I'm not sure that 'authentic' means that people respect each others' beliefs.

To me it means that they are open with their own beliefs, and stay true to their own beliefs, but doesn't necessarily imply that they respect the beliefs of others.

I'm open to correction on that though.

The expression that immediately springs to mind is open-minded .

An open minded person is an unprejudiced person who is receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others, and is always willing to listen to and hear an opposing or contradictory view.

When applied to a person (or someone's personality) authentic means that they are "true to themselves" -- that their words and deeds accurately reflect the real person.

For example, Bernie Sanders (US Senator and presidential candidate) is often considered to be authentic because his speeches and campaign promises are a reflection of the things he has supported and promoted his entire political career.

However, authentic does not in any way imply tolerance or open-mindedness.

You could very easily call someone "an authentic asshole" if you thought it appropriate, meaning that they are honestly as much a jerk on the outside as they are on the inside.

You may be looking for sincere , or one of its many synonyms .

Someone who has integrity has 1. firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values 3.

the quality or state of being complete or undivided They have beliefs they adhere to.

They are "undivided": their actions are not opposed to their beliefs.

It sounds like you might be looking for honorable or one of its synonyms, such as upstanding , ethical , or conscientious .

Given the emphasis on having and upholding a personal set of beliefs, I think principled might work well for you.

From Cambridge Dictionaries : adjective US  /ˈprɪn·sə·pəld/ based on principles, or (of a person) having good personal standards of behavior: She was known among her colleagues as a principled professional.

So People [who respect each others' beliefs as well as uphold their own beliefs and systems] are tolerant and principled .

There are various descriptors for people who strongly believe in whatever "their belief system" is true believer fundamentalist - maintains core beliefs advocate - promotes a belief gate

keeper - maintains the standards of a belief dyed-in-the-wool - can not change their belief some of these may also have religious overtones, and have no explicit meaning in terms of "open mindedness", though usually if one has a very strong belief in something it may limit inclusion of other belief systems.

In your examples a traditionalist is someone who believes in the "tradition" of "how things were or have been".

Where as authentic means "genuine" without regard to the strength of belief.

Usually, additional context is necessary to bring together the disparate sides of "strong belief" and "inclusion"

inclusive open mindedness sympathetic

He is a true believer in the free market system but still sympathetic to the social safety

net

They advocate democracy while still respecting the monarch.

She is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat while still wanting tax breaks.

Question: I want to express that people respect each others' beliefs as well as uphold their own beliefs and systems. Tolerant means respecting others' beliefs, but what word stands for "uphold their own beliefs"?  Does  "authentic"  convey this meaning clearly in the following sentence? What are the other alternatives? Authentic person generally means one who is not fake.   People are tolerant and authentic.   Does  "traditional"  work here? Does it have any negative connotations?

Correct sense of the word "authentic"

Many terms may be used to convey your intended meaning, including genuine, true to themselves, undivided, sincere, principled, open-minded, and  sympathetic. However, this depends on the context.

"Authentic" means beaing true to oneself, genuine, but does not reflect the concept of open-mindedness. Some words that could work to express this concept are: "sincere", "undivided", "honorable", "upstanding", "ethical", "conscientious", principled", "inclusive", "open-minded", "sympathetic". However, additional context is needed for a term that includes all aspects of these concepts. As far as "traditionalist" is concerned, it means someone that believes in "the way things once were".

Additional context is needed for a term that includes all aspects of these concepts.

"Traditionalist" means someone that believes in "the way things once were".


The reason the person was confused was because you started your question with: "Are you open till...?

That is the start of a yes-or-no question, such as:

Are you open till 8 o'clock tonight?

If you are asking for the time, you could have asked instead: How late are you open until tonight?

The

"How late are you..." opening of the question lets the listener know that you will be asking for the time, and not wanting a yes-or-no answer.

If you only need to know what time the restaurant will close, you can say What time do you close today?

What time does [name of restaurant] close today?

If you want to know about opening and closing times, you can say What are your opening times today?

What are [name of restaurant ]'s opening times today?

What time are you open 'til this evening?

or What time do you close this evening?

(Since it's a restaurant and not a store, I assume they are open late on Christmas Eve.

But you usually need to make reservations, if it's a popular place.)

To ask about a shop or restaurant's opening hours (BrEng), you can use any of these: What time do you close tonight?

What time are you closing today/tonight?

What time is ( the bank , the pizzeria, etc.) closed?

Could you tell me when you're open?

Are you open every day? Is the [pizzeria] open every day?

How late are you open?

You can just simply say: "What are your hours today?"

If you just want the closing time, along the lines of what you originally asked, you can say: "

Until what time are you open today?"

Question: I call a restaurant today and ask them for "Are you open till what time today?" as today is Christmas Eve and the person on phone asked me twice what? What?  So how do I ask for a store/restaurant person on phone about store hours for that day?   You are open till what time?  Till what time is your store/restaurant open today?

How to properly ask for store hours on phone?

Possible ways to ask this question include "How late are you open until tonight?"; "What are your opening times today?"; "Could you tell me when you're open?"; How late are you open?"; "What time do you close today?";or "Until what time are you open today?"

More understandable alternatives to the original question, whether referring to opening times, closing times, or both, are: " How late are you open until tonight?", "What time do you close today?", "What time does [name of restaurant] close today?", "What are your opening times today?", "What are [name of restaurant ]'s opening times today?", "What time are you open 'til this evening?", "What time do you close this evening?", "What time  are  you  closing  today/tonight?", "What time  is  ( the bank ,  the pizzeria,   etc.) closed?", "Could you tell me when you're open?", "Are you open every day?  Is the [pizzeria] open every day?", "How late are you open?", "You can just simply say:  "What are your hours today?" or "Until what time are you open today?".


