No, it is not a correct English word.

Apparently Merriam-Webster includes an adjective definition for 'horror', but I have to disagree with them here.

The example usage is 'horror movie', which you've also included in your question.

However, 'horror movie' is a compound noun , and in that phrase, 'horror' is acting as a noun adjunct , not an adjective.

A noun adjunct is a noun that is used in a manner similar to an adjective.

This does not automatically result in comparative and superlative forms, such as 'horrorest' and 'horrorer'.

Near the end of the linked 'compound noun' article, there's a discussion on alternative forms in natural language.

The example compares using a noun adjunct versus an adjective based on the noun (an inflection).

In this case those two forms would be: Noun-Adjunct

A horror movie

Inflection

A

horrifying movie

Inflection Comparative and Superlative A more horrifying movie

The most horrifying movie

Horror is not an adjective.

It is a noun.

In the sentence "I saw a horror movie yesterday", it seems like an adjective, since it modifies "movie", but that's not what's actually happens. "

Horror movie" is a compound noun.

"Horror" can also be a noun by itself

Hey, could you recommend some good horror for me?

You could also substitute another movie genre for horror in the above sentence.

Action, adventure, comedy, drama etc.

and it works the same way.

Adjectives similar to horror are Scary, creepy, unnerving, unsettling, disturbing, frightening, horrific, terrifying...

You've asked two questions in one.

First, horror cannot be used with the -er/-est comparative suffixes; native speakers would only ever use more and most .

This is simply because horror has more than one syllable .

There are a whole bunch of exceptions both ways (see the discussion in the comments and this more thorough explanation on Wikipedia ) but

the basic principle is that the comparative suffixes are primarily used with single-syllable words of Germanic derivation, while more and most are primarily used with many-syllable words of Latin derivation.

Second, more horror is not how a native speaker would compare the grade of horror in two works of fiction -- this movie didn't scare you much at all, that movie scared you a lot more.

Instead, we would say one was more horrifying than the other.

And one particular movie might be the most horrifying movie you have ever seen.

The logic behind this word choice is: you're describing something the movie did to you (it induced the emotion of horror) and you're comparing how effectively it did that .

The movie did something, so that requires a verb, specifically the -ify verb form of the induced state.

Then you convert the verb back into an adjective with -ing to make it an intrinsic quality of the movie, and now it can be compared to the same quality in other movies.

(We still can't use -er/-est , because horrifying has even more syllables ... except that *horrifyingest has so many stacked suffixes that I can imagine someone intentionally using it, for effect .)

More horror is also something native speakers might say, but it means something different and is used with different main verbs.

If I say movie A has or contains more horror than movie B, that means more of the time of movie A is spent on storytelling elements that are typical of the horror genre; this might or might not correlate with movie A being more horrifying

(perhaps A has so much horror in it that it goes over the top (sense 2) and becomes ridiculous).

(Boldface: emphasis.

Italics: mention, not use .

Leading asterisk:

marks descriptively-incorrect construct.)

( More horrorshow means something completely different .)

When you look it up in MW Learner's Dictionary it can be defined as an adjective: 2 horror /ˈhorɚ/adjective always used before a noun :intended to cause feelings of fear or horror but there are no comparative/superlative forms offered.

When you look up another adjective (let's say 'clear'), comparative and superlative forms are shown before the definition.

This may be used as a guide to determine whether an adjective is gradable or non-gradable .

Horror, I would say, is non-gradable, same as medical or dead .

P.S. ODO, CDO and LDOCE don't define of horror as an adjective, only as a noun.

I have found it defined as an adjective only at MW.

Horror is a genre of fiction; it is not something you can apply to anything that is bad.

For that we have the words "horrible" and, much less commonly and a little more specific, "horrific".

Since each of those has three syllables, you would have to use them like this: horrible more horrible most horrible The best way to apply this to a horror movie would be to kind of get around it and say something like "the movie that is the most focused on being a horror film". ...

As mentioned in the comments, "horror", "horrible", "horrific", and "horrifying" all have different meanings, with "horrific" and "horrifying" being particularly close in definition.

Question: I know that "horror" is also an adjective as in  I saw a horror movie yesterday.  But I don't know if its comparative and superlative forms are "horrorer" and "horrorest" respectively. I searched on Google and found that these forms are used  by people (mostly Indians) who are not quite good at English. I didn't find any standard source that uses these forms of the word. Please let me know if these forms are correct and accepted in standard English or not.

Is "horrorest" a correct English word?

No, this is not an English word. When you look horror up in  MW Learner's Dictionary  it can be defined as an adjective:   2 horror /ˈhorɚ/adjective  always used before a noun  :intended to cause feelings of fear or horror, but there are no comparative/superlative forms offered.

Horror cannot be rendered as a comparative adjective, thus 'horrorest' is not a word.


"I bought this shirt online" sounds like normal, everyday conversation.

The most likely interpretation is that you bought the shirt through an internet application like a website.

"I bought this shirt offline" doesn't sound quite as normal and everyday.

It makes sense.

It's grammatically sound.

It's something that I might use myself.

Even so, it's not what I expect to hear.

What I expect to hear is "I bought it in person."

The "in person" suggests that you physically traveled to make the purchase -- that your own body was present for the transaction.

Even before the internet existed, this sense of "in person" was in common use.

It was (and still is) used to exclude possibilities like doing something through the mail or over the telephone.

It also excludes sending someone else to do the job.

A simple Google search for "online or in person" shows about a million and a half examples of those two phrases expressing the very contrast that you want.

I didn't buy this shirt online.

I bought it at (name of store).

I didn't buy this shirt online.

I bought it at Muggy's.

You could also say something like

I didn't buy this shirt online.

I bought it locally at Muggy's.

or I didn't buy this shirt online.

I bought it at Muggy's on 5th Street.

or I didn't buy this shirt from Muggy's online, but from Muggy's locally (or: on 5th Street).

While the use of offline is grammatically correct, it is not the most common way to say it in everyday conversation, at least in American English.

I am not sure if it is correct, but it would not be normally used.

You could say: I didn't buy this shirt

online

To me, offline would sound like buying it on a computer, without the use of internet.

Online originally meant connected to a network , usually the internet.

However, also in a company network, both clients and servers may be online .

Offline , as its opposite, meant not connected to a network .

A server could be on- or offline, or your workstation, or even a specific application on your computer.

With the raise of internet, online , in the sense of connected to the internet , became synonymous with while I was using an application that was online (connected to the internet) , as in “I bought this book online.”

It makes sense that offline , in a similar way, comes to mean: A)

while I was using an application that was offline (not connected to the internet).

However, it seems that offline more and more gets the sense of the opposite of the new meaning of online , rather than evolve from the old meaning of offline : B) while I was not (using an application that was online (connected to the internet)).

These two meanings are quite different.

I assume that most people would read your sentence as having meaning B, but you do risk people reading it as A, in which case your sentence makes little sense.

Offline could be used in a situation like that, but is generally not the most natural/common way to say it.

I might say that as I bought this shirt at [name of store].

Or, if the context makes the meaning clear (e.g. someone asked Did you buy that shirt online? ), simply...

I bought this shirt in a store.

(being American, I'd use store here

, I believe British-English would use shop )

If you're conversing over an informal text-based medium (e.g. text messages, IM, etc.)

you might use the acronym IRL ( in real life ).

I bought the shirt IRL.

As in any language, words and usage evolve in English.

The word offline is commonly used to refer to retail stores (do a Google search for "buy offline").

Though offline is not the most common way to express the idea, it does it very well and is going to become a part of my personal usage.

So @Bharath Manjesh, I would say your use of offline is on the leading edge of English language development.

While offline may be coming to mean "not using the Internet", it cannot be used in this sentence.

There is a common ( millions of Google hits documented )

phrase I bought (or ordered or got) this item off (name of source).

and someone hearing you say

I bought this shirt offline.

is liable to misinterpret it as

I bought this shirt off Line. and ask you why they've never heard of this store before.

Your usage has also been discussed on the English Language Usage and Grammar site where the clarification of "I bought it off the internet" is suggested, which is the exact opposite of what you mean.

Don't do this.

Question: "I bought this shirt  offline ." Is 'offline' okay to use to refer to something that was bought at a brick-and-mortar store? If not, what's the preferred way to say it in  everyday conversations ?

"I bought this shirt offline." Is this correct usage of the word 'offline'?

One might say "I bought it in person", "in real life", or "in a store". Alternatively, "I didn't buy this shirt online." While the use of  offline  is grammatically correct, it would not be used in this context.

This is not commonly used even if it is grammatically correct. You could say 'I bought this shirt online/IRL/at [name of store]/in person.

This may be grammatically correct but it is not used.


In my English, at least, sleep can be specified with a period or length of time, but not a point in time .

(If you supply a point in time, it's intelligible, but doesn't sound natural.)

So I could say things like I slept from nine until seven.

I slept until noon.

I slept for thirteen hours.

But if I want to tell you what I was doing at a precise time, I need to say something like

I was asleep when the fire alarm sounded.

Or I could tell you about the point when I went from waking to sleeping:

I went to sleep around midnight.

I fell asleep as soon as my head hit the pillow.

It's not incorrect.

It's a perfectly valid sentence construction which is commonly used.

I slept at six.

I got up at six.

I ate at six.

In general, the other answers do a fair job of explaining why it's at least weird to use "I slept at [time]" to describe the time you began sleeping.

But there are plenty of occasions when it works well enough.

A short nap could be described as "I slept at noon.

" This works especially when you're describing a sequence of events, e.g. "I slept at noon, then had lunch at 1.

Similarly, I wouldn't be confused if someone summed up their evening like this: "I jogged at 6, ate dinner at 7, and slept at 9.

(i.e. they went to bed at 9)

If I asked someone "When did you go to bed?

" I'd understand what they meant if their response was "I slept at 10."

However (thanks Dog Lover [Love the handle, BTW]), the way that sentence is constructed is a bit unexpected.

Consider, "I went to bed at six".

