)

Quran :

An English translation is here , and in the 2nd Surah the translation uses "He", for example in 2:20:

And if Allah had willed, He could have taken away their hearing and their sight.

This should answer your question.

Note that it is not immediately clear what the original authors of the texts wrote, and what they meant with what they wrote.

For example, the Catholic virgin Mary cult may well be rooted in a misleading translation.

As a side note: Let's suppose that the original authors indeed wrote and meant that god is male.

Then it is still up to debate whether what they wrote is correct (from the standpoint of a believer).

After all, the authors were children of their (patriarchal) times and may have misunderstood, mis-interpreted or liberally embellished their visions.

My girlfriend says "When god created man she was only practicing" (for example, she mutilated the chromosomes).

But as far as the actual English usage goes, it's clear that the correct pronoun is "He".

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

The rules are basically the same as for any noun or proper noun, usually signified by the capitalisation of the first letter.

If you are using an upper case G, this denotes that it's a name, and a name which is masculine, the answer is 'he'.

In polytheistic faiths, it can be more specific, but it's still basically the same grammar as other nouns.

A god (lower case g, a noun), would be he, a goddess is the feminine form, she.

If it's plural, it's always 'they'.

In most cases using 'it' for people, or anything person-like is disrespectful, displaying an opinion that you don't think they should be person-like.

The God of the Abrahamatic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is traditionally referred to with a masculine pronoun.

However, it is worth mentioning that ancient Hebrew had no gender-neutral pronoun, and typically used the masculine form as a default.

So, it could be argued that the original intent was gender-neutral, although the monotheistic God was generally seen as a father-figure of sorts, if a formless (and therefore technically agendered) one.

Interestingly enough, the earthly presence of God (in Hebrew shechinah , roughly akin to the Christian concept of the 'Holy Spirit') is both grammatically and traditionally considered feminine.

Ancient philosophy often considered the concept of initiating a creative act to be symbolically masculine (i.e. the "seminal" input), while the aspect of shaping or finilazing that action was seen as feminine.

Many ancient religions considered the sky to be masculine and the earth feminine as a result.

Yes, you use the pronoun

He, not he/it, for God.

However, if you are talking about a god or goddess, you use he or she accordingly.

Question: Does the word  God  get the pronoun "it" or "he"?    For example: I want to say thanks to God for what  it  /  he  gave  me.   I am talking about the God of Monotheism ( force majeure ) - like what the Jews and Muslims believe in. [I don't know whether the Christian God is considered the same God, because of the Trinity.]

Does the word God get the pronoun "it" or "he"?

If you are using an upper case G, this denotes that God is a name, then the answer is 'he'.  But as far as the  actual English usage goes,  it's clear that the correct pronoun is He. The God of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is traditionally referred to with a masculine pronoun.   It is worth mentioning that ancient Hebrew had no gender-neutral pronoun, and typically used the masculine form as a default.  A god (lower case g), would be he, and a goddess in the feminine form would be she. The one pronoun you never use for God, any God, is "it".

The masculine pronoun 'he' is typically used. 'It' is never used.


Consider excellent very good of its kind, eminently good or outstanding . extremely good or excellent note that these words start with vowels, so the 'a' turns into 'an'

Hrm, just a few observations on some of the answers here, from an American English speaker: Many English versions of the word you're looking for were historically used to refer to things that are large in size, and can sometimes cause confusion on whether it's exceptionally good, or exceptionally large.

In context the difference is often clear, but when describing a company (which could be made larger)

the meaning may not be so clear.

Be careful when using words like "tremendous" or even "great" / "grand".

Similarly, many English words come from descriptions of things that are so exceptional that they are better than real life.

"Fantastic" can frequently be used to describe something that has an element of fantasy, which it's unlikely that your company would have.

"Legendary" and "epic" can suffer from the same.

Additionally, due to its (over)use in modern informal speech I think "epic" has lost much of its weight and may also appear informal, as user13267 mentioned.

"Marvelous" and "phenomenal" aren't bad suggestions at all, but CAN have an air of supernatural greatness (i.e. more "great" than something can ever be in real life) similar to the previous bunch.

Personally, I think these would probably work in the given context.

"Exemplary" isn't bad, but may sometimes imply something that sets an example for others to follow.

This might fit your case, however.

I like Thomas Mario Adams III's suggestion of "outstanding", particularly because this company would literally "stand out" from among other merely "great" companies.

It's also term that is very familiar to corporate readers.

You may want to add emphasis by saying the company will become "truly outstanding".

You may consider Exceptional From the online dictionary , definition 2: unusually excellent; superior: an exceptional violinist.

Phenomenal adjective highly extraordinary or prodigious; exceptional: Source astounding, exceptional Source Usage example: ...will turn a good company into a phenomenal success!

Consider an exemplary company as a way to express that this company will be turned into "something more than great"

Think of marvelous, fantastic, the best .

The best is fine.

In addition to the others I would like to add Superb, Epic, Legendary

This answer over on English.

SE has a good amount of information on intensifiers like this that is worth a read.

Many companies today are referred to as "great" companies.

But great has become cliche.

What I'm saying is even better than great, it's an "outstanding" company.

An outlier to the great ones.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/30889/Thomas Mario Adams III

I would suggest the word remarkable Remarkable: 1.notably or conspicuously unusual; extraordinary:a remarkable change.

2.worthy of notice or attention.

Question: I need to write short email that will state something like:   ..that will turn a good company into a ... company.   What would be a proper word that I can use?

What is the right word to describe something more than "great"

Suggestions include: exemplary, marvelous, fastastic, superb, legendary, epic, truly outstanding, remarkable, exceptional, and phenomenal.

Exemplary, fantastic, the best, superb, outstanding, remarkable, exceptional, phenomenal and excellent may all be used.


If you're describing liquids that are too hot for you , use scalding : very hot; burning.

e.g. Watch out, the tea is still scaldingly hot!

For food or liquids that are a pleasant temperature, use piping : (of food or water) very hot.

e.g. "The food's piping hot!"

Since you yourself suggested 'steam hot' - the correct version would be steaming hot , so hot that steam is rising from it:

adverb (as submodifier steaming hot)

Extremely hot: a steaming hot night [...]

He thinks, too, of pumpkin pie and fresh harvested honey and steaming hot cocoa.

according to the OED .

"I just had an ice cold coffee with some steaming hot chocolate cake".

With a certain amount of hyperbole at play, you might refer to something as being red hot .

My coffee machine only makes drinks that are ice cold or red hot.

I'm surprised that no one has suggested boiling hot.

Maybe it is a British English idiom:

Be careful with that cup of tea

, it's boiling hot...

I've only just poured it.

Also, as an example Can you open the window?

It's boiling hot in here! or Can you open the window?

I'm boiling hot!

It can also be used for objects that do not actually physically boil, for example:

Be careful of those sausages, they are boiling hot and you will burn your mouth.

They have just come off the barbecue.

I would add that, in British English at least, scalding hot sounds a little too old fashioned, and something that you might read in a old (30's-60's)

children's story book, or your grandmother (or someone born in the 20's) might say (at least that's what springs to my mind).

However, having re-read your question, for a professional context, John's answer could be more appropriate, as boiling is somewhat colloquial.

Fiery hot or flaming hot work.

"Flaming hot" best if there's actual fire involved, e.g.

"a flaming hot skillet of fajita toppings".

While "fiery hot" might describe the extra spicy sauce for said fajitas.

Not sure I'd use either of them for a cake though.

This doesn't fit the noun requirement, but "smoking hot" came to mind for general informal use.