As others have stated in the comments, you would continue like this: Once Twice / a couple of times Thrice / Three times Four times

Five times

Six times Seven times Eight times Nine times Ten times Note: "a couple" doesn't always mean exactly two, although it often does.

As mentioned by Mick in the comments, thrice is quite old fashioned and while most people in the UK would understand, it's not commonly used.

You might also reference the fact that 12 is also known as a dozen (and therefore 6 is half a dozen): 6 times =

Half a dozen times (or "a half dozen times" in the USsometimes) 12 times = A dozen times There are also some other ways to reference numbers of "things" which don't really apply or work in the "times" example (some of which are a little archaic and more likely to be seen in literature or poetry than in everyday conversational speech/writing): 2 ants ->

a pair/duo of ants 3 mice -> a trio/trinity of mice 4 cats ->

a quartet of cats 5 dogs ->

a quintet of dogs

20 birds ->

a score of birds 144 eggs ->

a gross of eggs (more often called 12 dozen eggs) In the UK, we also have some slang for certain amounts of money: £5 =

a fiver £10

= a tenner

£20 =

a score (like above) £25 =

a pony £500 =

a monkey

£1000 =

a grand (also used in the US)

There are a load more which originated in cockney rhyming slang, but those above are the most common.

Anyway, I've gone quite a bit off-topic there, but hopefully answered your question and gave you a little additional insight as well.

once twice thrice

and then there were none

Anyone who plays DROD knows it's: Thrice Quarce Quince Sence Septence Octence Novence Tonce Edit: Just to clarify, these are - indeed - protologisms.

In DROD, they're used to indicate room coordinates (for comedic effect, instead of common notation), e.g. "Twice North, Septence West".

Sorry for the confusion - I should've mentioned it's not standard language.

Welcome, Four times, five times, etc..

"Nothing!

These three are the only words of their type, and no further terms in the series have ever existed."

But you can use tuples, Names for tuples of specific lengths1 single2 double3 triple/treble4 quadruple5 quintuple pentadruple6 sextuple hexatruple7 septuple8

nonuple10 decuple11 undecuple hendecuple12

duodecuple13 tredecuple100

centuple [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/what-comes-after-once-twice-thrice

Question: How would you complete the following sequence, until point 10?   Once  Twice  Thrice  (...)   Any help would be appreciated.

"Once, twice, thrice,...", what comes next?

ell.stackexchange.com/users/21687/An old man in the sea.

These three are the only words of their type and the sequence continues as four times, five times, etc. DROD players might use Thrice, Quarce,  Quince,  Sence,  Septence,  Octence,  Novence, and  Tonce. Names for tuples of specific lengths are 1 single, 2 double, 3 triple/treble, 4 quadruple, 5 quintuple/pentadruple, 6 sextuple/ hexatruple, 7 septuple.

Once, "twice" and "thrice" are the only such words that are in use. After "thrice" comes "four times", "five times", etc. Interestingly, in the game DROD, the protologisms "quarce", "quince", "sence", "septence", etc. are used. An alternative would be the use of tuples (single, double, triple/treble, quadruple, quintuple, etc.).

In the game DROD, the protologisms "quarce", "quince", "sence", "septence", etc. are used.

"Once", "twice" and "thrice" are the only such words that are in use.

Instead, tuples (single, double, triple/treble, quadruple, quintuple, etc.) can be used.


The phrase that you are looking for may be as simple as fall out .

I cannot think of anything more specific.

Certainly, if you fall out with someone, you may no longer be on speaking terms with them.

The expression can be used in both everyday and formal English.

fall out —

phrasal verb with fall (ARGUE) informal to argue with someone and stop being friendly with them:

He left home after falling out with his parents.

She'd fallen out with her boyfriend over his ex-girlfriend.

Cambridge Dictionary

Piggy-backing off Andrew's answer, the word estrange can be used as a verb, but I don't hear it used that way very often, and it sounds awkward to me when I try to use it that way:

He estranged his brother last Christmas after an argument about politics .

You can look at this Google ngram and see that the adjective form has become much more popular than the verb form over several decades.

However, I looked up the verb estrange in the thesaurus, and found a very suitable synonym: alienate .

Unlike estrange , writers use alienate more often as a verb than as an adjective, according to the ngram .

So you could say: He alienated his brother last Christmas after an argument about politics .

According to NOAD, alienate is defined as: alienate ( verb )

cause (someone) to feel isolated or estranged; cause (someone) to become unsympathetic or hostile Looking up alienate in a thesaurus provides some other candidate verbs, such as divide (which is fairly common) and disunite (not so much so).

However, I think divide works better in a more passive construct: The brothers were divided last Christmas after an argument about politics .

(You wouldn't say, "He divided his brother last Christmas..." – at least, I hope the argument wouldn't get that out of hand.)

To shun means to avoid or refuse to meet with, usually from anger, contempt or other disapproving sentiment.

To spurn means to reject and is more usually used for romantic relations.

To cut is a somewhat archaic term that means to express contempt by refusing to acknowledge knowing someone.

None of these is exactly right for your use case though.

To say "I fell out with him at Christmas" is a slightly unusual application of the expression, but admirably clear, while retaining a polite ambiguity as to just who is shunning whom.

An American in this context might say, "I cut off contact with him".