"I slept" means "I spent a period of time asleep."

"I slept at 6" doesn't make sense because it's saying "I spent a period of time asleep at a particular moment in time."

In contrast, "I woke" means "I changed from the sleeping state to the waking state"

and it's perfectly reasonable to do that at a specific time.

Having said that, "I ate at six" is fine, even though it seems to mean "I spent a period of time eating at a specific time.

" It would, instead, be interpreted as "I began eating at six", which is again a change of state at a specific time.

This is somewhat inconsistent but that's how language is: all I can offer is that "to sleep" isn't used to mean "to begin sleeping" even though it would be logical if it was.

"I slept at six" is not incorrect.

It is a bit unusual, and feels a bit clumsy, and it means something different than "I went to sleep at six".

That happens quite often, some sentence is not incorrect as a sentence, but has a different meaning than you think it has.

"I went to sleep at six":

I was awake at 5:59, but asleep at 6:00.

"I slept at six"

: I went to sleep some time before 6:00 and woke up some time after 6:00, so at the exact time I was asleep.

Example usage: "I called you on the phone

but you didn't answer".

"When did you call?"

"I called at six.

What were you doing that kept you from answering?"

"I slept at six,

that's why I didn't answer".

Usually you would say "I was asleep" instead of

"I slept".

It's a little ambiguous as it's unclear whether you mean you started sleeping at six, or slept through six, though it would probably become clear from the context or question.

I world use "

I went to sleep at 6" or "I was still asleep at 6" to make it clearer.

Question: I know there are many sentences like  I went to sleep at six  and  I slept at six , but I want to know why it is incorrect to say "I slept at six" in English.

Is it incorrect to say "I slept at six" in English?

Although valid and not incorrect, it's a little ambiguous as it's unclear whether you mean you started sleeping at six, or slept through six. However, it would probably become clear from the context or question.  It is a bit unusual, and feels a bit clumsy, and it means something different than "I went to sleep at six".

While not incorrect, this is ambiguous and unusual. Normally the constrution refers to a period, not a point in time.

This is ambiguous and unusual. Normally the constrution refers to a period, not a point in time.

This is a valid construction, it's not incorrect.


You are exploring a parallel between "dress" and "cross": After one dresses, one is dressed.

After one crosses (a street), is one "crossed"?

The answer is no.

When one is finished dressing, one is dressed.

"Dressed" is a state that one takes on after dressing, the state of wearing clothes.

We can check whether a person is in this state by looking at him or her and noting whether we can see clothes or a naked body.

When one is finished crossing a street, one has not changed state, but location.

There is no state of a person being "crossed" (at least with respect to this meaning of "cross" -- see footnote).

Looking at a person, it is impossible to tell whether the person has crossed any given street.

Another possible explanation for this difference is that dress is intransitive -- it does not take an object -- or reflexive (I am dressing myself ).

Cross, on the other hand, is transitive.

Its object, in the example, is the street.

(footnote: It is possible to say that a person is "crossed" when we use the sense of "to cross" that means "to oppose.

A famous example is Shakespeare's "star-crossed lovers," Romeo and Juliet.

Another common phrase is "double-crossed" as in "the criminals were double-crossed by their associate.")

You can say the street is getting crossed, but that sounds unnatural because it sounds like the street is doing something.

I think it would be grammatically correct to say that the street is "getting crossed" when someone is currently crossing it, although it would be better to say that it is "being crossed".

A Street Being Crossed vs A Person Getting Dressed I think the difference, when compared to getting dressed, is that being 'dressed' is a persistent state.

Once I am dressed, I stay dressed until I undress.

How does a street become 'uncrossed'?

Instead, the street is either being crossed right now, or it isn't.

It won't stay 'crossed' after someone crosses it.

I mean, technically it is a street that has been crossed, and therefore could be describe as 'crossed' forevermore, but that's not a useful concept.

Once again, compare this to getting dressed.

You could say that one is "being dressed", but that means that clothes are currently being placed upon them, not that they have had clothes on for some time and still do.

For that persistent state, or condition, we say that they "are dressed".

In the process of "being dressed", they "got dressed", and now "are dressed".

Crossing a Person To cross a person means to upset them.

If someone stole my red stapler, you could say that they crossed me.

One would not however say "I am crossed".

One would say that "I have been crossed" and that "I am cross".

This is another situation, rather than a condition, so we don't usually use 'get' here either.

In other words, one would not normally say "when I get crossed", but instead "when I am crossed".

Other Examples of "get [verb]-ed" Get tattooed.

Get ripped.

Get injured.

Get drunk.

In all of these, "get" means "become".

Getting dressed is a reflexive action which can be reworded as I am dressing myself.

In other words, the person is acting upon himself, putting clothes on his own body.

Since the street is not part of the person's body, the phrase I am getting crossed makes little sense.

It has nothing to do with crossing a street, since that action is not performed by the person on himself but on another object (the street).

This is the best answer I can come up with given how you have worded your question.

Even in your revised sentence, it's the street that's being crossed because it's the subject of the sentence.

When a person says, 'I am getting dressed,' they are making themselves the subject.

It usually implies that they are dressing themselves, but could also be true if they are being assisted, as by a parent or costumer.

To address the other part of the query, there is an existing, though not very common, idiom.

A person 'getting crossed' would refer to them being disobeyed, or thwarted in some action by another person who is 'at cross purposes.'

You'd most commonly hear/see this sense in a story where someone says "Don't cross me."

As others have noted, dressing is a reflexive action—you do it to yourself, and when you are finished, you are in a different condition which is called dressed .

Others have also noted that "cross" is transitive; when you finish crossing, you are in a different position .

This position is called across the street , that is, on the other side of the street from where you started.

So you don't "get crossed", you get [yourself] across the street .

Incidentally, there is a reflexive sense of "cross".

It is called crossing oneself .

This is a religious practice, also called making the sign of the cross .

See, for example, http://www.kencollins.com/instructions/how-01.htm

Question: You say to another "get dressed" (1. You say this when someone asks you what you are doing? "I am getting dressed.")  But in the same way, why can't we say "get crossed" (crossing a street)?   Edit: Sorry,  but this question is about:  a person getting crossed  vs.  a person getting dressed .

Why can't we say: "a person getting crossed"?

This would not be used in this context. A person 'getting crossed' would refer to them being disobeyed, or thwarted in some action by another person who is 'at cross purposes.'

This makes little sense even though it is grammatically correct. It's better to say the street is being crossed.


Think of it this way…

If the lid takes 3 turns to remove, then only the first 'grab' will loosen it, but after that it still needs unscrewing the other 2.9 turns To actually ask someone, either version would probably do - they'd be aware that you were asking because you were having difficulty with that first part, not that you couldn't be bothered with the other 2.9 turns ;-) "

Could you open this for me?

" would also work just fine, by the same assumption.

Assuming you mean in normal conversation.

They mean pretty much the same thing.

If a asked to loosen a cap for someone I would turn the cap till is was almost off, then hand back the bottle.

If asked to unscrew a cap, I would fully remove the cap, handing them back the bottle and the cap in two separate pieces.

That said, they are really quite interchangeable, and a person may do either one if asked either way.

It just depends on the person.

If you mean in some kind of technical document, or instructions it would be normal to see something like

"Loosen the cap until product is accessible, but do not remove the cap completely.

"Unscrew the cap completely to access the product.

Once finished replace the cap.

Point being that even in technical documents the loosen/unscrew verbs are usually modified with further instructions to clarify the partially on or all the way off part of the definition.

"Loosen" means that the seal of the jar will be broken, but the lid will be left on the jar.

"Unscrew" implies that the lid will be removed.

"Unscrew" is valid if the cap is, in fact, a screw type.

(Though you probably only need assistance in loosening it, not completing the job.)

If it's some other kind of seal, "loosen", "open" or "undo" might be more appropriate.

Unscrew indicates the lid/cap and container are of the screw variety.

Loosen doesn't imply that the lid/cap must be of the screw type, it could be held on by friction.

Loosen also sounds less than completely remove.

One might loosen a screw in order to make room for something else to fit on it without removing it completely.

Unscrew without any other modifiers has more completeness implied.

Question: For example, could you help me "loosen" or "unscrew" this lid/cap? Which one is correct and more common?

What is difference between "loosen" and "unscrew" for lid/cap?

Although they are very similar, "Loosen" implies that the seal of the jar will be broken, but the lid will be left on the jar.   "Unscrew" implies that the lid will be removed completely to access the product.

Loosen means that the seal will be broken but the lid will not be removed. Unscrew implies complete removal of a screw lid.


This is a quotation from the best-known translation of the Christian Bible, the 'Authorized Version' or 'King James Version': Honor thy father and thy mother.

Possessive thy and the subject/object forms thou / thee are old forms which are no longer used in Standard English, and are dying out even in the dialects where it has survived.

In ordinary uses it is today restricted almost entirely to religious contexts, where it employs the diction of the KJV; to works of historical fiction which imitate older language; and to translations from languages which maintain morphological or lexical distinctions between singular and plural and/or familiar and formal in the second person.

It is very unlikely that you will ever have occasion to use it.

When can I use “thy” instead of “your”? When?

Pretty much anytime before about the year 1780.

In all seriousness, "thy" (and its other forms like "thou", "thee", and "thine") is the equivalent of "tú" (in Spanish) or "du" (in German).

It is just the familiar form.

Unlike every other Indo-European language , we stopped using the familiar form about 200 years ago, except when we are deliberately attempting to invoke an archaic ambiance, suggesting Shakespeare or the King James Version of the Bible.

A key thing not mentioned in the other answers is that thou, thy, thee, thine is the informal version of you, or at least many years ago it was.

In the same way that in french we have tu and vous , which can both mean you in the singular, so in english there was thou and you .

In french you have to be really careful when to use tu and vous , because to say tu to someone in the wrong context is very rude.

It is more respectful to say vous .