It suggests an exceptional amount of heat.

In a more formal context, I'd go with "steaming hot" or "piping hot".

If you want to imply that it was too hot to safely eat, "scalding hot" could work nicely.

"Ice-cold" does refer to a noun.

The term is used a lot in reference to beverages that have been chilled by adding ice, or have been chilled nearly to the freezing point of water.

Ice is probably the coldest thing we normally encounter.

On the other hand there are many levels of heat.

"Hot" could refer to a shower, coffee, boiling water, a heating element that's started glowing, fire, and so on.

Any of these could be encountered between waking up and eating breakfast, so there's not one that seems to stand out as an ideal reference point.

It's more about what you can observe; something could be releasing steam, hot enough to burn your mouth, hot enough to emit smoke, or actually on fire.

Blazing Hot From reverso

it says Blazing sun or blazing hot weather is very hot.

The most common adjective I've seen is "searing" hot: marked by extreme intensity, harshness, or emotional power

"boiling hot" "This drink is boiling hot ."

Corresponds quite nicely to the

"This drink is ice cold ."

Perhaps generally used for describing liquid.

(Other than this, I would say CompuChip's answer: "steaming hot" is the other option that seems to be most directly similar to " ice cold " if you're trying to describe a drink.

Many of the other answers, like " blazing hot ", are also good for describing hotness, and might even be better in some other contexts.

For instance, a Fudgsicle (a Popsicle made of chocolate/fudge) might be quite literally " ice cold ", but super-spicy food might be described as " blazing hot ", possibly trying to reference the flames on a grill).

A way to compare to the illustration created by ice cold, could be to go for another natural hot liquid.

Consider "lava" hot.

This term is used in foods like "lava cake" which is a chocolate cake that has hot chocolate syrup in it.

This "equates" better if you are trying to create a mental picture using natural forces.

Question: Suppose I just had Iced Coffee with hot chocolate cake and I want to describe it to others.  I can use "I had an ice cold coffee" but then I'm stuck with the second part. None of the things I can think of really fits, e.g. "steam hot", "sun hot", "oven hot", etc.  Is there any noun I can use in this context to describe something hot?

"Ice cold" vs. "___ hot" in a professional context?

ell.stackexchange.com/users/608/Shadow Wizard is Ear For You

Blazing hot, searing hot, boiling hot, flaming hot, smoking hot, piping hot, red hot or scalding are all antonyms for ice cold.

Blazing, boiling, fiery, smoking, piping, red and scalding may all be used depending on context.


Some native speakers would consider the response me too as being weird, illogical or even inappropriate as a response to certain statements, including 1 Nice to meet you.

--"Me too.

To some, this response seems weird and illogical because what it means (that is the full response) is

It was nice to meet myself, too.

And so you can see why some native speakers consider me too as problematic here.

Consider also: 2

I love you.

--"Me too."

To some native speakers, the "full response" of "me too" here is I love myself too

and so we wouldn't use "me too"–although

we recognize that some native speakers do.

Some native speakers might prefer same here or likewise , although these may not be any more "logical" than me too .

A good way logically speaking, is to say I feel the same.

Which is what same here is supposed to mean in these contexts.

Using "Me too."

as a reply (or in a succeeding statement) indicates (in general) that the reply (or the succeeding statement) has the same meaning (or intent) with the preceding statement.

Considering this, the complete response is: "(It's) nice to meet you too."

Examples:

A

: I had a wonderful evening.

B: Me too.

(I had a wonderful evening too.)

and, A (talking to a waiter/barista): I'd like a shot of vodka.

B (to waiter/barista): Me too.

(I'd like a shot of vodka too.)

Basically, the second sentence means Nice to meet you too.

"Me too" can be thought of as saying "I feel the same way as you do", which is the same as what I wrote up there.

Another possible reply to "Nice to meet you" is "And the same to you", which is a bit more formal I guess

but it might make things a bit clearer.

It is a reply the full version of the second sentence is: For me too it is/

was nice to meet you.

Me too does usually mean that they felt the same way, but it's very divided and even though people understand that's the meaning, they will joke and say "You liked meeting yourself, too?"

to tease you, since it's more commonly used as a response to something like "I enjoyed that."

All of these other answers are great

but I'd like to add that you can consider you too as a shorthand response to

"It was nice to meet you, too."

In the context of love ("I love you")

this wouldn't fit since some people have hangups about a short response as it would be considered distant or aloof but if someone were to say "It was nice to meet you" the response "

You too" would be socially acceptable.

Why is the reply not in the nominative, I ?

It was nice for me (for) me too What is being dropped in the first statement

is the referential "for me", since "nice" expresses a feeling experienced, not a separate existential reality.

There is also no dummy "it", simply an expression of the experiential "nice".

Question: Could you help me to recover full version of the following dialog:   — Nice to meet you.  — Me too.   If I am correct, the first sentence in its full version is:   — It is/was nice to meet you.   What is full version of the second sentence?

Recover the dialog: "Nice to meet you. Me too."

Some native speakers would consider the response  "me too"  to be  odd, illogical or even inappropriate as a response to  "Nice to meet you".  A more complete response would be "nice to meet you, too."

Me too' is strange when used like this. You can use 'it was nice to meet you, too'.


It is not 'box', it is 'bucks', an informal term for USD, Indian Rupee and a few more currencies.

I had read somewhere that originally 'buck' referred to deer i.e. money given to buy/exchange deer skin in ancient times.

Adding to Maulik V's answer, there's a slight difference between the pronunciations of box /ˈbäks/ and bucks /ˈbəks/

I know it's not easy to differentiate for some (and up to some point),

but if you'd try to listen carefully, you'd be able to distinguish properly (also, context clues).

(pronunciations were taken from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ )

When referring to money or equivalents, the box can refer to the cash register (AmE) or till (BrE) or possibly wherever money is stored safe deposit box

It should not be confused with a vault which has a different context.

An equivalent meaning to box is bank which is when a waiter or waitress carries money on their person without going back to a central register

Each wait-staff carries their own bank which is then reconciled at the end of the night.

A technical use of the word box is where one keeps their stock (AmE) or share (BrE)

holdings

When you short against the box you use your holdings (as collateral) to sell against it (self) Also, when security houses used to manually transfer investment certificates, those operations were in an area generically called the box , where security was very high.

One use of box to mean money, in the UK at least, is the term Christmas Box.

This is a gift of money (a tip if you like)

traditionally given to tradespeople on the first working day after Christmas.

Hence the term Boxing Day which is now a public holiday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_Day gives more information.

In the danish language, you can use the sentence "Han tjener boksen" to describe that someone earns a lot of money.

Directly translated, it means "He earns the box".

In danish "boksen" can mean both "the box" (like a cardboard box) and a money deposit vault (the very large kind that banks always seem to have in the basement in robbery movies).

Not sure if this helps though.

But in danish it does make sense to use the word box as a slang for money.

Question: This is not the first time that I see people refer to money as "box" ( see here 0:12 )  I searched in my dictionary and I didn't find a meaning like that, so I think about two options:   a) Maybe there's another word which sounds similar but is written differently. b) It's the word and it's not in all the dictionaries

Does the word "box" also have a meaning of money?

One use of box to mean money, in the UK at least, is the term Christmas Box. However, this may not refer to "box", but  "bucks" - an informal term for USD, Indian Rupee and other currencies.

This may actually refer to 'bucks'. 'Box' might refer to a Christmas box in UK contexts.


It's called a fist bump .

It's also known as pound or dap .