But, really, I don't think we have an active verb for exactly what you're requesting

– I feel pretty sure, given how much people in my family do this, I would have heard such an expression by now if there were one!

The word you're looking for is "estranged" -- meaning, "to be like a stranger with".

It is used for family or friends who once were close but who now, for some reason, are very distant.

He has been estranged from his family for decades and never talks about them.

People who are estranged can be reconciled .

The estranged brothers were reconciled by the death of their beloved mother.

How about He was ostracized after behaving badly at Christmas dinner.

They are ostracizing him after he behaved badly at Christmas dinner.

For your example, you might say

I am avoiding

my brother.

She is ignoring her ex these days.

both imply recent noncommunication.

Question: There are many terms describing 'ending a relationship'. I'm looking for a dynamic (not static) verb to stop a not necessarily romantic or sexual relationship but to stop relationship for example with your family members or intimate friends because of a quarrel or disagreement.    I'm not on speaking terms with my brother.   How do you paraphrase this sentence with an dynamic/active verb?

a verb to mean to start "not being on speaking terms"

Suggested words and  phrases include to fall out, to be divided, to be alienated, to shun, to spurn, to cut off contact, to be estranged, or to be ostracized.

Although it is believed that there is no active verb with the exact same meaning, a simple synonym for this would be "fall out". Other words that could replace it are: "divide", "alienate", "shun", "spurn", "cut" (more old-fashioned), "cut off contact" (mainly US Enlglish speakers), "estranged", "ostracized".

A simple synonym for this would be "fall out". Other words that could replace it are: "divide", "alienate", "shun", "spurn", "cut" (more old-fashioned), "cut off contact" (mainly US Enlglish speakers), "estranged", "ostracized".

There is no active verb with the exact same meaning.


'expected at X for Y' is a format sometimes used in official invitations - it's effectively a window of time where it's considered polite to arrive, without being late.

In your example, 7 for 7.30, one would be expected to arrive between 7 and 7:30, with the main event (often a dinner party) taking place at 7:30 sharp.

An online example of such an invitation can be found here .

Note the text in the bottom corner.

Black Tie 7.00 for 7.30pm Carriages at Midnight

This is a shortening of the phrase: Arrive at 7:00pm for a 7:30pm start.

This is often used when registration or seating etc.

is required, where guests are invited to arrive at a given time, while communicating that the event or meeting is due to start later than the arrival time.

This avoids the confusion of advertising 7.00 and having people arrive at 6.30 for a 7.30 show, else advertising 7.30 assuming that people will arrive early and ready to start at 7.30 but then have guests arrive late under the presumption that 7.30 is the meeting time with a later event start.

Specific Example

A concrete example of this would be requesting to meet at the cinema at 7.00pm for a 7.30pm start of the show.

Asking to meet earlier is to allow time for purchasing tickets and locating seats while also clearly stating the acceptable range of arrival times/consequences of being late.

For instance, arriving after 7.00pm means ticket purchase etc is rushed with limited/no time for snacks, while arriving after 7.30pm means missing the show/event (or having to order your food after everybody is beginning to eat their starter, in the case of a meal).

It also shows that arriving at 6.30pm is not required since the half-hour "overhead" has already been factored in.

Arrive at or very shortly after 7, but well before 7:30.

"At 7" means exactly what it says: you are expected to be there at 7.

For 7:30" means that the main event will begin at 7:30; for a formal dinner, this would mean that the first course will be served at 7:30.

The half hour in between ensures that all guests have a chance to check or put away their coats/jackets, find their places (if it's a large gathering with assigned seats), and mingle a bit.

It is most usually used in more formal invitations where there is an initial event (ie cocktails) that precedes the main event (dinner).

It is not an invitation to arrive at the later time as usually the first event is also catered for.

However arriving somewhere between 7 and 7.30 would be acceptable (the closer to 7.30 the less acceptable) with arriving after 7.30 regarded as most impolite.

Another usage of this word combination ([time] for [time])

in British English is if you are describing when you're leaving for an event, and the time you intend to arrive there.

For example: "When are you going to the party?

"I'll leave at half 6 for half seven, traffic is murder at this time of day"

Question: I get invites which tell me I am expected at 7 for 7.30.What time should I arrive?

What does the expression 'seven for seven thirty ' mean?

Expected at X for Y'  is a format sometimes used in official invitations - it's effectively a window of time where it's considered polite to arrive, without being late. In your example, 7 for 7.30, one would be expected to arrive between 7 and 7:30, with the main event (often a dinner party) taking place at 7:30 sharp.  This avoids the confusion of advertising 7.00 and having people arrive at 6.30 for a 7.30 show. However arriving somewhere between 7 and 7.30 would be acceptable.

This format is usually used in formal invitations, stating the optimal time to arrive; arriving before or after that window of time would be considered rude and would cause confusion. It could also mean "Arrive at 7:00 so that the event can start at 7:30".

This phrase means "Arrive at 7:00 so that the event can start at 7:30".


It is a quotation from Episode Three of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio series by Douglas Adams.

This is a comedy, the phrase, as used there, is to signify that Dolphins are more intelligent than humans.

In the story, Earth is destroyed, the dolphins knew this was coming and left the planet.

The full quotation is: Curiously enough, the dolphins had long known of the impending demolition of Earth and had made many attempts to alert mankind to the danger.

But most of their communications were misinterpreted as amusing attempts to punch footballs, or whistle for titbits, so they eventually gave up and left the Earth by their own means - shortly before the Vogons arrived.