In the North of England it persists a bit - the phrase "t'art" is short for "thou art", which is equivalent to "you are"....

e.g. "t'art right useful" where right in this context means very.

So if you want to use "thou" or "thee" it should be to one person in a familiar context in speech from about 200 or more years ago.

These days if someone uses thou

it sounds a bit odd and more formal, which is not at all its original meaning, which is why in Romeo and Juliet there is the line from Juliet of "Romeo,

o Romeo, wherefore art thou, Romeo" - - which translated is "Romeo, o Romeo why are you Romeo"

(why a Montague and not a Capulet (like me) - thanks to all who pointed out my mistake - many apologies...

Note that it is uses the very familiar intimate version of you because of the intimate relationship between Romeo and Juliet.

edit -

so I messed up in my original answer and thought wherefore=

where, but it does mean why.... sorry

If you were quoting someone from Yorkshire, you could use the modern equivalent 'thee'.

From personal experience it exists more as a stereotype than actually being common usage, but there are still people that do it.

Use of the singular second-person pronoun thou (often written tha) and thee.

This is a T form in the T-V distinction, and is largely confined to male, mostly older speakers.

Wikipedia

As others have mentioned before me, thy is only used in historical and religious texts, or fiction which takes place in older times (usually medieval times).

So unless you’re going to write a historic fiction story which takes place in medieval England, you’re probably not going to use it.

I think this article on Shakespearean English explains the use well.

It gives the following example from Romeo and Juliet : Deny thy father and refuse thy name; Furthermore, this Shakespearean English can also be used in role-playing (games).

However, most people would probably find it silly and/or too cumbersome to do so.

Question: I have never heard anybody using it, I only came across the word in the title of the movie  Honor Thy Mother

When can I use "thy" instead of "your"?

In ordinary uses, "thy"  is only used in historical and religious texts, or fiction which takes place in older times (usually medieval times). It is very unlikely that you will ever have occasion to use it. However, In the North of England it persists a bit - the phrase "t'art" is short for "thou art", which is equivalent to "you are".

This is only used in historical and religious contexts. 'Thee' and 't'art' are modern equivalents in parts of northern England such as Yorkshire.


In the UK we'd say a product 'has a design flaw' or 'is inherently faulty/flawed,'

I don't see that "inherent" is imprecise.

It's derived from the Latin for "sticking to", so it has the meaning of inextricable.

You could use "intrinsic", which carries the connotation of "essentially inside".

Or "innate", which has the meaning of instilled from the beginning, i.e., "from birth".

The word intrinsic describes the inbuilt nature of something.

A flaw from the design would be intrinsic to the product.

It is a part of the product itself, not something added later by wear and tear.

The other answers give 'inherent' and 'intrinsic'.

This would usually be used to refer to problems that are an accepted part of the design of the product.

The 640KB limit was an inherent limitation of MS-DOS.

A design defect is a flaw in the design of the product, which prevents the product from functioning in the intended manner.

A manufacturing defect is a flaw in the product that was introduced during the manufacture of said product.

I think that Flaw, as in a Flawed diamond, describes an inherent problem well in fewer words.

Inherent is a good word to describe the flaw, but you didn't say if the flaw was of design or manufacturing.

If you're attempting to get redress, it's important to distinguish a "manufacturing flaw" (they messed up making it) as opposed to a design flaw (this item was poorly conceived).

The former is much more likely to get immediate redress, but the second at best will cause a new model or version.

If the product is software you can also use the word "bug" to describe any error that occurs.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/20836/Eric Brown - Cal

Question: I think there is a word to describe that a certain problem in a product was cause by a defect that inherently existed in the product from the start as opposed to something that broke during the usage of the product.  Inherent is close, but I think there is some more precise word for it.

Looking for a word that describes an inherent problem in a product

Inherent or instrinsic are good words to describe the flaw. You might say a product "has a design flaw" or "is inherently faulty/flawed". If the product is software you can also use the word "bug" to describe any error that occurs.

Flaw, intrinsic and inherent work well. For software, bug can be used.

Flaw works well, as does bug for software.


He who has a WHY to live can bear almost any HOW (to live)

It's a very colloquial way of saying He who has a REASON to live can bear almost any MANNER of life.

If you have a reason or purpose in life, you can endure almost any misery.

ADDED, to address orthographic issues raised in the Comments:

I have been unable to find the original edition or a critical edition online; but scholarly references appear to use this: Hat man sein w

a r

u m ?

des Lebens, so verträgt man sich fast mit

jedem w

i

e ?

Der Mensch

strebt nicht nach Glück; nur der Engländer thut das.

There are no quotation marks, but warum?

(why?) and wie?

(how?) are letterspaced.

This is a common emphatic device in German orthography; Bernard Shaw was fond of it, too.

Some contemporary writers follow another of Shaw's favorite uses with embedded quotations and capitalise these terms (Warum?

Wie?)

instead; but in German this marks them as nouns.

A translation which preserves Nietzsche's aggressive colloquialism might be: If you have your Why? of life, you can put up with just about any

How?

—Man doesn't strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that.

(The last bit of snark is probably not a nationalist sneer but a joke mocking English philosopher Jeremy Bentham and his ‘felicific calculus’.)

He who has a 'why' to live can bear almost any 'how'.

Loosely interpreted: He who has a reason to live can bear almost any problem.

Some images of this quote indicate this as well:

In the example sentence, why and how are set up in a parallelism, to be understood as: He who has a why to live can bear almost any how to live.

Like the original example, this is not actually, formally, grammatically correct.

It is a poetic expression.

It might be better understood written as: He who has a why-to-live can bear almost any how-to-live.

What is "a why-to-live"?

Idiomatically, "a why" is a reason , so this means a reason to live.

Thus by parallelism (and this is not idiomatic) "

a how" is a means , and "any how-to-live" is "any means to live".

Thus it poetically and concisely expresses the idea:

He who has a reason to live can bear almost any means of living.

Nietzsche means that a person with nothing to live for subconsciously prefers death, but someone who has something to live for (the reason WHY he continues to live) can endure almost anything (HOW to survive almost anything).

Victor Frankel's, "Mans Search for Meaning

" Will explain this quote absolutely.

While living through Auschwitz, Frankel discovered that those victims who had meaning in their lives were far more likely to survive than those who did not.

When EVERYTHING is taken from you, leaving no possibility of any kind of normal "happiness", if you still had a sense of "why", a sense of meaning, will get you through the day.

Question: Here is the quote from Friedrich Nietzsche:   He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.   I don't quite understand it, especially this phrase  almost any how . Can somebody please shed light onto the meaning?

What does `almost any how` mean?

Nietzsche means that he who has a reason to live can bear almost anything in life.  When EVERYTHING is taken from you, leaving no possibility of any kind of normal "happiness", if you still had a sense of "why", or a sense of meaning,  you would be able to get through the day.  If you have a reason or purpose in life, you can endure almost any misery.

It means that a person who has a reason or purpose in life can endure almost anything.


I would say something like: The roads are flooded by heavy rain.

The roads are waterlogged .

(this usage might be Indian English-specific)

Most of the roads have been rendered impassable by heavy rain.

Examples from the media:

"Many roads remain impassable and are covered by water ."

( source ) "

Another day of downpours brought more water-covered roads .

Several roads in South Moorhead flooded Wednesday and Thursday

North Fargo got the brunt of it."

( source )

Surface water is another word for rainwater – more specifically, rainwater that falls on the ground, on roofs and roads , pavements and paths.

As an example usage similar to OP's context, consider... I was forced to drive slowly due to the pools of surface water on the roads.

(A slight deviation to @FumbleFingers' answer)

Standing water is quite possibly the term.

There is really nothing that unnatural with your own words (which is often the case here; people tend to overthink things): Most of the roads on my route have accumulated rain water and it is raining heavily.

I might reverse the terms, because and can suggest a cause-and-effect relationship or a Step-1, Step-2 sequence:

It is raining heavily and (to my knowledge) most of the roads on my route have accumulated rain water.

If in the US, you could add:

According to the National Weather Service there are Flash Flood Warnings in the area.

And remind your client of the possible peril:

I really don't think it is safe for either you or me to risk driving over a low-lying area where there is water over the road

All the above are natural phrases for a telephone conversation.

Or just keep it simple:

It's raining hard and there's a lot of water on the roads (in my area).

[It's not safe to drive.]

A slightly alternative phrasing would be The roads are inundated and impassable.

Puddles, large or small forming everywhere on the road after a few showers is appropriate in the Indian context.

The puddles form not because of the rain being heavy or light but because of improper laying of the road.

Question: I was making a phone conversation with one of my client. I had promised him to do a meeting at a certain place. But I wanted to cancel that meeting because most of the roads on my route had accumulated rain water and it was raining heavily. For that I used the phrase   'road are blocked because of heavy rains'   Can you let me know a key word that could describe the road condition.

Word for describing 'water accumulated on roads'

"Standing water", "puddles", "inundated and impassable", "waterlogged" and "flooded" are all terms that can be used to describe conditions when water has accumulated on roads.

Inundated, flooded, waterlogged, rendered impassable by heavy rain, puddles and standing water are options.

Inundated, flooded, waterlogged are options.

Rendered impassable by heavy rain, puddles and standing water are options.


Be careful.

Naive (adjective) or naivety (noun) carry more a sense of attitude than of experience.

If you are naive , you tend to: believe everything you are told believe that people are good be easily tricked.

Even if you were tricked many times and hence in theory are experienced Children are the standard example of naive.

If you want to say inexperienced, write inexperienced .

You could also describe yourself as a novice or beginner .

Naiveté is a result of inexperience; it is not inexperience per se .

To be naive is to not know that one's knowledge and experience are insufficient in a given context.

Therefore, it is impossible to say "I am naive".

One can only say "I was naive."

But one can say "I am inexperienced".

To answer your question, we use this word when talking about people when we feel they believe everything they hear, or take things at face value, or can easily be convinced to do anything: A:

He said he was going to leave his wife and marry me!

B:

That was five years ago

and they're still together.