I agree with the dominant answer, but to be a tad more pedantic:

We call this gesture, as a noun:

They close the deal with a handshake .

The close the deal with a fist-bump .

As a verb: Whenever we meet, we shake hands .

Whenever we meet, we bump fists .

QED.

ps:

A fist-bump is demonstrably cleaner than a handshake, epidemiologically .

Aside from the more formal "fist bump", a more slang term is brofist .

this term is quite popular online, to the point that major Youtube celebrity Pewdiepie made it part of the title of his videogame.

If your business is with a male fan of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, then it is customary to seal the deal with a "brohoof" -

again, this is just for brony business.

Urban Dictionary: brohoof:

Friendly gesture between one brony and another in the form of connecting knuckles together (or hoofs).

They closed the deal with a handshake.

The closed the deal with (a) fistbump .

Whenever we meet, we shake hands.

Whenever we meet, we fistbump .

This is a really informal gesture, so I don't think it could be used to close deals.

Since it's informal, I don't think there's any proper conjugation for it either, but it would probably follow the conjugation of the word bump .

Question: We all know shaking hands or a handshake. There, we 'shake hands'.  There's one more gesture I do. I gently  punch  other's fist.   Something like this -   What do we call this gesture as  a noun ?    They close the deal with  a handshake  The close the deal with  (a?)  ____________   Also, as  a verb?   Whenever we meet, we  shake hands  Whenever we meet, we ___________   If there's no single word, a couple would do.

What do we call the gesture of hitting each other's fists gently?

This is known as a fist bump, brofist or brohoof.

This is an informal gesture known as a fist bump. It can also be referred to as a brofist or brohoof (male My Little Pony fans).


Your current structure does not convey the facts you mention.

In its current state, it is saying that carrying sufficient information is not the only thing it does, when it should say that it doesn't carry sufficient information (or carries insufficient information).

The wording I would choose is: Not only does this pop-up message carry insufficient information, but it is also confusing.

I would do it this way, using not only...as well :

Not only does the popup carry in sufficient information, it is confusing as well .

P.S.

I see the OP uses inversion, but for other passersby, note the inversion: "Not only does the popup..."

It is possible to combine these two complete ideas in one sentence using not only..

but also..

The pop-up message not only carries insufficient information but, worse, it is also rather confusing.

The not only..

but also.. construction is challenging to use and contributes no more to the meaning than the much simpler furthermore .

As you want to emphasise the second point, it might be better to omit it: The pop-up message carries insufficient information and, worse, it is rather confusing.

I would say: "The pop-up message doesn't carry enough information and is quite confusing."

An earlier answer has already said this, but I think it bears repeating: Your current structure does not convey the facts you mention.

The vital thing to understand here is that the words "not only"do not negate the words that come after them.

When you say or write, "not only X," you affirm that X is true,and you imply that there are other things that can be said on the same topic.

"Not

only X but also Y" is a special way of saying "X and Y."This phrasing might be used if X is something good and Y is better,or if (as in this case)

X is something bad and Y is worse.

It can also emphasize both X and Y. Since "not only X but Y" means "X and Y", one way to put together yourfacts 1 and 2 is, Not only does the pop-up message not carry sufficient information, but also it is confusing.

This now has the correct meaning, but its style can be improved.

First, rather than "not ... sufficient", we can use "insufficient": Not only does the pop-up message carry insufficient information, but also it is confusing.

Because the words "not only" imply that there is more to follow,the word "also" in "not only ...

but also" is redundant:

Not only does the pop-up message carry insufficient information, but it is confusing.

This has the disadvantage that the word "but" often conjoins two things that contrast with each other, whereas here we have one thing that is like the other but more stronger.

It would be better to omit the word "but", whichis not needed in this particular sentence: Not only does the pop-up message carry insufficient information, it is confusing.

In this sentence, the comma is sufficient to separate the two facts thatyou want to state.

The construction "not only ... but" is an idiom that is useful whenthe two elements following "not only" require a word to separate them,usually because they are not complete statements by themselves:

The pop-up message is not only uninformative but confusing.

A note on the possible use of the word "rather" in any of these sentences:"rather" has several possible meanings.

From http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/rather : in preference to or as a preference more accurately; more exactly to a noticeable degree; somewhat The second sense often occurs in the construction "not ... but rather".

For example, you might say The popup is not an informative message but rather a source of confusion.

If you write The popup is rather confusing, a listener will likely take "rather" in its third sense;the sentence is understood to mean that the popup is somewhat confusing.

This meaning is likely to be conveyed even if the word "rather"appears within a sentence where two things are being compared or contrasted.

Question: Is it natural to say   The pop-up message here does not only carry sufficient information but also is confusing   when I have these two facts:   The pop-up message doesn't carry sufficient information  What's worse, it is rather confusing   Also, should I insert "rather" somewhere in my sentence?

"Not only ... but also" with a normal verb and an adjective

One suggestion is: Not only does this pop-up message carry insufficient information, but it is also confusing.  Another option is as follows: The pop-up message not only carries insufficient information but, worse, it is also rather confusing. Or: The pop-up message doesn't carry enough information and is quite confusing. Finally: Not only  does the popup carry  in sufficient information, it is  confusing  as well .

You should use 'not only' followed by 'but/it is also'.


Both more and else are syntactically fine in OP's example, and in many contexts they'll mean exactly the same thing.

But note that idiomatically, What more do you need? is far more likely when what's being asked is effectively a rhetorical question (implying the speaker thinks you either don't or shouldn't need anything else).

Also note that when using else , to some extent the distinction between a rhetorical question and a genuine enquiry can be made more explicit by stress/emphasis... 1:

What else do you need?

(Probably: You don't need anything else - just get on with it) 2:

What else do you need ?

(Probably: If you need anything else please tell me)

In the context you have given, can mean different things.

What more do you need? Can be taken as for example -

"Isn't what is given enough?

What else possibly could you need" implying that what is given should suffice.

What else do you need? Can be taken as for example -

"What are the other necessities that I can provide to you?

What other requirements do you have?"

You can say : What more do you need?

(When you are really vexed up with that one)

You can say : What else do you need?

(when you were really happy to help him, and you were asking do you need something more(Soft Tone) )

As far as I known.

They both work but are slightly different.

else means;

In addition, besides, or different and instead.

What else (different, besides, or instead of) do you want?

more means; A greater or additional amount or degree.

What more ( A greater amount, or in addition to ) do you want?

So the main difference is that else , in general means different .

And more , generally means A greater amount or In addition to .

Both are acceptable but my personal opinion when you say "what more do you need" it sounds as if you provided more help than they need so there is a connotation that you think they don't need something anymore whereas "what else do you need" sounds neutral that you don't know their needs even if you provided some help before.

Question: I am providing you with food, shelter, clothes.    What more do you need   or    what else do you need?   Which one's correct?

"What more" vs "what else" do you need?

Both  more  and  else  are syntactically fine in the given example, and in many contexts they'll mean  exactly  the same thing.  However, they are slightly different. You should note that idiomatically,  "What  more  do you need?"  is far more likely when what's being asked is effectively a  rhetorical question  (implying the speaker thinks you either don't or  shouldn't  need anything else).  Also note that when using  "else" , to some extent the distinction between a rhetorical question and a genuine enquiry can be made more explicit by stress/emphasis...

Both questions have correct syntax and can be used interchangeably to mean the same thing. However, often they  have slighly different meanings. While both  are acceptable, "what more do you need" is more likely to be a rhetorical question and there is the connotation that the speaker feels they have provided more than enough help and that the other person should't need anything else, whereas "what else do you need" sounds more neutral. Also, "what else do you need" can sound more like a genuine enquiry by adjusting the tone of voice.