The last ever dolphin message was misinterpreted as a surprisingly sophisticated attempt to do a double backwards somersault through a hoop, whilst whistling the ‘Star-Spangled Banner’.

But, in fact, the message was this “So long and thanks for all the fish”.

Subsequently, Douglas Adams published a book with the title

So Long and Thanks for all the Fish which was based upon the original series.

So, in the context of your email, it is just an attempt at humour by someone leaving.

To boil it down to its most basic: It's a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and has become a humorous way of saying "Goodbye".

"So long and thanks for all the fish" is the title of the fourth book from the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" tetralogy.

Used in a message it is just a humourous way to say goodbye, calling to mind the leaving of the dolphins from Earth saying thanks for the fish they had gotten.

As the others have said, the line is a quote.

The phrase "So long" is an informal synonym for "Goodbye".

The line is the title of a humorous novel by Douglas Adams.

It refers to dolphins, who were much more advanced than we had thought, leaving Earth prior to its destruction to make room for a "hyperspace bypass".

Having a particularly British sense of decorum, they could not leave without thanking us for the fish they had eaten.

I have no idea what your manager's email was about.

In context with its subject line, it could be that he is good-naturedly announcing he will be away from the office for a while, or maybe permanently.

I just recently used this expression, and got the same question.

Other answers (especially the one from Chenmunka) have described the reference, but I’m not sure they fully describe what I was trying to say.

For me, and I believe most others, it's a humorous way to say 3 things simultaneously: Goodbye.

Thanks for all the nice things you’ve done for me.

The goodbye is permanent: I’m not coming back, and most likely I’llnever see or hear from any of you again.

It’s that third connotation that makes people want to use humor.

It keeps the goodbye from being too melodramatic.

As others have said - it is a quote from Douglas Adams the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Almost certainly he is referencing saying goodbye - probably on a permanent basis or possibly simply for a long time.

Adams' line "thanks for all the fish" might be a nod toward the intertextuality of several science fiction writers.

Vonnegut's Kilgore Trout being his nod towards his fellow writer Theodore Sturgeon, Philip Farmer's "Venus on the Half-Shell" under the pseudonym Kilgore Trout nods toward Vonnegut, and then Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" nods toward 'Half-Shell's' 'definitive answer.

And one more nod

perhaps: half-shells come from oysters, a type of shellfish anyhow.

I too used the phrase when departing a disagreeable job.

I held a very negative outlook for the companies future, ie.

Imminent failure.

I was happy to leave for a better job, yet felt sorry for the poor souls trapped in their jobs.

I gave proper notice, left quickly and had no further contact with anyone after my departure email....

its been nice working with you....

blah blah blah....

so long and thanks for all the fish.

The quote and story line seemed to fit my job experience

so bloody

well -on

so many levels!

I enjoyed eating at expensive restaurants using my expense account

and I'm a pescatarian!

I thought the intent of the quote (a humourous middle finger) in my departure email was so obvious.

Now I think people had no clue how negative I was about the company's.

Question: I got a mail with the subject  "So long and thanks for all the fish!"  from my Manager. What does it mean?

What does the line "So long and thanks for all the fish!" mean?

It is a quotation from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams.  It has become a humorous way of saying "Goodbye". So, in the context of your email, it is just an attempt at humour by someone leaving.

This is a quote from Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". In the original comedy, the phrase inferred that dolphins are smarter than humans. In this context, the manager wanted to say "Goodbye", probably forever or for a long period of time, in a humorous way.


Using reformed sounds rather odd.

If you reform something, you improve it, you don't change it into something else.

So, if you reform an electoral system, it is still an electoral system, but (hopefully) a better one.

Using either turned or made would be more appropriate: I turned the cloth into a dress.

I made the cloth into a dress.

Or even:

I transformed the cloth into a dress.

But that sound a little pretentious.

One could simply say reuse in this context.

I reused the cloth to make a dress A slightly fancier way of saying the same would be: I repurposed the cloth to make a dress.

In both cases, the prefix re- gives the sense

the the cloth had a previous purpose or form, rather than being a fresh piece of cloth.

Using "reform" this way might be allowed by the rules of the language, but it is definitely not idiomatic.

A native speaker would not say that.

A native speaker would more likely say "I made a dress from the cloth".

It's not that "reform" is unacceptable -- it's an awkward use of the word.

I like the suggestion of "transform".

In the context of dress making it implies that the dress was not simply crafted from cloth, but that the designer was an artist who elevated the cloth to a higher purpose.

Reform is incorrect in this case, because it describes taking a working form and turning it into another working form .

Re - a latin prefix meaning "again" - implies that the subject was previously formed, but raw materials such as cloth are by definition not yet formed.

It would be correct to say that you formed the cloth into a dress.

It wouldn't be the best word for this case; formed is old-fashioned and not very specific.

You might have sewed , cut , or even fabricated the cloth into a dress, and those would be better options.

I can think of one example where "I reformed the cloth into a dress" would be accurate.

"Form" can describe forcing something into a shape.

Fabric can be "molded" or forced into a custom shape (other than flat), by mechanical processes.

If you start with cloth that was formed into a shape for some purpose and decide to reuse it to make a dress employing a similar shaping process, you could say you reformed the cloth into a dress.

A forming process certainly isn't a typical way to make a dress, but that would be the literal meaning of the sentence in the question.

Question: When I want to express that I reformed the cloth and made a dress, can I say like 'I reformed the cloth into a dress?  If I am wrong, What is the best answer for it?