Don't be so naive!

It's not always a reproach - sometimes it just means innocent and unsuspecting :

She entered college a mousy, naive girl, and came out a confident, savvy businesswoman.

It is also sometimes used to describe someone's actions, who doesn't suspect anything is amiss in a given situation:

"They made up a profile for a girl named Debbie on a dating site.

"Debbie" sent me her email address

and I wrote her several times to ask her out.

They must have gotten a lot of laughs from my naive attempts to meet her."

You've got excellent answers regarding the meaning and the use of the word naive , but I would try to explain the meaning of your phrasing instead:

I am naive in writing this type of article.

This would mean that you came to the conclusion that someone too easily persuaded/convinced you to write this type of article regardless the consequences, in other words, that's not the lack of experience in writing this type of article but the lack of assessment/judgement/discernment of the article's subject.

Naive also means being simple and unaffected.

It can refer to a lack of sophistication as well.

So a naive young man or a naive villager, could also refer to, depending on the context, somebody who is simple and artless.

You can say the village girl exuded a naive charm - in which case the word is used in a positive complimentary sense.

I have also heard it used in the context of art, Naive Art, meaning childlike / simple in the artistic technique.

I have heard the art of LS Lowry described this way for example.

As others have said, naive tends to be something you say of others

"he was naive to believe her" whereas in your sentence I would use inexperience.

Question: Sometimes I may use "naive" in sentences like   I am naive in writing this type of articles   To say "inexperienced"  I would like to know how common this word is among native speakers of English, or in which situations they use it (through some examples please).

May I use "naive" to mean "inexperienced"?

Naiveté is a result of inexperience and can also mean being simple and unaffected. It carries more a sense of attitude than of experience.  To be naive is to not know that one's knowledge and experience are insufficient in a given context.

Naïve is related to inexperience and means being unaware that your knowledge and inexperience are insufficient in a specific context.


I think few would find the word "buried" rude.

It certainly isn't technical -- it's a very common word.

If you are talking about disposing of dead bodies in general, "buried" is probably the most common word for this idea.

As others have noted, "laid to rest" is sometimes used as a euphemism.

It is pretty much only used when speaking to the family or close friends of someone who has just died.

"Interred" is the technical term.

You almost never hear someone say this other than funeral directors and cases where someone wants to sound very formal and respectful.

I don't have a survey on this, but I think most people would say, "My mother is buried in Pennsylvania" and the like without a second though.

To bury is not rude or technical.

However, the use of euphemism is widespread when the subject is related to death, so to someone who is not used to confronting the reality head-on, simple matter-of-factness may seem harsh.

The use of euphemism can reflect solicitude.

But it can also become hollow and be just the opposite of solicitousness, for example when the death industry comes up with new and improved death-jargon.

A minor change can remove the harshness for many people.

Instead of asking "When will he be buried?

" one can ask "When is the burial ?"

But the word "bury" sometimes sounds rude or very technical to me.

I agree, it could sound harsh to a grieving person or family of the deceased.

Try laid to rest .

A person who is buried with funereal rites is "interred".

That is probably the best verb for it, but it's also rather formal and some people might see it as archaic. "

Laid to rest" is more common in informal conversation.

The choice can be a little tricky, because some people will be uncomfortable using a more "technical" term like "buried" or "interred", but others (like me) are more uncomfortable with the more "sentimental" "laid to rest".

If you are talking to the family and friends of the deceased, I would use "laid to rest".

If you're talking about the general practice of burial of remains, or to people completely unassociated with the deceased, I would use "interred".

Inhume is another rarely-used option, probably not appropriate for English language learners.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/22049/NL - Apologize to Monica

Question: I want to say "somebody was buried somewhere", to place (a corpse) in a grave.   But the word "bury" sometimes sounds rude or very technical to me. Am I right or is it very normal to use "bury". If it is not appropriate, can you tell me an alternative?

Any alternatives for the verb "to bury"?

Few people would find the word "buried" rude or technical. However, you could use "interred" or "laid to rest".

Bury is not rude or technical, though laid to rest and interred are alternatives.

Laid to rest and interred are alternatives.


No, but we might use the phrase "every effort": "

I will make every effort to be there on time."

No, it's not!

I'll try my best to be on time.

I'm going to try to come on time.

Never use "on the time" like that.

In order to discover if this is acceptable/correct English, let's break it down into small phrases: I'll make Good so far.

What are you making?

all my effort

This is strange.

This claims that you have a pile of effort, and you can take from and add to it, and you're talking about the entire pile.

Alone, this is a good analogy.

However, when we look at these together: I'll make all my effort

This says that you are starting with zero effort in your pile, and you're going to make all of it.

That doesn't make much sense.

A better alternative is use or give instead of make .

Let's move on to the rest of the sentence: to come Alight

, that's okay.

To where are you coming? on the time

Here's where it gets silly.

This makes it seem like you're starting where you are, and your destination is "the time".

Also, "to come on" has a rare, but lewd definition (see Wiktionary's 5 th verb definition ), so you shouldn't say you come on something.

So what is a good alternative to to come on the time ?

Well, let's go back.

to come was fine, and I asked "To where are you coming?".

Let's answer that with in .

"Where are you coming?"

"I'm coming in!"

Now I can ask "When are you coming in?", and you can answer with on time , meaning that when you come in, it will be at the correct time.

Putting it all together, here's what you probably want to say: I'll give all my effort to come in on time.

Perfect!

You've got a pile of effort, and you're giving all of it in your attempt to go from where you are to here at the correct time.

No.

A better way to say it would be 'I will do my best to be on time'

You could also use "best efforts" "I'll make best efforts to come on time"or"I'll make my best efforts to come on time"

Question: If I say:    I'll make " all my effort " to come on the time"   Is it considered an acceptable / correct English?

I'll make "all my effort" to do that - acceptable idiom?

That would not be correct, but you might say "I will  do my best  to be on time", "I'll make my best effort to be on time", "I'll try my best to be on time" or "I'll make every effort to come on time".

All the effort' and 'on the time' are incorrect. You could say 'I will try/do my best to be on time' or 'I'll make best efforts to be on time'.


"Playing" is the word I would use (British English).

Broadcasting does sound weird because the radio itself is receiving a broadcast, not broadcasting.

You can also say that a radio is tuned to Radio 4.

(Radio 4 or BBC Radio 4, or just 4, but not BBC 4 because that's a TV channel.)

"Tuned in" is probably the safest option, as LanguidSquid and ssav have mentioned.

"Playing" is applicable, because the word "play" in this context refers to "playback," which has a different meaning than the normal usage of the component word "play."

However, usually "playing" is used when referring to songs and music specifically, because "playback" occurs when someone starts a record track, or more commonly nowadays, a digital audio file from the beginning.

Usually talk shows or speeches are not pre-recorded, so the words "playback" and its shortened form "play" aren't quite as applicable.

However, most people don't regard such nuanced differences in semantics.

In usage, "play" would refer to the song or other audio presentation that the channel is broadcasting, not the channel itself.

"Receiving" is correct, although not used very often.

It is the most specific/appropriate word to use to describe what exactly the radio is doing, but most people leave it out of colloquial conversation.

However, you could definitely call your radio equipment a "receiver."

The transmitter or broadcasting device is somewhere else -- usually where a radio signal tower is located, in the channel's studio.

The radio is tuned in to BBC 4.

It also makes sense to say 'The radio is playing BBC 4'.

The radio is a similar device to a record or CD player and these 'play music'.

Similarly, a television that is tuned to/turned to BBC can be described as showing BBC when the channel is set to BBC.

I would make a distinction.

Tuned to X or just set to X means the knob(s), switches, button(s) or whatever are set to a particular frequency or station X rather than some other frequency or station.

But the radio might not actually be reproducing the sounds broadcast (or transmitted) by X because: the radio is turned off, or does not have a working source/supply of electric power

X is not transmitting right now,

for example shut down overnight the radio is far away from X, farther than the radio signal can propagate

the speaker(s) and/or headset is(are)

disconnected or broken Receiving X or playing X means the radio is tuned to X and "on" and X is broadcasting and the radio is reproducing the sounds being broadcast by X.

I know you're asking for a verb, but since a couple people have suggested "tuned in", which is not a verb, I would like to suggest that a verb is not needed at all, and there is a very common way of describing what is on the radio (I just used the phrase myself without even realizing it).

In American English, you can say, "The BBC was on the radio" (meaning the BBC was playing on the radio) and also

"The radio was on the BBC" (meaning that the radio was tuned into a station broadcasting the BBC).

Here is an example on the web: "The radio was on BBC stations all day..."

And here : "The BBC was on the radio..."

Talking about something "playing" on the radio sounds to me like music was on the radio.

I think that comes from the fact that we say that a musician or a band "plays" a song or artists' work.

When a song is heard on the radio, then the radio is "playing" it.

So, you wouldn't say that the radio is playing the BBC, because that's likely not a musical program, but you would say that the radio is playing Beethoven's Fifth, or Led Zeppelin, for example.

However, music and songs can also be 'on' the radio.

As others have said, there are quite a few options depending on the context.

Here are some specific examples that show how different words apply: I couldn't hear you before because Ron had the radio going .

So NMR played this story on the radio earlier about a man and his store.

I can't get the radio to pick up a signal in the shop.

Stupid teenagers think driving around with the radio blasting is cool. ...

and there's a lot more

and they're all a little bit different.

Going implies the radio was background noise to the speaker (he wasn't paying attention); played implies whatever was on the radio was prerecorded; pick up specifically refers to the radio getting a signal; blasting refers to the volume of the speakers, even though we apply the verb to the radio.

TL;DR radios "do" a lot of different things in different contexts - you have to find the right word for the situation.

If the radio is on, but nobody is listening (there are people there, but they are ignoring the sound), you can say the radio is blaring .

This can be transitive ("it was blaring BBC 4") or intransitive ("it was blaring in the background").

The definition doesn't require that nobody is listening, but that is the connotation if you don't say otherwise.