They often have slighly different meanings. While both  are acceptable, "what more do you need" is more likely to be a rhetorical question and there is the connotation that the speaker feels they have provided more than enough help and that the other person should't need anything else, whereas "what else do you need" sounds more neutral. Also, "what else do you need" can sound more like a genuine enquiry by adjusting the tone of voice.


"Call it a day" does not mean "successful completed day"... it means "it's time to leave, let's stop for the night".

There's no implication that the day was particularly fruitful...

in fact, it's often used in cases where the day wasn't particularly successful.

You've been hitting your head against that wall for the last 10 hours and staying here

isn't going to make it any better.

Call it a day , go home, and come back fresh tomorrow.

So there would be no equivalency between "this project is now successfully completed" and "call it a project" because there is none in the "call it a day" idiom to start with.

If anything, you risk it sounding like you're saying the project outcome is mediocre rather than completely successful:

Well, this is the best we can do with this project, so let's call it done and ship it out.

You could say that, and in context it would probably make sense to those involved, but it isn't exactly a common idiom.

Maybe you'd prefer "That's a wrap!"

Edit for more details:

If I was working with someone on a group project

and they said "Let's call it a project!

" I would understand it as "We are finished working on this, it is as finished as it is going to get" or "good enough"

(Similar to "Let's call it a day", although if you call it a day you are saying you are done working that day , and presumably will come back the next day to do more)

"That's a wrap" has the same general feel of you are finished working on it,

although "That's a wrap" doesn't have the same "good enough" implication.

It is more like "this is a good finished project".

As a commenter pointed out, this has come from the film industry when they would finish shooting.

Both "that's a wrap" and "call it a day/project" are very casual sounding, so I would say them to partners, but not to superiors or in formal writing.

In response to some of the comments, here are some other options: "

I think we have ourselves a project!"

- expresses completeness and excitement "Let's stick a fork in it and call it done."

- Another "good enough" sentiment "Ship it!"

- Could be either "good enough to sell" or actually complete/finished, depending on context.

No, the idiomatic phrase call it a day is never modified in that way.

We do have some variations, including call it a night , but they typically refer to the time period when work was being done and not the thing being worked on .

Call it a project may or may not be understandable to native speakers depending on the precise context, but it will almost certainly sound awkward.

We do sometimes play on idioms by replacing one or two words like this (often for humorous effect, sometimes intentionally being ungrammatical), but that can be hard even for native speakers to pull off successfully.

Can I say "Call it a project" meaning successful completed project?

You can say it, but to be better understood by a native English speaker you might instead say, "We have successfully completed the project!"

"That's a project" is often used in the sense of something being a big undertaking.

With that context, using "Call it a project" may give a sense of work lying ahead rather than work being wrapped up/temporary halted as implied by "Call it a day."

As other answers have pointed out, "Call it a day," implies some measure of cutting your losses, or maybe a tactical decision to get some rest and get back to work tomorrow.

If that's the feeling you're going for with, "Call it a project," may I suggest: "Ship it!"

It's often used in software or product development to mean, "This is as good as it's going to get without significant extra effort.

We can't justify the additional cost (time, money, manpower), it's good enough "

I've never heard anyone say that - maybe I'm just lucky.

It just sounds like

contrived business-speak to me: poor use of language.

Why not just say "well done everyone, that's a successfully completed project"?

To me, "Call it a project" would mean, "You know, this isn't just messing around any more.

This has gotten big, and serious

: let's call it a project!"

If we'd finally gotten something (mostly) done, I'd say "Let's call it done" or "That's a wrap".

If you just said "call it a project" out of the blue, I think I'd be confused; I'd have to think about it a bit before I'd start to figure out you might be inventing a variation on "call it a day".

Question: I know we can say, "Call it a day" at the end of a day. Can I say, "Call it a project" meaning successful completed project?

Can I say "Call it a project" similar to "Call it a day"

This idiom is not usually modified in that way. You could say it, but to be better understood by a native English speaker you might instead say,   "We have successfully completed the project!"  If you just said "call it a project" out of the blue, I think I'd be confused - I'd have to think about it a bit before I'd start to figure out you might be inventing a variation on "call it a day". If anything, you risk it sounding like you're saying the project outcome is mediocre rather than completely successful.

Although it may be understood, it is not a common idiom, it sounds awkward and could cause confusion to native English speakers. Also, it may sound like the outcome is of mediocre quality instead of successful. However, some English speakers believe that it should not be used at all and that it is not a valid variation of "call it a day".

No, the phrase "call it a project" is not actually used.


It's a rephrasing of the old programmer's adage: "don't be clever" !

Or Brian Kernighan's famous quote: Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place.

So if you are as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?

Basically it's saying that you shouldn't write clever and/or tricky code because debugging such code later will be very hard.

It sounds like the quote means or intends for the developer to write clean and simple code that may be easily understandable even after some period of time .

The code should be easy enough to understand even if viewed after a certain period of time

It's sounds like a play on the phrase "Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today".

It's attributed various people including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Essentially it means "don't procrastinate".

If I had to guess, this version is intended to encourage readers to write clean code, particularly if you don't have the time to debug it.

I think that "can't" in this case doesn't mean "if you don't have the ability", it means "if you don't have the time".

So, my interpretation of this title is: Write clean code today because you may not have time to fix it tomorrow.

Even for simple programs, I remember having hard times understanding some details a few months later.

Because I don't not use explicit enough variables, because I did not comment lines that seemed simple back then.

Most often, because I started coding directly, without taking a little time with pencil and paper before to map ideas, to record limitations, to foresee dependencies, to check whether I did a similar program before (which I did forget).

Every program, no matter how small and big, is a project, and deserves some project plan , asking at minimum (quoting from the preceding link):

Why?

- What is the problem or value proposition addressed by the project?

Why is it being sponsored?

What?

- What is the work that will be performed on the project?

What are the major products/deliverables?

Who?

- Who will be involved and what will be their responsibilities within the project?

How will they be organized? When?

- What is the project timeline and when will particularly meaningful points, referred to as milestones, be complete?

Today and tomorrow should not be taken literally.

You would be a different coder in a few month.

Since we're in English Language Learners StackExchange and not in Programmers StackExchange , Tomorrow means in the future in its figurative sense (weeks, months, years later), not literal (in 24 hours).

If you ever studied your first programming language at school (or at home)

several years ago, try to find where you stored your old school projects, and read them.

When you wrote them you knew exactly what you were doing right?

( don't code today... )

Turns out you will probably struggle to understand your own code, and unless you were an experienced developer when you learned your first language (ahem), you had probably not left many hints for your future self to help him/

her understand what you were thinking back then ( ...what you can't debug tomorrow ).

In this sense, when you write code you have to keep in mind

someone else is going to read it.

And that someone else could be a "future you".

The "future you" could go from several days, to several weeks, to months or years later.

Ultimately the saying "don't code today what you can't debug tomorrow" or rephrased "aim to write readable and maintainable code in the long-term" is a general rule for developers.

You write code for your colleagues to read, and eventually your future replacement once you'll get promoted or move to work for another employer.

Seen from a different angle, if you don't write maintainable code, no-one can replace you and you won't get promoted.

It's a phrase that needs to be understand in terms of maintenance, try to put yourself in to those person shoe who have to deal with the code/project of other person.

What I understand is if you can't understand your after some time then it will be very difficult for someone who is working/solving bug of yours.