Does this sentence make sense? (I reformed the cloth into a dress.)

Reformed would not be used in this context. However, turned, made, reused, transformed, sewed ,  cut , or even  fabricated  the cloth into a dress, would be better options.

The use of "reform" sounds awkward to a native speaker and although in some cases it could be allowed by the language rules, it has a different meaning. More appropriate alternatives are: "turned", "made", "transformed" the cloth into a dress, "reused", formed", "sewed", "cut" or even "fabricated".

A forming process certainly isn't a typical way to make a dress, but that would be the literal meaning of the sentence in the question.


There's a similar expression in english - to hang your head (in shame) .

It has very much the same meaning as the expressions you mention.

Hang one's head

: let one's head fall forward (e.g., when ashamed) For example: When I was caught cheating in the exam, I hung my head in shame.

Athletes caught taking drugs

should hang their heads in shame.

The defendant hung his head in shame.

Crestfallen (or maybe downcast) might be another single word equivalent.

Crest in English refers to the head or top of something; so the word directly connotes the head being down, but means being sad or disappointed (whether because of shame/embarrassment or any other reason).

crest·fal·len

ˈkres(t)ˌfôlən/ adjective adjective

: crestfallen sad and disappointed.

"he came back

empty-handed and crestfallen" synonyms: downhearted, downcast, despondent, disappointed, disconsolate, disheartened, discouraged, dispirited, dejected, depressed, desolate, in the doldrums, sad, glum, gloomy, dismayed, doleful, miserable, unhappy, woebegone, forlorn;

More antonyms: cheerful Origin late 16th century:

figuratively, from the original use referring to a mammal or bird having a fallen or drooping crest.

We also say that a person couldn't look [someone] in the eye/face when they are ashamed (often because they are lying, but not always).

This is pretty much a set phrase, so it's often singular eye instead of plural eyes .

From Collins Dictionary: to look someone in the eye or look sb in the face phrase If you look someone in the eye or look them in the face, you look straight at their eyes in a bold and open way, for example in order to make them realize that you are telling the truth.

He could not look her in the eye.

In addition to: hang your head in shame we also might use: shamefaced, tail between his legs shame·faced ˈSHāmfāst/ adjective feeling or expressing shame or embarrassment.

"all the boys looked shamefaced" synonyms: ashamed, abashed, sheepish, guilty, conscience-stricken, guilt-ridden, contrite, sorry, remorseful, repentant, penitent, regretful, rueful, apologetic; embarrassed, mortified, red-faced, chagrined, humiliated; informal:

with one's tail between one's legs "Giles looked shamefaced" Google Dictionary

Bow/hang your head in shame.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/shame_1 Hope this helps

I have heard and read of a hangdog look or expression.

Per: Dictionary.com shamefaced; guilty: He sneaked out of the room with a hangdog expression.

Question: Is there a figurative phrase for "ashamed" to mean to bend your head downward or look down, as you can't look at others?   In Persian we say سر افکنده which almost means Head Down, or Head fallen

A phrase for "ashamed"

To hang your head (in shame), to be crestfallen, to be shamefaced, to bow your head in shame, to have a hangdog look are all alternative suggestions.

There are many similar expressions in English: "to bow/hang your head (in shame)", "to be crestfallen (or maybe downcast)", "to not be able to look [someone] in the eye/face", "shamefaced", "tail between his legs", "hangdog look".


You typically don't spell out shorthand or acronyms for units of measurement, especially if the shorthand is not easily pronounceable.

In this case, say "gigabytes".

Colloquially, native speakers may also say "gigs".

With units of measurement like that, you write them without any plural marker, but say them with the plural marker Examples: 64GB → Sixty-four gigabytes 1GB → One gigabyte 30km → Thirty kilometers 1L → One liter 2L → Two liters

As for saying 'Gee Bee' instead of gigabytes, that's harder to answer, and probably up to personal preference to a certain degree.

It sounds a little bit like something my technically illiterate parents would say

My phone has 64 gee bee

But as a counter example, I often hear things like

My internet is slow, I'm only getting 300 kbps (said kay bee pee ess , stands for kilobits per second )

I also agree with people saying

My phone has 64 gigs or I have a 64 gig phone

Those are probably the most natural and casual for GB specifically.

The answer may vary regionally.

I would pronounce a "64GB phone" as a 64-gigabyte phone (Notice that there is no -s on gigabytes here because "gigabyte" precedes and is modifying "phone.")

I would not call it a 64-gig phone or a 64-gigabyte s phone, although I would understand what someone meant if they used either of those expressions.

I have a 64-gigabyte phone.

If the question were about "64GB of RAM" in a computer, I would pronounce it as either 64 gigabytes of RAM --or-- 64 gigs of RAM I am thinking about buying a computer that has 64 gigs of RAM.

I am thinking about buying a computer that has 64 gigabytes of RAM.

The most common would be to say it fully.

A phone with 64 gigabytes.

Note the plural 'gigabytes'.

It's also fairly common to say A phone with 64 gigs.

Though this is more informal, it's usually clear in context what the unit is with only the prefix.

This is similar to how someone might say That stone weighs 100 kilos.

Should I say "A phone with 64 gigabyte." or "A phone with 64 GB (simply pronounce the letter 'G' and 'B').

" To answer your direct question, I would say: I would like a phone with 64 gigabytes of RAM, please.

(You have to put in the units, otherwise it is like saying "I want a phone with 42").

To say "GB" sounds like "jeebee" as in Heebie-jeebies .