Playing.

As in "The radio's playing some forgotten song, Brenda Lee's comin' on strong" (Golden Earring, Radar Love) @Kevin: Blaring just means it's load and/or distorted.

Nothing to do with nobody listening.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blare .

Oh, and "in the background" doesn't make it intransitive, because that's not a direct object.

Question: I'm trying to find the right verb for when the radio is ... broadcasting? ... a particular channel. In my native language, a direct translation would be "the radio was playing BBC 4" but that doesn't sound right in English. "Broadcasting" sounds weird when it's just a radio receiving signals. Receiving?  To broadcast? To receive? Something else?

Verb for what the radio does

"The radio was playing BBC 4" makes sense. You could also say "The radio is tuned in to BBC4", or "BBC4 was on the radio".

Playing, blaring, tuned in, on are options.

Blaring, tuned in, on are options.
You can use playing.


The use of "some" in those sentences is deliberately noncommittal.

It means that the speaker has either forgotten or does not wish to state how long ago.

In other words, the speaker is evading the question of how many years exactly.

Depending on the context, they may be implying that it is a sufficient number of years for making some particular judgement about the person they are talking about.

"I have known the defendant for some time and he is not the sort of person who would steal a policeman's helmet."

Checking more dictionaries might have helped: 4

A considerable amount or number of: 'I’ve known you for some years now' Source: Oxford Dictionary Online 3.

Being a considerable number or quantity: '

She has been directing films for some years now.'

Source: American Heritage Dictionary B adjective II.

With plural nouns 8.

A certain number of; a few at least Or: at least a few b

In adverbial expressions of time. '

We shall meet some months hence' '

He has been here some years' Source:

Oxford English Dictionary

In general, in this context, some serves like a plural indefinite article.

Thus the use of some does not give a definite number.

But in time expressions, the OED says it means at least a few .

That is vague.

And that is what indefinite means.

The OED mentions for usage with singular nouns that some frequently implies 'not a little, considerable'.

And the other dictionaries back this up.

As other answers here have said or hinted, it often means: long enough! :)

A mother with a kid who is five would not say that her kid has played for some years with the next door kid who is also five.

That doesn't fit.

A teenager would probably not say that she has known someone for some years now .

Some does not fit the context.

As another answer has hinted or stated, the very word years means that a person has to be old enough to mean at least a few and imply a considerable amount .

In sum, the collocation some years does not at all mean a short time .

Some can mean both large and small amounts depending on the context in which it is used.

Consider these examples: A majority of persons were in favor of the vote but some were against it.

I have not read all of his books

but I have definitely read some.

Some villages in this state frequently experience flooding.

The meaning of some and subsequently the meaning the sentence conveys is different in all of these sentences.

In your case, it will mean the speakers have known each other for a good number of years .

They have not known each other since their beginnings, for, in that case they would have said

We have known each other since forever Or We have always known each other .

"Some" you should think of as "undisclosed amount", with a connotation of little or a lot depending on context.

"I found some money" might mean you found $1, or maybe $1,000,000.

However typically you probably mean closer to $1.

"Can I have some more?"

typically only means "can I have a small to moderate amount more?".

If you were served a plate of a food, and you asked for "some more", they would give you a second plate of equal or lesser amount.

"I have known him for some time"

typically only means "a long time".

You can think of this as "I have known him for a more than adequate enough amount of time to make whatever statements I made about him credible".

To copy another example: "I have known the defendant for some time and he is not the sort of person who would steal a policeman's helmet.

This should be read as "I have known the defendant for a long enough time to know that he is not the sort of person who would steal a policeman's helmet."

First off, we must bear it in mind that we are talking about the use and the sense of the determiner some in front of time, hours, months, years, etc.

According to The Free Dictionary, you use "some" with "time" and words such as hours, months, years, etc.

to refer to a fairly long time.

For examples: You will not be able to drive for some time after the operation.

We've been here for some hours now.

On the other hand, when you refer to a short period of time, you don't use some.

Instead, you say a short time and use "a few" in front of hours, days, months, years, etc.

For examples: Her mother died only a short time later.

You'll be feeling better in a few days.

In addition, you van use the phrases "some little time", " some few hours, months, years", etc.

to mean a short petiod of time.

For examples: Her mother died only some little time later.

You'll be feeling better in some few days.

However, if you want to refer to an unidentified or unknown time, you can use "some" before time.

For examples I saw him some time/sometime last summer.

We'll see some some time again, I am sure.

So whether some time means an identified time or a considerable/long time depends on the context.

As for "some years" in the sentence "We have known each other for some years" means a long time; a lot of years.

Question: The definition of 'some' reads as  on OALD page   (#3)  a  large  number or amount of something   But then the next entry says...   (#4)  a  small  amount or number of something   I wonder if someone says ...   We have known each other for  some  years now   Or    I met him  some  years back   What about that 'period' that 'some' mean? Long or short?

"We have known each other for some years now" - so is it a long time or short time?

"We have known each other for some years" means a long time - for many years.

It depends on the context whether this refers to a short or long period.


To be friends with, to become friends with, or to make friends with are idiomatic phrases.

If somebody is your friend, you can say you are friends with him.

If you want to start a friendly relationship with a person or persons, you can say that you want to become friends or make friends with him or them accordingly.

So the use of friends in the sentence presented by the writer is correct grammatically.

The writer is correct here.

The plural is being used because there are two people becoming friends with each other: "he" and the owner.

You're right.

"I" can't be friends, and "he" can't be friends.

The implication is that " we are friends."

Hence the plural for "friends.

This is just how the expression is built.

You can find it in the Merriam-Webster dictionary .

If you want to use the singular, you'd have to use "of": I'm a friend of sb.

This is a more distant/less colloquial way of presenting yourself.

To be friends with, to become friends with are idiomatic phrases; you cannot say to be friend with or to become friend with.

If somebody is your friend, you can also say that you are friends with them, for example, "I am friends with Peter"/"She is friends with Sara".

Please see the Free Dictionary listing .

"to be friends with someone" seems to be an idiom of AmE.

The Free Dictionary quotes the AHD.

Oald does not have this idiom.

It may be that "to be friends with" derives from "to be in friendship with".

Question: I was reading BBC culture page (  See   Here  ). In the middle of the text, we see :   He became firm  friends  with the Shakespeare and Company owner in a relationship that lasted until his death 40 years later.    Q1: Does the writer make mistake ?  Q2: Why the writer have used plural form of "Friend" ?   Thanks

he became firm friend or friends?

To be friends with, or to become friends with are idiomatic phrases - you cannot say to be friend with or to become friend with.  Therefore, the use of friends in the sentence presented by the writer is correct grammatically.


You can say either one, but they have different effects.

"She is not a student" is a simple statement of fact.

"She is no student" is usually an emphatic statement, which only really makes sense when you're denying somebody else's implication that she's a student.

For example, if one professor says, "A student asked me a question about [some crackpot theory] after yesterday's lecture," another professor might say, "She's no student!

She's just some woman who slips into lectures so she can ask her crazy questions."

You could also use it figuratively, to mean that she's such a bad student that she doesn't deserve the name: "Mary?

Ha!

She's no student.

I mean, she pays her fees and comes to lectures but have you ever seen her actually study anything?

I haven't!"

You can say "She is no student."

This "style" is usually used for emphasis.

She is no student!

She's an imposter, just a journalist trying to get her story!"

You cannot say "She is not student".

Here you need an article.

Your edit makes your example correct.

She is not a student.

The first sentence can mean that she is not a student despite seeming like one.

Or that she did a bad job at being a student.

This is a bit of a strong statement.

The second sentence is not grammatical.

It should be

She is not a student.

The meaning of this sentence is self-explanatory.

To sum up, the two sentences do not mean identical things.

The two statements have very different connotations.

"She is not a student" simply means what it says: "she is not a student, she is employed as a cleaner".

While "She is no student" probably means something like "She might be registered as a student, but she's making no effort to study"

I am an educated native speaker of American English.

In both British English and American English, I believe, "She is no student" is usually a flippant judgment, while "She is not a student" does not imply any moral judgment, unless the judgment is implied by tone of voice.

"She is not a student" is just a statement, stating that she is not a student at all.

"She is no student" can mean different things, and is more empathic .

"She is no student" can mean that she does not study at all, she does not participate in projects, or even she does not even go to the school.

It can generally mean "She does not act like a student" or "She is not a student".

Examples: She

neither studies nor she does her homework.

She is no student!

or She hasn't ever written an essay, so she is no student.

But you can't say:

She hasn't ever written an essay, so she is not a student.

Question: I'm always confused with that issue. Should I say    She is  no  student   or    She is  not  a student   Or are  both of them  equal? If they are, what is the difference between them?

Should I say: She is 'no' student or She is 'not' a student?

The two sentences  do not  mean the same thing. "She is not a student" is a simple statement of fact.  However, "She is no student" would imply that although she may well be a student, she's making no effort to study, for example.

The two sentences have different connotations. 'She is not a student' is a factual statement, 'she is no student' is a flippant value judgement.

She is not a student' is a factual statement.

She is no student' is an emphatic flippant judgement.


The general technical term for a solid or gas becoming a liquid is " liquefaction " (the verb form of which is liquefy ) - but it's something that I'd say is probably mainly used in engineering/materials science contexts for this.

Since a gel is classed as a solid (technically, a solid with liquid dispersed through it), I'd say it's fine to refer to its liquefaction (certainly in any casual context) as " melting ",

same as you would any other solid.

There are two answers suggesting melt.

This is not a bad choice, and in many circumstances it is the one I would use.

It would be widely understood and wouldn't raise many eyebrows.

That said, melt carries at least a little hint of a sense of temperature changes.

(I think butter melts because the colloidal fats actually do change from solid to liquid with temperature changes.)

@JezW mentioned the noun liquefaction.

I agree that in the noun form it is technical jargon rarely heard outside of science/engineering.

I believe the conjugated verb form, liquefy/liquefied, is used more widely.