So use commenting to your code is very necessary to make it clear, what logic you were having in your mind

just note it down, so after some in future if you are working on that same code or someone other then it can be easily have workaround with your project.

The quote, you say, is: don't code today what you can't debug tomorrow

It's not what you seem to have read it as, which would be more like: no matter what you code today

, you won't be able to debug it tomorrow …which, as you point out, is nonsense.

The real quote is encouraging you not to write code that is difficult to understand.

If you would struggle to understand it if you came back to it in a year, that's bad; if you would struggle to understand it if you came back to it in a month's time, that's a big problem.

If you wouldn't be able to understand it enough to debug it tomorrow , then something is terribly wrong and you should not have written it that way.

(In that sense, there's some hyperbole in there.)

ell.stackexchange.com/users/626/Lightness Races in Orbit

It simply means write a simple code including comments which can be easily debugged in the absence of the developer who is the owner of the code or may be by the developer itself after a period of time.

Question: It's a title of a  blog . In my option, I absolutely can debug my code tomorrow which I wrote today. So how to understand that?

How to understand "don't code today what you can't debug tomorrow"?

Basically it's saying that you shouldn't write clever and/or tricky code because debugging such code later will be very hard. Write clean code today because you may not have time to fix it tomorrow.

The quote basically encourages programmers to "not be too clever" when writing code, because the debugging part is harder than the coding itself. Therefore, if the code is too complex, debugging it will be a nightmare and it may even not be understandable after a period of time. It can also be perceived as a play on the phrase "Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today", encouraging programmers not to procrastinate and to write code in a simple enough way that will not be too time-consuming to debug.


The usage of the phrase "break a leg" originates from within the theatrical profession.

It was considered that to wish an actor "good luck" for a performance was to "jinx" them and have the opposite effect.

As a result it was wished they would "break a leg" and thus cause "good luck".

This is referenced in the movie the Producers where you can hear it used in this song .

The confusion caused by those who do not know this convention is illustrated here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjJRPlY8dUY

So you are not alone in your reaction to this!

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

I could not find any support for the claim that "break a leg" was once slang for bowing.

Presumably it was never particularly widespread.

Therefore, and since the phrase seems to be relatively recent, I doubt the theory (on the English Wikipedia) that this is how it arose.

As a native German speaker I find one explanation in the Wikipedia article particularly convincing.

(The version at the German Wikipedia seems a bit clearer to me.)

It passes through the equally enigmatic German phrase "Hals- und Beinbruch".

It appears that there is a Hebrew expression "hazlacha uwracha" ("הצלחה וברכה"), which turned into Yiddish "hatslokhe un brokhe", meaning "success and blessing".

(Apparently the initial u of uwracha was reinterpreted as un , which is German und / English and .)

There was a well known connection between German showpeople and the Rotwelsch language , which in turn had a strong Yiddish influence.

It is therefore a totally plausible speculation that German showpeople unfamiliar with Hebrew turned the Yiddish phrase into the malapropism "Halsloch und Bruch" ("neck hole and fracture"), which was then replaced by "Hals- und Beinbruch" ("neck and bone fracture" or "neck and leg fracture"), already a frequently used phrase originally referring to actual accidents.

(Compare "pots and pans" as a general reference to household goods.) "Hals- und Beinbruch" first occurs in this new sense in the Google Books corpus in the 1860s.

Today the phrase is still employed very commonly when wishing someone success (e.g. in a theatre show, in an exam, or sometimes in business talks - basically anything that resembles a performance), but has almost fallen out of use in its original sense.

Regardless of these details, it appears to be well established and generally accepted that "Hals- und Beinbruch" originates in the Yiddish (and ultimately Hebrew) phrase.

It seems plausible that this phrase crossed the Channel as part of the lively exchange of artists and showpeople between Germany and Britain, with Germans first wishing their English colleagues "leg fracture!"

(edited: or "neck and leg break!"

- see AlanCarmick's find in a slang dictionary) and then, when this wasn't understood, "break a leg!".

"Break a leg" in this sense was first attested around 1920.

The other answers seem to define the phrase as "Good luck" but I would classify it a little more specifically as "Have a good performance".

The reason, as noted in the other answers, is commonly associated with theatrics, but the phrase is typically used when someone is about to "actually do something of significance" (hence the performance part).

You wouldn't, for counter-example, wish someone to 'break a leg' when buying a lottery ticket - even though you might wish them luck.

Break a leg!

(humorous spoken ) is used to wish someone good luck.

Italian provides a very different expression but with the same sense of threat and well wishing: "in bocco al lupo" - literally "in the wolf's mouth".

See this entry on Italian Stack Exchange where the accepted answer notes the correspondence with the English "break a leg"

In Shakespearean times, if the audience liked a particular actor's performance, they would receive sustained applause at the end the performance, during curtain calls.

Actors would place one foot in front of them and bend their back leg when taking a bow, thus 'breaking' a leg.

It isn't used as an ill-wish, but as a friendly way to say, have a great performance and hope you receive many 'extra bows' to the audience at the end of the show.

I always enjoy seeing derivations of phrases when they force some idea to suit the needed outcome.

One perennial is tips as T.I.P.S. and also "A camel passing through the eye of a needle".

I could not respond before Adam

but yes, a leg is the vertical block on each side of the stage.

To break it is to allow oneself to be seen behind it, being where one should not be.

This can be easy to do since you cannot look out to the audience to see where the sight lines are without being seen yourself.

The lines of sight are not marked on the floor so you need more experience than caution to stay clear of them.

Being seen on the side of the stage takes focus from those on the stage and ruins the moment they are working on.

The wish that you "break a leg" is part of the actor's expressions of reverse luck.

Wishing someone "luck" is a performer's death sentence requiring several steps to dispel.

Wishing that they make a big mistake as in "Break a leg" is the standard warm hearted threat that lets them know you care.

Question: One of my friend told me to break my legs before entering the examination hall...I was confused with her words! How am I supposed to sit for the exam if i broke my legs? Or maybe is it kind of idioms/phrases?

What's the meaning of "break your legs"?

It isn't used as an ill-wish, but as a friendly way to say, have a great performance and hope you receive many 'extra bows' to the audience at the end of the show.  The wish that you "break a leg" is part of the actor's expressions of reverse luck. This expression may have stemmed from lively exchanges between German and British artists, with Germans first wishing their English colleagues "leg fracture!"

The phrase is theater slang, either originating from Germany or meaning bowing to the audience after a successful performance. In any case, it is based on the concept of "reverse luck": instead of wishing "good luck" and jinxing it, the actors made an ill-wish that was meant as "have a great performance".


I have in fact heard (American) native speakers spell two consecutive U's out loud as "double U".

There is no rule.

Language is something to have fun with, and there is a wee bit of fun in saying "double" and then the name of a doubled letter instead of saying the name of the letter twice in a row.

When spelling out VACUUM, saying "double U" is ambiguous, and there is a wee bit of fun in choosing the ambiguous way to say it.

If you want to avoid ambiguity, of course, you can say "U U".

The choice is yours.

However, there is less ambiguity than you might think.

The name of the letter

W has primary stress only on the first syllable: /'dʌb.l.ju/.

When people say "double-

X " where X is any letter, they usually fully stress both the first syllable of "double" and the name of the letter.

For F, that would be /'dʌb.l.

'ɛf/, not /'dʌb.l.ɛf/.

For U, that would be /'dʌb.l.

'ju/, not /'dʌb.l.ju/.

Also, rhythm is very important in English.

Normally when people spell out a word, they give each letter the same amount of time and equal stress.