I think you would get a blank look if you asked for "64 jeebee".

More colloquially you might say: What have you got with 64 gigabytes?

They will probably realise you mean RAM and not buttons or cameras or something like that.

Question: If I want to buy a phone with 64 GB, how should I say it?  Should I say    "A phone with 64 gigabyte."   or    "A phone with 64 GB (simply pronounce the letter 'G' and 'B')."   which one is more native?

How to pronounce 'GB'?

The most common would be to say it fully and in this case, say "gigabytes". "Gigs" is also a commonly used contraction. You might be misunderstood if you say "jeebee".

Depending on the region, the answer may vary. Most often, native speakers say the full word, "gigabytes", in plural, perhaps making the addition of "gigabytes of RAM". Native speakers often say "gigs" as well. Another option is to say it as "a 64-gigabyte" phone. Saying "GeeBee" would probably not be understood or would sound odd.


An ellipsis is an omission , a missing piece from something that is usually implied by the context.

Ellipses is the plural of ellipsis.

In writing we mark an ellipsis by three dots in a row "...

" For example: He was going to go to the store, but ...

An "ellipsis in thought" would be an omitted piece from someone's memory or chain of thought, which they can't remember but which they know is missing.

From the context, it sounds like the patient has suffered some kind of abuse which they have blocked out from memory, or suffers periods where they can't recall what happened.

In writing, the ellipsis (not the ellipse , even though they both have the same plural form: ellipses ), which is represented by ... is used to indicate someone trailing off in the middle of a sentence, for example:

Well, I told him he needed to buy more printer paper...

Is that a squirrel over there?

In this case the psychiatrist was probably noticing the patient had trouble finishing sentences, or expressing whole ideas without losing their place and getting distracted.

An ellipsis generally describes a gap in something.

It could either mean a 'gap' in thought processes, for example:

I am going to the doctor tomorrow, therefore I must buy a toaster. at least to someone else, this would be confusing although in the speaker's mind it makes perfect sense.

Alternatively it could mean a complete loss of information, for example, the person couldn't remember certain aspects of an event.

The other more subtle meaning, that would only really become clear with more context would be that the 'ellipses in thought' were actually that the person was hiding something, and that they would trail off because they did not want to say what they were originally going to say.

For all practical purposes English speaking persons should consider the medical term Ellipsis (plural form Ellipses) as a synonym to "lapse" : A mistake resulting from inattention A break or intermission in the occurrence of something A failure to maintain a higher state

Ellipsis originates from the greek word :

"ἕλλειψις" meaning want, deficiency, lack thereof, etc.

and although historically the Greeks used the same word for the mathematical shape which describes an ellipse, ellipse and ellipsis are two completely distinct words in English, carrying different meanings.

Sigmund Freud discusses " ellipsis of thought " in his case study A Case Of Obsessional Neurosis, especially the chapter Some General Characteristics Of Obsessional Structures . "

[N]amely,that of distortion by omission or ellipsis .

[...] For instance, the patients oldest obsessions ran as follows ' If I marry the lady, some misfortune will befall my father .' If we insert the intermediate steps, which are known to us from the analysis, we get the following train of thought: If my father were alive, he would be furious over my design of marrying the lady as he was in the scene in my childhood; so that I should fly into a rage with him once more and wish him every possible evil; and thanks to the omnipotence of my wishes these evils would be bound to come upon him

" (p106) as you can see the ellipsis appears "in a truncated and distorted form, like a mutilated telegraph" (p103)

Sigmund Freud, The Penguin Freud Library Volume 9; Case Histories II.

translated by James Strachey, Edited by Angela Richards.

Penguin Books, 1991

Question: From Primal Fear (1996)A psychiater discovers that her patient suffers from the dissociated personality. She describes:   I kept seeing the signs. The big ones. Abusive background, these  repeated blackouts,  the ellipses in thought   I couldn't really understand what are ellipses in this case. All dictionaries say that an ellipse is from mathematics.

What does "ellipses in thought" mean?

An "ellipsis in thought" would be an  omitted  piece from someone's memory or chain of thought, which they can't remember but which they know is missing.  From the context, it sounds like the patient has suffered some kind of abuse which they have  blocked out  from memory, or suffers periods where they can't recall what happened. Alternatively it could mean a complete loss of information, for example, the person couldn't remember certain aspects of an event.   The other more subtle meaning, that would only really become clear with more context would be that the 'ellipses in thought' were actually that the person was hiding something, and that they would trail off because they did not want to say what they were originally going to say.

An ellipsis is a gap, a missing piece, something omitted, so in this context it would be a piece of thought or memory that is missing, or that perhaps due to a traumatic event, the patient suffers from a loss of information/memory/periods that they have no idea what happened. Also, the psychiatrist might have noticed that the patient could not express full ideas/sentences without getting lost.  As a medical term, ellipsis means a mistake due to inattention/an intermission/the inability to maintain a higher state. Finally, it could also mean that the patient was withholding information and that is why they could not express concrete thoughts, but this interpretation needs more context to be accurate.

An ellipsis is a gap, a missing piece, something omitted, so in this context it would be a piece of thought or memory that is missing.

In this specific context, it could mean that perhaps due to a traumatic event, the patient suffers from a loss of information/memory/periods that they have no idea what happened.

The psychiatrist might have noticed that the patient could not express full ideas/sentences without getting lost.

A deeper meaning could be that the patient was withholding information and that is why they could not express concrete thoughts, but this interpretation needs more context to be accurate.


To me so-called means it is contested.