(var spelling: liquify )

If the gel turns to a liquid completely in the absence of temperature changes, I would use liquefy.

If you squeeze a corn-starch and water mixture it will harden in your hand, but if you relax your grip it will liquefy again.

I left a jar of mayonnaise in the fridge for a year.

When I opened it, it had completely liquefied.

Do you think it is safe to eat?

If you don't use your hand sanitizer within a month or two, it might start to liquefy.

In the later two cases the implication is that despite stable temperatures, something else has caused the structure to break down -

the solids spread through the liquid are settling, or are simply falling apart.

Evidence for this word being used outside of a scientific context:

The song "Liquefy," by the band The Servant: youtube link to music video TLDR; I would consider liquefy/liquefaction to be the general term.

It could occur due to melting, decay, decomposition, sedimentation, deliquescence, etc.

In casual circumstances, people might use melt for any of these, but it has connotations of temperature change, and will sound strange if people know one of the other mechanisms to be at work.

Liquefy is widely understood, and always means turns into a liquid, whether by chemical, thermal or mechanical processes.

There are common 1 words for all the transitions between the common states of matter: Solid ->

Liquid =

MeltSolid -> Gas =

SublimateLiquid -> Gas =

Evaporate / BoilLiquid -> Solid =

Solidify / FreezeGas -> Solid =

Desublimate / Sublimate [2]Gas -

> Liquid =

Condense

The problem is that gel is a colloid .

That is, it has two parts, in two states, one spread throughout the other.

In this case, there is a solid spread throughout a liquid.

Since the same is true of butter, (solid fat spread through water), and butter melts

, I'd be happy to use the word melt for a gel too.

Ok, sublimate isn't exactly common, and this list isn't complete, just provides some options.

See comments.

To deliquesce is to absorb moisture from the air.

That is not what your aloe is doing.

The gel is a colloid of protein and water.

The protein chainsare breaking down.

I would call that 'decay'.

Thixotropic colloids become more slippery under shear, because the chains get aligned when they are dragged past each other.

That is what happenswhen you pinch the fresh aloe.

Thixotropy is defined to be the gel -> fluid behavior you describe.

Another answer mentioned it but settled on a different word.

Question: We have a word called evaporation for liquid turning into vapour. Is there a word for something turning from gel to liquid?  The thing is that I have a plant "Aloe Vera" and it has a gel substance in it. But if you pluck it and let it rest for few days, the gel turns into liquid.  Is there a word for it?

Is there a word for a gel turning into liquid?

Thixotropy  is defined to be the gel -> fluid behavior you describe.


If you want a term to describe all of a prince's clothing, I would use finery .

finery Expensive or ostentatious clothes or decoration: officers in their blue, gold, and scarlet finery http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/finery

But if you're looking for the 'dress' part of a fairytale prince's clothes, I think it would be tunic .

tunic A loose garment, typically sleeveless and reaching to the knees, as worn in ancient Greece and Rome.

Regalia the special clothes that are worn or objects that are carried at official ceremonies - oxforddictionaries.com

"Raiment" is often used in this context.

"Tunic" refers to a particular garment; "raiment" is more general.

"Garb" or "dress" (without an article) is a rather drab abstract noun for what a person is wearing.

One does not refer to "a garb".

"A dress" (or using "the" to refer to a particular "garment") means an item of clothing that is normally worn by women.

Thus, "a dress" is inappropriate for a (male) prince, unless he is pretending to be a woman.

If I was writing a story I would refer to the Prince's costume .

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

If you're looking for a catch-all for what the prince is wearing, consider attire .

The prince's attire was befitting a man of his station.

If you're trying to find what clothes the prince was wearing, that would be dependent on where the prince was and what his local region wore.

Question: Please think of fairytales... What word would you use when you refer to a prince's clothes? Is it a  dress ?

Looking for a word - prince's clothes

Regalia, raiment, finery and attire are all words that may be used to describe a prince's clothes.

Regalia, raiment, attire and finery are options.


You may pronounce it with a stopped /d/ or without it—/frɛndz/ or frɛnz/—in practice, nobody will notice.

Not much of a transition needed.

Compare with the word cards , it does not become cars .

If your native language does not have that 'ds' sound/transition, I can understand that it might be hard for you to pronounce it.

In that case you can get away with frɛnz

just make sure you get that z-sound.

You could maybe get away with frɛntz if you say it fast but that might sound a bit Germanish.

The ds at the end becomes a z sounds, like zoo

It is pronounced with the affricate [d͡z].

A good way of thinking of it is as the "j" sound /d͡ʒ/

but with your tongue at the location of /d/, either touching the back of your teeth or closely behind them.

Also, make sure to only touch the roof of your mouth with the tip of your tongue.

This is very accent specific and there's no real "wrong" way within the following z - the D is softened to the point that the ds becomes a Z sound Dz - the D is slightly softened, but the D is still pronounced.

The S becomes a Z sound Dss/tss - the S becomes almost a hiss, with the D remaining fairly sharp and the D almost resembling a T ss - as above, the s becomes a hiss but the D is softened or almost entirely dropped

My own accent (one of the many North-Western English accents) mostly uses the latter two

Question: So I can pronounce  friend  just fine. But when you add an  s  to it how do you transition from the  d  sound to the  s  sound? Do you just ignore the  d  altogether?

How to pronounce "friends"?

Not much of a transition is needed. The  ds  at the end becomes a  z  sound, like  zoo. It is pronounced with the affricate [d͡z].

Not much of a transition is needed, it is pronounced with the affricate [dz].


As a native speaker I would say 1)

it can contain To use contains, the word "can" must be dropped, e.g. 2b)

it contains Only the modal verb (in this case, can) has to be in third person singular, the second part of the verb must be in bare infinitive form (because it is used after a modal).

ell.stackexchange.com/users/24688/Ron Jensen - We are all Monica

The modal verbs in English have a very strict grammar.

The main members of this category are: Can, could, shall, should, will, would, may , might, must These are the most important things to know about modal verbs:

They have no other forms apart from the forms you see above.

The following words, for example, are impossible in English: cans , canning , canned , to can Modal verbs never occur with other modal verbs in the same clause.

The following sentence is ungrammatical because it uses two modals together: *

When I finish my studies, I will can speak

English perfectly Modal verbs are always the first verb in the clause.

The following is ungrammatical: *

She have been could studying English.

Point number (4) is the most important one for the Original Poster's question: Modal verbs are always followed by a verb in the plain form.

This is the form you see in a dictionary.

The following sentences are ungrammatical.

They are impossible in English: *

She can dances.

She can dancing.

She can to dance.

She can danced.

For this reason the Original Poster's example must be like this: She can dance.

For the nine central members of this class these rules are always true.

There are never any exceptions.

Ever.

If we break any of these rules, our sentence is guaranteed to be ungrammatical.

It's good to have some rules in English that don't have exceptions!

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

After modal verbs follows a bare infinitive.

First one is the correct form.

If you want to use contains, drop can...

Ron Jensen is correct, but fails to point out that the two phrases have different meanings: 1) it can contains -- makes no sense / is incorrect 2) it contains -- means there is some thing inside "it" 3)

it can contain -- means that "it" is capable of holding some thing Example: If you are speaking of a 100ml drinking glass: If the glass is half full, you might say: "It contains 50ml of water." or

If you are speaking of its ability to hold some amount, you might say: "It can contain 75ml."

If you want to tell the absolute maximum you need some modifier, you might say: "It can contain up to 100ml."

1) It can contain is the correct form.

I also agree with Ron Jensen's for "It contains", but here the phrase suggests it is definite as opposed to the original phrase "It can contain".

After a model verb, the verb must be in bare-infinitive form.

So, "It can contain" is correct.

"It can contains" must be modified to "It can contain", or "It contains".

Question: What is the correct form?    1) It can contain  2) It can contain s

"It can contain" or "It can contains"?


In my opinion, the phrases: 'the results' - refers to the specific results that will be refined; 'the categories', - refers to the specific (provided) categories; and, 'the left' - refers to the specific side (i.e., not the right side, not the top, etc.).

So, I don't think the word 'the' is overused.

As others have said, your sentence is fine, as-is.

However, you might change it to "To refine your results, please use the categories on the left."

This would mitigate your concerns with the repeated "the".

As a native speaker, I can definitely say 'the' is not overused in this sentence.

The is one of the most common words in the English language, so often in fact you might use the word 'the' over 5,000 times in one day.

@shin is correct, the sentence is fine.

To refine results, please use categories on the left. is equivalent, but the difference is stylistic.

@shin is correct.

"The" is used three times in the sentence.

Each time "the" is used, the word that follows "the" gets qualified, becomes specific.

The sentence is ok.

There is no overuse of "the".

Question: For some reason I feel its overkilling on the use of article(the) here,    To refine the results, please use the categories on the left   Can someone help?

Am I overusing "the" in this sentence?

Your sentence is fine, as it is. There is no overuse of "the".

The sentence is fine as it is. 'The' is not overused.


"Next to" means "almost" in this case. Imagine a scale of possible prices, from zero to infinity.

What sits immediately next to nothing (zero) on that scale?

Almost nothing."

"How next to?" is a jocose question whose purpose is to determine the degree of "almostness": how close to zero, exactly, is the price?

Does "almost nothing" mean a dime, a quarter, or ten dollars?

Closely related is the idiomatic phrase "next door to": STELLA: A rhinestone tiara she wore to a costume ball.

STANLEY:

What's rhinestone?

STELLA:

Next door to glass.

In this excerpt from A Streetcar Named Desire , a play by Tennessee Williams, Stella explains to Stanley (who thought that he was looking at something valuable) that the tiara is really, really cheap. "

Next door to glass" means "Those are not real diamonds.

They're fake.

They're made of rhinestone.

How expensive is rhinestone?

Barely more expensive than glass."

"Next to nothing" means "nearly no money"; the man is saying he won't pay much for it.

How next to?

" is not standard.