When spelling out CAT, for example, people usually say /'si.

'eɪ.

'ti/, maintaining a steady beat so each syllable takes the same amount of time.

When spelling out AWE, the time spent on each letter stays the same even though it takes three syllables to say the W: /'eɪ.

'dʌb.l.ju.

'i/; the three syllables of /'dʌb.l.ju/ are spoken quickly, totaling the same amount of time as /'eɪ/.

When people indicate a doubled letter with the word "double", it usually makes rhythm irregular.

Usually the time spent on the word "double" is a less than the time spent on each letter's name.

Sometimes people squeeze "double" into the letter-name's time, or into twice the time of one letter-name, similar to a grace note in music.

But it's not a rule.

By the way, the letter W started as two consecutive U's; hence the name.

Back then, U was written V; hence the shape.

Your analysis is correct.

A native speaker would realise the ambiguity and spell it out loud as:

Vee Aye See You

You Em

We never say "Double-You" for anything but the letter "W".

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

There is no inherent ambiguity because Double U (back-to-back letter u's) is pronounced differently from Double U (the letter W ).

The letter w is pronounced as one three-syllable word with the stress on the first syllable.

Listen here on Forvo .

In addition–although not as important–in rapid speech, some speakers of English pronounce W as if it had no l , so dúbba-yu .

To refer to back-to-back u's, the native speaker will pronounce this as two words, with a slight pause between Double and U , and with stress on both words, double and u .

In fact, to deliberately avoid ambiguity, they would slow down and make sure the addressee heard it as two words.

This would be true whether spelling V-A-C-Double U-M or some sequence as J-3-Double

U-4-underline (J3UU4_)

as in a password.

One would not usually mistake this for J3W4_ , because the W in that would be pronounced differently, as explained above.

If the speaker or listener had any doubt, they could always ask for clarification.

If there was extreme importance or noise interference they could use a phonetic alphabet .

You could also use the phonetic alphabet to spell it out too if you know it.

This type of ambiguity was why these were developed.

In the NATO/ICAO Phonetic Alphabet : Victor Alpha Charlie Uniform Uniform Mike

ell.stackexchange.com/users/33234/SMS von der Tann

When spelling something out loud, the intent is to be especially clear and unambiguous.

To that end, even if you used the terminology "double" in general, you should avoid it in this case.

In fact, you may want to (or need to) use a phonetic word spelling in this situation too, so you actually spell out loud, " victor alpha charlie umbrella unicorn mary" .

Using two different words, though non-standard, helps convey the repetition within the message rather than the message fragment being repeated, which is another source of ambiguity.

Question: I would like to know how to spell a word with two consecutive U's out loud—like "vacuum". Do we say  vee ,  ay ,  see ,  double U  or just  U, U ,  em ? I'm wondering because if we say "double U" it might be mistaken for the letter "W". But, in fact, the word "vacuum" is not written with a "W".

Spelling a word with two U's in a row out loud

There is no rule for this. People may say "double U", although this is ambiguous. Other people may never say "double U". "U U" is another option. There is also a difference in pronunciation between "double U" and W -  native speaker would pronounce "double U" as two words, with a slight pause between  Double  and  U , and with stress on both words .You could use the phonetic alphabet instead, to avoid any confusion, and if the speaker or listener had any doubt, they could always ask for clarification.

Since there is no concrete rule, you can choose how you want to pronounce it since even American native speakers sometimes say "double U". The ambiguity can be fun and interesting, but if you want to avoid it, you could also say "U U". In fact, it may not be that ambiguous after all, because "Double U" (back-to-back "U" letters) is not pronounced identically as the letter "W", because in the first case there is a slight pause between the word "Double" and "U" and different intonation. However, some speakers believe that you should avoid "Double-You", since it is only used for the letter "W". Another solution is to use the phonetic alphabet (victor alpha charlie umbrella unicorn mary) if it is extremely important to be clear or if there is noise interference.

Avoid "Double-You" since it is only used for the letter "W".

It is not ambiguous, because "Double U" (back-to-back "U" letters) is not pronounced identically as the letter "W", because in the first case there is a slight pause between the word "Double" and "U" and different intonation.

If it is too ambiguous, the listener will ask for clarification.


We never use the adjective cancerous to refer to a person suffering from cancer.

If you do so, you may cause people great offense as well as emotional pain.

If you wish to refer to people who have cancer, you can refer to them as cancer patients , as noted in another answer here.

You can also refer to people with cancer as cancer sufferers or people with cancer .

Usage note: One reason that you might offend them is because "cancerous person" is often used metaphorically to describe a person regularly causing negative effects to others around them i.e. that person is a metaphorical cancer.

The adjective cancerous usually modifies cells, growth, tumor, etc.

It is better to use a prepositional phrase with cancer which post-modifies the noun.

A person (diagnosed) with cancer

Or you could use cancer patient which means: a person who is receiving medical treatment for a malignant growth or tumour: ' an increase in the number of cancer patients ' [ Collins Online Dictionary ]

In English it is common to use the term "cancer patient" as stated already.

The following is not a real answer, as much as a suggestion: in Greek, someone suffering from cancer is called carcinopathés (noun, a person suffering from cancer).

I think the addition of a term such as carcinopath or canceropath in the English vocabulary wouldn't go amiss.

Single words (if hyphenated counts as single word) would be "cancer-ridden" or "cancer-stricken".

There is no single word adjective you can come up with that won't range from being offensive, to extremely offensive and whose use won't mark you as a weirdo with no social sense.

Nevertheless, if my life somehow depended on coming up with one, I would make my answer "becancered", taking advantage of the "be-" morphological formation to denote "afflicted with", "surrounded with", "loaded with", "stricken" and such.

Somehow it has a small softening effect, placing a separation between the subject and the disease.

There is a certain slight nuance in "cancered" in that to be "cancered" is in some sense, to be identified as being one with the cancer, to be inseparable from it, or the degradation of health which the progression of cancer causes.

The "be-" prefix re-frames the cancer as some external affliction which in some metaphoric sense drapes the individual and can be shed, or something that the subject has (like a "bespectacled" person is someone who is wearing glasses, and something "bejeweled" is covered with jewels).

This possibly may have to do with "

be + word + ed" plausibly deriving from a noun sense of word .

In "becancered", "cancer" refers to the noun "cancer", and not to cancer as a verb, unlike in "cancered", where the derivation is ambiguous; there is a verb sense which means "degraded by the progressive action of cancer" and not simply "having cancer".

Most sources I can find online tell me "cancerous" is grammatically correct for both a growth and a person, as meaning "relating to or affected with cancer".

Though if I may, I find this expression very repulsive.

It might be because I played online games too much, but I think that referring to a "patient with cancer" or a "cancer patient" sounds way better than a "cancerous/cancered(?) patient".

Cancer-stricken Examples: Cancer-Stricken Farmers Sue Monsanto Over Roundup Amanda Ferreira, the cancer-stricken Auckland mother who fought for more time with her girls

Question: What is the adjective for a person that has cancer? For example, cancerous individual, cancerous child, or something else?

What is the adjective for someone with cancer?

"Cancerous" is never used  to refer to a person suffering from cancer. You may refer to people with cancer as  cancer sufferers, cancer patients or  people with cancer .   "Cancer-ridden" or "cancer-stricken" may also be used.

"Cancerous" is not used to refer to cancer patients. Although according to online sources "cancerous" referring to a person is grammatically correct, due to its use in gaming culture it should not be preferred. Use "patients with cancer", "cancer patients", "cancer sufferers" or "people with cancer", which post-modifies the noun, instead. All single word adjectives would sound offensive and insensitive, except perhaps for hyphenated single words like "cancer-ridden" or "cancer-stricken".