(His so-called wife is really a paid escort.)

It can be used to express one's opinion that a name or term is inappropriate.

It doesn't always mean a negative, but your audience would need to know your context to understand it.

So if you want to be certain that your comment is not seen as a negative one, use your other phrases instead.

Both "widely accepted" or "broadly adopted" work.

No, I don't think so called would be interpreted in a neutral or positive manner.

The very purpose of those words is to show disagreement with, or express the irony of, a phrase.

If you don't want to do either, just leave it out.

We propose a new technique under which fault analysis becomes more tractable than pre-existing techniques.

If you wanted to add widely accepted to that sentence, prior to "pre-existing", you could.

Not knowing the topic, I cannot say that any such modifier would actually add anything useful, though.

First, you would not put the phase old technique in quotation marks.

The rule is you can say so-called , or you can use quotation marks to indicate so-called, but you don't use both.

As one Grammar page says: Use quotation marks to denote so-called or to show that a word is not being used in its literal sense.

Do not use the words so-called AND use quotation marks –

that is tautology.

[emphasis added] Second, you would only use so-called if there was something about the phrase old technique that was not literally true.

So, if one technique was developed two years ago and the other just two weeks ago, you could argue that the word "old" is misleading, because the technique is still relatively new.

However, I'd say that in one of these two ways: We propose a new technique under which fault analysis becomes more tractable than the so-called old technique.

or (and I like this one even better):

We propose a new technique under which fault analysis becomes more tractable than the "old" technique.

Here, old is put in quotation marks to warn the reader that the technique is not really all that old; it's more like comparatively old.

If that's not what you're trying to say, though, then widely accepted may be better.

No. 'so-called' has negative connotations.

The implication is that the item you are referring to is not actually the thing that it is called.

E.g. you give someone a present and then, after an argument, demand it back : "Here!

Take your so-called gift!"

"My so-called boyfriend cheated on me."

After she gave me the money, she later said that I owed her.

So much for her so-called generosity!".

Edit:

Actually, 'negative' may be too stronga word

e.g. : "Remember Martha, my so-called enemy at work?

She spoke up for me today!"

I like soi-disant , but it only applies to entities (like people and companies)

that call themselves something.

Question: Let's consider the context below:   we have an "old technique" which is widely adopted by several researchers. now, you propose a new one.   you might say:    We propose a new technique under which fault analysis becomes more tractable than the  so called  "old technique".   My question is that weather or not I can use "so-called" in such a context. I was thinking to "widely accepted" or "broadly adopted" though. However, this question struck my mind.

Can we use the phrase "so-called" in its positive sense (or neutral) when refereeing to a widely adopted thing?

"So-called" can be used to express one's opinion that a name or term is inappropriate. It doesn't always mean a negative, but your audience would need to know your context to understand it.  However, when using "so-called" there is often a notion of ironic, questioning or negative connotations.

It would be best not to use "so-called" in this case, because it expresses an opinion about a contested term or name, about something that is not actually what it claims to be. While it is not always negative, it has negative connotations so the other expressions are preferable.


This sounds like pooling to me.

Sometimes people can pool their resources.

M-W defines the word as: pool ( v. ) to combine (as resources) in a common pool or effort whereas Cambridge defines this as: pool ( n. ) a number of people or a quantity of a particular thing, such as money, collected together for shared use by several people or organizations:

Everybody puts some money into a common pool.

We need a reserve pool of cash, just to be on the safe side.

Note:

In many English-speaking countries, this usage of pool often refers to a gambling pool, where people put money into a "pot" that the winner collects; such pools often are related to sporting events.

However, the word could also be used in the way you describe:

Let's all pool our money together so that there will be a fund to draw from when one of us has to plan a wedding or a funeral .

If I understand you correctly, this form of financial scheme is known as: rotating savings and credit association .

From Wikipedia : A rotating savings and credit association ( ROSCA ) is a group of individuals who agree to meet for a defined period in order to save and borrow together, a form of combined peer-to-peer banking and peer-to-peer lending.

F.J.A. Bouman described ROSCAs as "the poor man's bank, where money is not idle for long but changes hands rapidly, satisfying both consumption and production needs.

" They are also known as tandas (Latin America), partnerhand (West Indies), cundinas (Mexico), 'Hagbad (Somaliland)'susu (West Africa and the Caribbean), hui (Asia), Game'ya (Middle East), kye (계) (South Korea), tanomosiko (頼母子講) (Japan), pandeiros (Brazil), juntas (Peru), or quiniela .

The most common term for this sort of thing is savings pool or money pool .

Examples: Money pools:

a centuries-old savings tool reinvented Among the local resilience initiatives being taken are green dollars, timebanks and now savings pools.

In India, I have heard this called a 'chit fund' and it is considered an example of a 'cooperative lending society'.

From Wikipedia quoting Indian legislation: A transaction ... under which a person enters into an agreement with a specified number of persons that every one of them shall subscribe a certain sum of money (or a certain quantity of grain instead) by way of periodical installments over a definite period and that each such subscriber shall, in his turn, ... be entitled to the prize amount. From the Oxford online dictionary , close to the above definition: An institution which accepts savings at interest and lends money for house and other purchases

ell.stackexchange.com/users/49589/shardulc says Reinstate Monica

In South Africa, we call them Stokvels .

Technically not English, but it has become a common word for English speakers in SA.

I think you're talking about a susu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susu_(informal_loan_club) , and although I couldn't find that word in any English dictionaries, I can confirm that some people do just use that word in English, and some English speakers know what it means.