It's a play on "next to nothing"; just like someone would ask "How broken is it?" or "How cold are you?", the man is asking "

How 'next to' nothing does the price have to be for you to buy it?"

Next to = almost, very nearly.

You use the phrase "next to" for people or things that are very near or beside each other; in other words, it means almost or very nearly.

The amount that is next to nothing means the amount that is almost/nearly nothing; it's too small to be expected or wished for.

In light of this definition, the first sentence is clear.

As for the second phrase "How next to?", B wants to know how small the amount is that A will pay.

A. 50 dollars (for example).

"Next to nothing" implies that he would not pay anything (or a very negligible amount) for the car.

And generally, when someone says "Next to nothing", they mean exactly "nothing", give or take a fractional amount.

The second sentence implies that the second guy acknowledges the fact that the car is worthless and he would take any amount the first guy has to offer.

In plain words, "How next to ?" implies "What can you pay me for this crappy car?"

You plugged the words out of the sentence in a very unfortunate way. "for next to" is total nonsense.

The original sentence should be read as: I'll buy it for (a very low price).

And "a very low price" was replaced with "next to nothing" -

the number that he is willing to pay isn't nothing, but very close to nothing.

The nearest thing to nothing he could think off.

The 2nd guy uses a bit of humour to ask "how close to nothing would your best offer be" - shortened to "How next to".

Which isn't proper English, but the kind of English that I might use in humour to play with words.

Question: I will start with the example I know to make it clear.  In a TV show this conversation happened:   Guy1: This car is crap. I'll buy it  for next to  nothing?  Guy2: How next to?   I guess the fans of this show will figure out what it is :). Anyway, what does "for next to something" mean? And how is it possible to ask "How next to?".  I think answering the first will lead to the second.

What does "For next to nothing" mean?

"Next to nothing" means "almost/nearly nothing. The man is saying he won't pay much for it.

The expression means a very negligible amount.


You need a polite version.

Okay, there could be several ways to tell that.

Here are a few alternatives to 'none of your business' that come to my mind.

I think I can tackle it in my own ways

I don't think I need help

, I can handle it well Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks To me, these are less severe than telling 'none of your business' straightforwardly.

What's it to you?

Why, what's it to you?

How is this any of your business?

Why are you so concerned?

Don't worry about it.

(This is actually very obnoxious if you think about, but many people fail to notice the connotation).

You don't need this.

Take your pick.

While I agree with you that "It's none of your business" is rather terse and can be seen to be impolite, I don't think there is a single phrase that literally means the same but is seen more formal and polite.

A short explanation why a question is off limits, however, allows the conversation (or the person asking) to move on.

You can give a vague, one or two word answer to the question to close the issue, but you probably won't have to.

The situation you are dealing with will have a lot to do with what polite terms will work.

My favorite is "I appreciate your offer to help, but I need to work on this on my own for now."

This is none of your concern.

This is not relevant to you.

This probably isn't relevant to you.

(softer)

Question: The title really sounds silly but it is  true  translation from local language to English. I believe (and sure) it's not correct.  Can someone suggest to me the correct word (phrase)?  The intention is: "Its not your business".  The context: dialogue between two school children. The point is, one meddles in other's business.

Translation of "Why for you". (Softer, politer synonyms for "It's not your business")

"What's it to you?", "How is this any of your business?", "Why are you so concerned?" and "Don't worry about it" are all suggested alternatives to "It's not your business"

There are no perfect alternatives, though you could use 'what's it to you', why are you so concerned' and 'don't worry about it'.


It's a pun humorous way to tell that you are still young!

I myself have used it a couple of times.

This simply means that the person is still energetic at that age and feels or appears 'young' .

Imagine a conversation: "

He is 45 years old.

"Old?

Look at his energy; he's 45 years young!"

Note that here, old does not mean having wrinkles or being on the verge of contracting diseases associated with senility !

The word old here means of a particular age , so don't connect old with aged person (बुज़ुर्ग) when it is accompanied by a number .

Years young 1 : describing how old one is in a humorous manner Example: I will be fifty years young next year.

Avoid using it if you are serious.

We're all getting older, so it would seem to make more sense to use "years old."

Exception: Benjamin Button 2

He would always say "years younger" 1.

dictionary.reference.com 2.

Wikipedia

This is an illustration of markedness : a cognitive / linguistic phenomenon that is common to many languages, not just English.

Some adjective pairs are naturally asymmetrical:

Young / old Short / tall Dumb / smart

You would normally ask how tall a person is.

On the other hand, if you ask "How short are you?", then it feels unusual, and it's no longer a neutral question:

it's implying that you think the person is unusually short.

Similarly, if you ask "How young are you?", then it implies that you think someone is unexpectedly young.

If you say that "He is 80 years young", there is meta-information that the speaker thinks that the subject looks or acts younger than 80 years.

It is a form of flattery.

Instead of saying that the guy is old and infirm, the flatterer endeavors to imply that the flatteree is super-young for his age, sprite, full of energy, active, etc.

The word "old" essentially has two meanings.

One is simply a measure of age: How old are you?

I am 5 years old.

In relative terms, a 5-year-old is considered young whereas an 80-year-old person is much nearer the end of his life

and we would speak of him as being "old" in the sense of being elderly.

The word has a lot of negative connotations and even teenagers refer to their 40-something parents as "old" in a dismissive, disrespectful way.

Using the expression "80 years young" is a way of flipping that around and suggesting that he is still very much vibrant and alive, the opposite of all the dreaded attachments of being "old".

Used in a humorous sense.

The speaker is trying to make light of age, which can sometimes be a difficult subject to approach.

It is used to make an older person feel more at ease with his/her age.

My 74 year dad used to call himself as "74 years young".

He was full of curiosity and energy at 74.

So, it is okay to bend the rules of grammar and logic a bit, so long as the meaning comes through.

On the other hand, I would hesitate to say he is 80 years young for a stranger, in case the stranger feels I am not acknowledging or respecting his seniority.

Question: I've seen statements like "He is 80 years young" in many places. Also, I know that it means the same as   He is 80 years old.   Now, why do people use  'young'  instead of  'old'  if it means the same? Or am I entirely misinformed and the statement is actually invalid?

"He is 80 years young"

Using the expression "80 years young" is a way of flipping that around and suggesting that he is still very much vibrant and alive, despite all the dreaded attachments of being "old". This can be a form of flattery. It is also a way of  describing how old one is in a humorous manner, as in "I will be fifty years young next year."

This is a form of flattery and can be meant humourously.

This is a form of flattery.
It can be meant humorously.


You have it right; "smoke" can be used to mean "win" (or maybe even, "win easily," or "win decisively").

When talking about lopsided contests, frequently-used slang verbs fall into a few different categories.

For example, there's the word beat , along with its synonyms (such as drub, thrash, whip, and trounce – all of these words can be found in headlines, articles, and recaps of sporting events , elections , and business rivalries ).

Another category would be metaphorical pressure from above, giving us words like stomp and crush .

Furthermore, when the contest involves blazing speed (such as races between sprinters or microprocessors), many of the verbs deal with fire, such as smoke, burn, or torch .

Here are a few examples from recent news articles: the next-generation Samsung Exynos 7420 chip, which is said to power these newest flagship phones, burns the competition with respect to 3D performance He [Jeff Gordon] torched the field with 13 wins, which nearly doubled the next-best driver

"This is going to be a great game going against a team like that," Beckham said shortly after he burned the Dolphins with a seven-catch, 166 yard, two-touchdown masterpiece

To smoke someone originally meant (and still does mean) to shoot them to death with a gun .

The reference was to the smoke coming from the weapon's muzzle.

This colorful term has come to mean "defeat soundly, trounce".

When I hear this expression, I think of two possible metaphors: Two cars are drag racing on a dirt road.

Carl's Camaro is much faster than Mary's Miata.

The Camaro quickly gets ahead of the Miata.

Both cars "kick up" dust.

Mary's Miata is literally in a dust cloud that Carl's Camaro "kicked up".

The Miata is figuratively "eating" the Camaro's dust.

In other words, the Camaro "dusts" the Miata.

The dust metaphor can be stretched a bit to "smoke":

Either the Camaro is burning a little oil, or Carl smokes cigarettes, or Carl spins his tires (causing the tires to give off smoke).

In other words, Carl's car "smokes" Mary's car.

Two chips are racing to complete a task.

The i486 is much faster than the i286.

You could "overclock" the i286 to make it go faster, but the i286 might overheat.

If you overclocked the i286 enough to keep up, the i286 might literally burn up -- it would literally start to smoke.

Even if you did not try to destroy the i286, the huge difference in the test performance could be metaphorically described as "The i486 smoked the i286."

The New Oxford American Dictionary says: 3 [ with obj. ]

informal kill (someone) by shooting.

• defeat overwhelmingly in a fight or contest.

That's a pretty exact definition; I have nothing to add to it.

In plain English the meaning is as follows: "

A 4.1GHz FX-8350 is not necessarily going to make your computer run faster than a 3.5GHz Core i7-3770K, because in many real-life applications the 3.5GHz Core i7 is actually the faster processor."

Smoking could mean better benchmarks (what you get when you run programs like Prime95, Furmark etc.) or better real-life experience (better stability, better single-core performance, etc.).

Question: I faced the following sentence:   You really can’t say a 4.1GHz FX-8350 is going to  smoke  a 3.5GHz Core i7-3770K because in a hell of a lot of workloads the 3.5GHz Core i7 is going to dominate.   I can guess that 'smoke' is similar to the word 'win', but is it right?What is the exact shade of meaning?  I appreciate getting the russian translation.

What does "One CPU is going to 'smoke' another CPU" mean?

You are correct. "Smoke" can be used to mean "win" (or even, "win easily," or "win decisively").  This colorful term has come to mean "defeat soundly", or "trounce".

Smoking can mean to win or defeat, or even better benchmarks.


How you explain this really depends on how much you want to convey, and how much you think will be assumed.