"Cancer sufferers" or "people with cancer", which post-modifies the noun, can be used.

Hyphenated single words like "cancer-ridden" or "cancer-stricken" could work.

All single word adjectives would sound offensive and insensitive.

Although according to online sources "cancerous" referring to a person is grammatically correct, due to its use in gaming culture it should not be preferred. Use "patient with cancer" or a "cancer patient" instead.


There is a pretty visible distinction between both, and this example displays one of the main uses of continuous present.

You are being a jerk Means that you're a jerk right now , on the matter at hand.

You are a jerk.

Is way more general and is used to express your opinion about the person.

However, you could say "you're such a jerk" on the moment because you're furious, but then not think so any more.

You are being a jerk.

He/she is not a jerk, but at that time he/she is acting like one.

Or portraying the qualities of a jerk.

You are a jerk.

It's a fact.

The person is a jerk.

This can also mean that the person is acting like a jerk at the time of speaking.

Without context, it's not really possible to determine whether they have different or same meaning.

Saying "You are" implies a quality that is deeply engrained in someone or rather a quality they have little to no control over and/or unable to change on demand.

Whereas saying "You are being" implies a quality that one could easily change at will.

Sometimes you can't refer to someone as "being", such as if you were to say, "You are tall.

" You couldn't say, "You are being tall" because that is not a quality that someone can easily change.

Saying of someone "You are a jerk" would be more insulting than saying "You are being a jerk".

" You are being " is happening right now.

The targeted individual is presently behaving the way described.

You are being silly. -- They are doing something silly right now.

You are being mean.

-- They are doing something mean right now.

You are being argumentative.

- They are being argumentative right now.

" You are " is what the targeted individual is in a broad, constant sense.

You are silly.

-- They aren't behaving in a silly way, they are a silly person.

You are mean. -- They aren't being mean, they are a mean person.

You are argumentative. -- They aren't arguing, they are an argumentative person.

You are being is about a continuous sentence

But You are is an information about that guy .

Imagine two people side by side, one a selfish Jerk and one who is compassionate.

Either one has the option of acting out a quality of the other, compassionate can be (are being) a jerk or selfish and the Jerk, although a Jerk, can be compassionate.

"Are being" or "being" does imply acting out "right now" and the implication is that you are still what you started out as.

Question: Having a debate on whether "You are being a jerk" and "You are a jerk" have the same meaning in context. Are you calling someone a jerk if you state they are "being" a jerk or is the context that they are portraying qualities of a jerk?

What is the difference between "you are being" and "you are"?

Without context, it's not really possible to determine whether they have different or same meaning. Saying "You are" implies a quality that is deeply engrained in someone. Whereas saying "You are being" implies a quality that may easily change.  You are being a jerk   means that you're a jerk  at the moment.   Saying  "You are a jerk" to someone would be more insulting than saying "You are being a jerk".

Whether there is a difference in meaning depends on the context. However, as a general rule, "You are" attributes a constant, deeply engrained quality to the targeted person that they cannot change, a state they have no control over. "You are being" is used for a quality that can change, something that is happening right now and is not something permanent. Therefore, "You are a jerk" is more offensive than "You are being a jerk".

"You are" attributes a constant, deeply engrained quality to the targeted person that they cannot change, a state they have no control over. "You are being" is used for a quality that can change.

"You are being" is used for something that is happening right now and is not something permanent.


cut to the chase "to talk about or deal with the important parts of a subject and not waste time with things that are not important" (source)

The grammatical context will dictate the kind of expression to use.

There are dozens available but the one that occurs to me is "Getting down to the nitty-gritty", which I suppose means pushing aside vagueness, irrelevancy, distraction and other smokescreens and exposing the grit i.e. the hard, abrasive kernel of the matter.

This is, however, not easy to use and requires a certain informality of context.

Otherwise adverbs like "Basically", "Fundamentally", "

In essence" at the beginning of an appropriate sentence could do the job.

One common idiomatic expression is... getting down to brass tacks ...which is of uncertain origin , though there are several more or less fanciful theories.

In my experience the primary sense is of addressing fundamental principles in a discussion, but it can also be used to mean getting serious or dealing with fine points of detail (in a barter/negotiation context).

"The heart of the problem"is probably used most in everyday speech.

However, "the crux of the problem" or "the crux of the issue" is often used in a more formal setting such as a research paper or a speech.

Don't beat around the bush

See definition here

This is suitable in an informal context.

To answer more thoroughly we would need more information

Question: I would like to know one expression that means the same as "Going to the root of the problem..." Could, you please, let me know the expression and the meaning of it?Thank you in advance.

What expression could be used in English to say that you want to discuss to the root of the problem directly?

Cut to the chase, get down to the nitty-gritty, get down to the brass tacks, get to the heart of the problem, get to the crux of the matter, and  let's not beat around the bush are all expressions that could be used. In essence" at the beginning of an appropriate sentence could also work.

Some options are: "Cut to the chase", which means to focus on the important aspects and not waste time with things that are not essential, "Getting down to the nitty-gritty", which means setting aside anything vague or unimportant and exposing the core of the matter, "Don't beat around the bush". Another similar expression of uncertain origin is "getting down to brass tacks". Additionally, in everyday speech, "the heart of the problem" is often used or "The crux of the problem/issue", which would be synonymous but more appropiate to a formal setting. Using "In essence" at the beginning of the sentence could also work. Since the grammatical context determines the expression to be used, more information would help pick the most accurate one.

"Cut to the chase", which means to focus on the important aspects and not waste time with things that are not essential.

"Getting down to the nitty-gritty", which means setting aside anything vague or unimportant and exposing the core of the matter.

In everyday speech, "the heart of the problem" is often used.

"The crux of the problem/issue" would be synonymous but more appropiate to a formal setting.

"Don't beat around the bush" is also an option.


One of these days One of those days

These are idioms.

The former means sometime in the near future.

So you can say "we really must visit them one of these days".

The latter (one of those days) means a bad day; a day when everything goes wrong.

I missed breakfast, got late to work, and got caught in the rain at lunchtime -

it was one of those days!

( The Free Dictionary ).

It looks like it's going to be one of those days ( McMillan ).

So you shouldn't use this idiom in your sentence presented.

The short answer.

The two phrases are idioms.

one of these days

On some day in the future one of those days a day when everything goes wrong

So if you want to visit them in the near future, but you're not sure when, then use

I don't know exactly when we'll go

but we really must visit them one of these days.

The long answer.

The two expression have them meanings as above, but they can also take on various meanings depending on the context.

For example "one of these days" can also mean [1.] someday; in some situation like this one One of these days, someone is going to steal your purse if you don't take better care of it.

You're going to get in trouble one of these days.

It can also be used to refer to the past.

For example, if you are looking at a calendar from last year, you started point at the month of May. As you tried to recall a particular event, you say "I know it happened one of these days , but I can't remember which one."

As for "One of those days", it can also used when referring to specific days or dates, in the future or in the past.

For example, During the last week of June, one of those days I will mail this letter.

Back in high school, I remember one of those days I have quite a terrific day.

Finally, if you're looking ahead in a calendar, for example, and you know that on certain days the weather will be favorable, you could say I don't know exactly when we'll go

but we really must visit them one of those days.

you should use One of THESE days because these signifies upcoming events, that are in the future, while those signifies past events.for eg : One of THESE days I'm going to the gym.

This signifies that I am planning to go to a gym in the upcoming days, whereas THOSE were the days when I used to go to the gym.

This sentence states that I am remembering past events , like I remember going to the gym so, saying that I don't know exactly when we'll go, but we really must visit them one of these days. means that you are planning to go visit someone in the upcoming days.

When you will do something at a future date you say "one of these days".

e.g. "One of these days Alice, Bam!

Right to the moon!".

When you will refer to, typically a bad day, you say "one of those days".

e.g. "I tripped and fell into a mud puddle; today is one of those days."

Both can be used in a purely literal sense for example. '

Any one of these days would be suitable for a meeting:

2nd January, 24th January or 1st February.' 'I am definitely busy on one of those days

but I will be free for at least one

, I will let you know.'

However, in isolation both phrases do have specific additional meanings.

One of those days', generally means a bad day.

as in 'Sorry if I'm in a bad mood I've just had one of those days '.

Here it is given addition meaning by inflection and/or context.

However if can be positive if qualified 'It was one of those days where everything falls into place'.

In both cases there is an implication that it is a state of affairs that both parties will be familiar with.

One of these days', can be used to indicate an intention to do something or a belief that something will happen at some indeterminate time in the future, eg.

: 'One of these days I will get around to fixing that leak'. '

He will get into serious trouble one of these days'.

In general terms 'these' implies something immediate or close to hand eg. '

Would you like to try any of these apples?'

Whereas 'those' implies something a bit more distant or removed from the speaker eg. '

Those hills are a nice place for a walk'.

Question: I don't know exactly when we'll go but we really must visit them  one  of these  / one of those  days.   When should we use " one of  these  days " and  " one of  those  days "?

"One of THOSE days" vs "one of THESE days"

"One of those days", often means a bad day,  when everything goes wrong.  However, it can also be used when referring to specific days or dates, in the future or in the past.  "One of  these  days" can refers to upcoming events or plans in the future, as in "One of these days I'm going to the gym".   When you are talking about doing something at a future date you might say "one of these days".

"One of these days" should be used, because it means "in the near future", "in the upcoming days", it signifies upcoming events. On the other hand, "One of those days" is used to signify events/days/dates that are in the past, and oftentimes it is used as a phrase to describe a bad day when everything goes wrong.

"One of those days" is used to describe a bad day when everything goes wrong.

"One of those days" is used to signify events/days/dates that are in the past.


She dressed like an owl.

When looking at her (say from a distance)

she vaguely resembles an owl.

Maybe she is wearing a long brown frumpy gown or over-sized sweater, has very large horn-rimmed glasses, and a hairdo that makes it look like she has owl ears.

As an example of usage, often a person who is wearing a tuxedo will be described as "dressed like a penguin" .

She dressed as an owl.

She is wearing an owl costume.

From Macmillan Dictionary:He went to the party dressed as a cowboy.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/28518/Keeta - reinstate Monica

She dressed like a child

The way she put her clothes on was child-like (perhaps she struggled with the buttons, etc.).

She dressed as a child

The particular clothing she wore was intended to make it seem that she actually was a child.

Note that in practice these are not hard-and-fast distinctions, but if forced to distinguish two different meanings, that's how most native speakers would see things.

I don't suppose anyone has any idea how an owl dresses, so in OP's context the intended sense must be as per #2 above (and would normally be expressed using as ).

EDIT:

P. E. Dant's comment below about the simile/metaphor distinction raises an interesting point.

Not that the distinction itself ( simile = A is like B; metaphor =

A really is B)

is very important (grammarians just like it because it seems easy to understand and teach).

But consider... 3:

She speaks like an old woman 4:

She speaks as an old woman Where #3 looks like a simile (she's not actually an old woman; she just talks like one), but #4 looks more like a metaphor (among other things, she really is an old woman, and on this occasion her speech reflects that aspect of her identity).

Also consider 1 Corinthians 13:11 ... 5: When I was a child ...

I thought as a child: but when I became a man [I thought as a man] ...

where obviously as reflects the fact that the subject really is a child or a man in each context.

Thus it might seem that like = simile, as = metaphor.

But that principle certainly doesn't work with the first two examples.

In #1, if you saw the way she got dressed, you might (correctly) deduce she was a child, but in #2 that would mean her "disguise" had fooled you into making an incorrect assumption.

I think this is just my way of pointing out that the simile/metaphor distinction is more important to teachers than it is to students (it seems / is unhelpful in OP's context!

:), but it's food for thought.

He dressed like an owl.

He dressed as an owl.

You can use either like or as in your sentence as a preposition; both are correct, though they convey different senses.

You use the like as a preposition followed by a noun to compare somebody or something to another.

The first sentence means that he dressed like an owl does.

You cannot use the as here to convey this sense of comparison.

You use the as as a preposition followed by a noun to refer to what somebody or something is or what they appear to be.

So the second sentence means that he appeared to be an owl when dressed.

However, the like and as are interchangeabke when used as a conjunction to compare one thing to another:

He dresses like an owl does =

He dresses as an owl does.

"Like" and "as" are much abused words even by native speakers, so no one should think there are exact rules.

Usage my vary by region, economic status, or even just the "register" or fancifulness of the result the speaker wants to convey.

In general, "as" should be used when possible to compare full verbal phrases, while "like" should be used to compare noun phrases.

She dresses as an owl dresses, wearing nothing at all but the darkness of the night.

This would mean she is going around in the dark naked.

She dresses like an owl.

This would mean she somehow looks like an owl because of what she is wearing.

She dresses as an owl.

This is a special case where the "as" has a special use meaning "to be seen as," such as "She dressed as an owl at the costume party.

However, and very advanced for English, it could also be the same sense as "She dresses as an owl dresses" but with the last part dropped off for brevity (shortness).

For example, "The lady of the house dresses as a servant, all alone, pulling her corset only as tight as she herself can." Notice, she is still dressed as the lady of the house, it is the act of dressing without a servant, thus "as the servants themselves do" that warrants (uses) the "as."

In addition, "she dressed as an owl" suggests that it was on a specific occasion that she owled up.

On the other hand, "she dressed like an owl

" suggests that she commonly appeared in the guise of an owl -

it was her habit, you might say.

Note that the speaker requires the listener to apply their own world knowledge to eliminate the alternative meaning ie, that she dresses the way an owl dresses, because we know owls don't dress.

For a better illustration, substitute "an owl" with "a lady".

Question: She dressed like an owl.  She dressed as an owl.   "As" or "like"? Which one is more appropriate? My brother said that the second one is correct. He said that first one means "she dressed like an owl does."

"She dressed like/as an owl." Which is correct?

You can use either like or as in your sentence as a preposition; both are correct, though they convey different senses.  You use the like as a preposition followed by a noun to compare somebody or something to another.  You use the as as a preposition followed by a noun to refer to what somebody or something is or what they appear to be. In general, "as" should be used when possible to compare full verbal phrases, while "like" should be used to compare noun phrases. However, the like and as are interchangeabke when used as a conjunction to compare one thing to another.

As a general rule, "as" is used with full verbal phrases, whereas" like is used when comparing noun phrases. Either one can be used as a preposition, but the meaning will differ. "Like" + noun is used to compare something/someone to another. "As" + noun is used to refer to what something/someone is or appears to be. However, it is important to note that even native speaker abuse "like" and "as", so in reality there are no concrete rules. Therefore, "As" and "like" can be interchangeable when comparing one thing to another.

Even native speaker abuse "like" and "as", so in reality there are no concrete rules.

"As" and "like" are interchangeable when comparing one thing to another.