For instance, the most specific wording of the first example would go something like this: One plus open parenthesis negative two close parenthesis equals negative one.

The second example would be as follows: One minus two equals negative one.

The important difference (pun intended) is how to say the '-' sign.

I have found, contrary to the other answers so far, that a '-' when used on only one number (such as on the right side of those equations) is referred to as a 'negative' operator, whereas when used on two numbers it's a 'minus' sign.

Saying 'two plus minus one', to me, implies 'plus or minus', which might not apply in most contexts but is definitely worth avoiding.

On the other hand, 'two plus negative one' is immediately clear to me.

This even makes the parentheses in your first example unnecessary, and you can just say One plus negative two equals negative one.

Unless you actually want everyone to write down the parentheses, in which case you should be explicit.

As a maths teacher, I would accept any of the following as correct (listing my most preferred reading first): 1

+ (−2) =

−1

One plus negative two equals negative one One plus minus two equals minus one One add negative two equals negative one (Other arrangements of "negative" versus "minus", and "add" versus "plus", are also possible, although I'd be a little bemused if someone said "negative two" and then "minus one"!)

Other readings are, of course, possible, although I would regard something like "the sum of one and minus two is minus one" as an interpretation, or maybe a paraphrase— describing the meaning, rather than reading it as written. 1 − 2 =

−1

One take two equals negative one One subtract two equals

negative one One take away two equals minus one One minus two equals minus one

This last one illustrates the potentially confusing status of "minus" as both "something done to two numbers" and "a type of number" (in grammatical terms, both a verb and an adjective; in mathematical terms, both a binary and a unary operation).

There's no much difference on those examples.

For example the second one is read as one minus two equals minus one .

The first one can be read similarly ( one plus minus two equals minus one ), but having something like 1 - (1 - 2) = 2, that's different, you need to say there's a bracket, and then that's one minus, open bracket,

one minus two, close bracket, equals two.

You can also use parenthesis .

In the first example, i would personally say One plus [pause] [quickly] minus two [pause] equals minus one Depending on my mood, i might say "negative" instead of "minus".

It's shorter than saying aloud "parenthesis/bracket", but still conveys the separation.

I've never had anyone complain about it being hard to understand, at least not with short expressions.

A slightly more complex example to explain: 1

+ (2 * 3) = 7

One plus [pause] [quickly] two-times-three [pause] equals seven But (1 + 2)

* 3 = 9 [quickly] One-plus-two [pause] times three equals nine

You could simply say : One plus minus two is equal to minus one. and One minus two is equal to minus one.

Logically, there is no difference between the two expressions.

I'm sure you're aware of that.

Generally brackets () are used to avoid confusions with the arithmetic operators.

If you want to know more about the mathematical aspects of the expression, you should ask the same questions here .

The math geniuses there will certainly help you.

In these expressions, you need not specify the brackets as they are mostly used only for written purposes and not used verbally.

Additionally, you could swap 'is equal to' with 'equals' .

You can say, with emphasis on the bolded part, One plus minus two inside bracket equals one and one minus two, equals minus one

Well, over here (Nigeria) it is quite different as it reads: 1

+ (-2) =

one plus open-bracket minus 2 close-bracket equal-to minus 1

I know this doesn't sound grammatically right.

I remember my Math teacher saying something like 1

+ (-2) =

One plus of minus two equals minus one And 1 - 2 = -1

One minus two equals minus one

But then this is Math!

It's a wholly different language by itself!

Question: How to read this to others, so they can write it down just by listening?   1 + (-2) = -1   Also:   1 - 2 = -1   I want to know the differences.

How to read "1 + (-2) = -1" and "1 - 2 = -1"

You could simply say :   One plus minus two is equal to minus one.   and    One minus two is equal to minus one.

The following works: One plus minus two is equal to minus one and One minus two is equal to minus one. The examples do not differ much, parenthesis may help to avoid confusion.

The examples don't differ much, it depends on how much you wish to convey.

Parenthesis may be helpful for avoiding confusion.


Is your question about why "ever" is needed at all ?

That is, do you want to know how these two are different?

It is the most beautiful painting I have seen.

It is the most beautiful painting

I have ever seen.

These two mean the same thing.

However, the second is preferred for several reasons: "have seen" usually takes an indication of time ("have seen today", "have seen since Monday"...).

It sounds a little strange without it.

While "have seen" on its own suggests that "ever" is meant

, it's often preferable to actually say that clearly.

Saying "ever" also makes the statement more emphatic.

Given that the statement is praise for the painting, being emphatic is expected.

In your sentence example, ever is a superlative adverb and is linked to most , and as an adverb it could be placed either way 1)

I have ever seen 2)

I have seen ever 3)

I ever have seen where ever is defined by the totality of relevent experience, usually understood to be one's life time, but could also be

Queen Elizabeth is the longest reigning monarch ever in the UK.

Where is relevant experience is the history of the UK.

From my experience #1 is used most often .

#2 can be used for emphasis, where there is a slight pause before ever and then the ever is emphasized similar to really .

#3 is more poetic and literary in its cadence.

In that particular sentence and in many instances of practical uses of English Grammar, ever is used between have and seen :1.

To emphasize the degree of interest in an object2.

To indicate the totality of time before actually seeing that object.

To put simply, in one's lifetime3.

Used in affirmative sentences before superlatives to pass the sense 2 (above)

I would say that it gives the sentence a word that can be emphasized and possibly a better-sounding rhythm.

It also helps avoid some confusion.

I think I would dare to say that most of the time when no timeframe is mentioned the context is going to imply how far back to consider the comparison/superlative.

So depending on the setting it could implicitly meant something like these: "...

have seen [during our visit to the art gallery today.]

" or "...have seen [since I started working at this art gallery.]"

"ever" or "ever in my life" refers to the total time span of your life.

As a mathematician, I would say that 'ever' is technically superfluous.

Heuristically , I think 'ever' is used for emphasis like when people say ' true fact '.

This is called a pleonasm as I just learned from here .

Probably the context might be that the previous sentences consisted of things like 'it is the most beautiful painting I have seen today' or 'it is the most beautiful painting I have seen in the museum'

Depends on the implied time period

In your particular example, the word 'ever' may be left out because in this context, the implied time period of question actually is 'ever' and the meanings match.

However, contrast "Have you seen John?" and "Have you ever seen John?".

In this case (again, depending on the wider context) the answers may well be different - the first question can be used with a meaning closer to "Have you seen John today/

recently, I'm looking for him, where is he?"

and thus you may have a truthful answer of "No" even if you have seen him last week.

Question: I am reading  English Grammar in Use  by Raymond Murphy.  I have seen 2 sentences below,   It is a beautiful painting?   Yes, it is the most beautiful painting I have  ever  seen.   I dont know why did they use "ever" between  have  and  seen .  Please advise!

Why we need "ever" between "have" and "seen"

"Ever" makes the statement more emphatic. Given that the statement is praise for the painting, being emphatic is expected.


In this context, I think two words would work.

Instigator - a person who causes

something to happen, especially something

bad or Inflammatory person

As we use 'inflammatory remarks' to denote something that causes something bad, inflammatory person is the one who causes dispute by adding fuel to the fire

Best suggestion: conflict escalator .

Also acceptable: argument escalator.

The term for increasing an argument would be to "escalate" the argument.

Unfortunately the term "escalator" would normally be held to mean an actual "moving stairs" escalator, such as in a building with multiple floors, so it is awkward to try to describe this concept with a single word.

If an argument, or disagreement, between Amit and Shiva starts out with polite words, but then Amit begins insulting and cursing Shiva, one could say "Amit is the one who escalated the argument".

If you said "Amit was the escalator" it would most likely draw puzzled looks, as people try to figure out how Amit used to be moving stairs made of metal, but somewhere along the line changed into human form.

It would sound appropriate to label someone as a "conflict escalator".

For example, one might say, "His attorney is a conflict escalator" to describe an attorney who looks to instigate fights between the parties involved.

(Here, instigate means to start an argument, where there wasn't one before.)

The other available words mentioned thus far, catalyst, and instigator, are a bit too general to capture the sense of a back-and-forth argument.

A catalyst would be someone whose presence is required for the argument to occur, but does not necessarily participate in the argument, such as two men arguing over a whether the bartender's shirt is blue or purple.

The bartender (their shirt, to be precise) is the catalyst, but may not be involved in the argument, or even aware of it.

An instigator would be the person who starts , i.e., instigates the argument, such as by verbally attacking the other person.

Opinions can differ on who really started the argument, but the term instigator means the one who started it.

The term "inflammatory person" is a general negative label of another person.

It is not a specific description of the behavior of escalating an argument.

The one who "escalates" the argument would normally refer to a person or party who is directly involved in the argument, rather than an outside agent like a catalyst.

Agitator comes close and could work, although this is not the normal context for it... ...as well as incendiary , although, again, this is not commonly used in your context.

Stirrer is a British usage.

Depending on your audience perhaps trouble stirrer or argument stirrer would be clear enough and also appropriate.

Troublemaker might fit as well although that can encompass as lot of things.

Believe it or not, there is a Positive way to fuel the fire : DEVIL'S ADVOCATE noun 1.a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments An alternative definition, and more appropriate to a friendly debate is: Someone who takes the other side of the argument purely for the sakeof argument .

The one who stokes the flames of an argument in a less positive light is an Antagonist : ANTAGONIST noun 1.a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something;

an adversary Some good synonyms are: obstreperous truculent vociferous

For figurative speaking occasions: accelerant A substance that accelerates the development of a fire. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accelerant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_accelerant

Merriam-Webster says one who provokes is a provocateur .

Question: What can I name a person who increases the argument between two people.   Can I call him as  catalyst  or is any other word available?

Word for a person who increases the argument

Stirrer, troublemaker, devil's advocate, antagonist, provocateur, and  agitator are all terms that may be used for a person who provokes an argument.

Stirrer, troublemaker, devil's advoate, antagonist, adversary, accelerant, provocateur, escalator and agitator are all options.