Question: I don't know if this culture exists in English speaking countries, but in my country a group of people would contribute a set sum of money every month so that each one of the group receives the total sum of the group's contributions. This is some kind of a lending system to which people resort so they can use the money collected to get married or buy a car or similar things. Is there a word for this?

Word for "money contributed monthly by a group of people so that each month one collects the total sum"

This can be referred to as a savings pool, a chit fund or a rotating savings and credit association.

A term that corresponds to that description is "pool", "savings pool" or "money pool". Another term could be "rotating savings and credit association" or "chit fund", which is more often used in India and is a type of cooperative lending society.


It is called, not surprisingly, a hand towel .

Here's an example of the phrase in live usage: Macy's hand towels .

It is called a "hand towel" if used for drying the hands or face.

A similar but smaller towel is called a "wash cloth" (AmE) or a "flannel" (BrE) if used for washing the hands, face, or body.

There are five sizes of towel that I've heard people refer to commonly: washcloth : the smallest, usually used for cleaning/scrubbing, not drying (there is no distinction made between a washcloth for cleaning the body or, for instance, a kitchen, but they would still be different items in a real house) hand towel: small towel, for drying hands, usually next to a sink bath towel: similar to hand towel in function, but slightly larger towel:

larger, this is the type you dry with after a shower beach towel: the largest, intended for use on a sandy beach, often has a more colorful design that the bathroom version

I would call that a flannel.

Often used for washing your face whilst in the bath.

EDIT Flannel actually refers to an even smaller cloth - see Dog Lover's comment.

We always just called it a Handtowel (South and Midwest), Bathtowel, (the big one for drying the body after the bath)

washcloth (the smallest of them all)

In Australian usage, at least:the small cloth for washing one's face is a washer, or face washer;the small towel for drying hands and face is a hand towel;the standard sized towel is a bath towel;and a larger towel is a beach towel.

Two other terms I have heard would be "face cloth" or "wash rag.

" I do not know how widespread these terms are.

Question: What do we call the small towel that we use only on our hands (not the big one that we use on our body after a shower)? It usually hangs beside the basin.

What do we call the small towel that we use only for hands

This is generally known as a hand towel. Some people may call it a flannel or a wash-rag.

In English speaking countries, it is commonly known as a "hand towel", a small towel that can usuallybe found beside the sink. Some people also call it a "flannel". Two other terms for this size of towel are "face cloth" or "wash rag".


How about rave ?

From M-W, Definition of rave raved; raving intransitive verb 1 c : to talk with extreme enthusiasm • raved about its beauty Using the given example, Mary took John to the place where they sold the banana splits she'd been raving about for the past few days.

Though I believe rave suggests that she's already tried it and now she wants to show John that it's great.

A somewhat informal alternative is hype .

From Dictionary.com, hype verb (used with object), hyped, hyping. 2.

to create interest in by flamboyant or dramatic methods; promote or publicize showily: Using the example, Mary took John to the place where they sold the banana splits she'd been hyping for the past few days.

gushɡʌʃ/verb 2.

Speak or write effusively or with exaggerated enthusiasm.

Mary took John to the place where they sold the banana splits

she'd

been gushing over for the past few days.

The first word that sprang to mind, on seeing the title, was jabber verb

[NO OBJECT] Talk in a rapid, excited, and often incomprehensible way.

‘he

jabbered on about football’ noun Rapid, excited, and often incomprehensible speech.

Source https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/jabber

ell.stackexchange.com/users/6477/Mawg says reinstate Monica

How about enthuse

Express eager enjoyment, interest, or approval regarding something. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enthuse

Example: Mary took John to the place where they sold the banana splits she'd been enthusing about for the past few days

You can say ".........she'd been raving about.......".

Enthusing about is also possible.

My first thought was blather .

to talk foolishly at length —often used with on

So Mary took John to the place where they sold the banana splits she'd been blathering on about for the past few days.

To bubble.

Mary took John to the place where they sold the banana splits she'd been bubbling about for the past few days.

Extolling?

To bless, carol, celebrate, emblazon, exalt, glorify, hymn, laud, magnify, praise, resound

Does change depending on how Mary feels about her own enthusiasm.

Jabbering, going on about, blithering etc implies she's aware

it's annoying.

Or more something that John might say about her mentioning it so much.

Raving is more neutral or enthusiastic.

And something like extolling feels quite character dependent, if she's that sort of person...

Question: Is there a word for "to talk excitedly about something"? I'm sure there's a word for that. But  Thesaurus.com  didn't give me the answer.  Example sentence:   Mary took John to the place where they sold the banana splits she'd  been ______ for the past few days.

Word to describe "to talk excitedly about something"?

To hype, gush, to blather, to rave, to enthuse, to extol and to bubble are all suggestions in this context.

Some words that could be used in this context are: "rave", "hype", "jabber", "enthuse", "blather", "bubble", "extoll".


I agree with you: "Dear Bob" followed by "Hi, Bob" is redundant.

Avoid that as best you can.

The best way to start a letter or email really depends on how close you are to the recipient.

For instance, if I worked at Microsoft and was emailing the CEO of Apple, I would begin with "Dear Mr. Cook" or simply "Mr. Cook".

If I was emailing my own boss, I might start it with "Hi, Mrs. Mallard" or something else similarly colloquial.

Long story short, do one or the other, but not both at the same time.

Hope this helps!

"Dear Bob" is just letter-writing language for "Hi, Bob" so including both of them is redundant.

If you're writing a formal letter, saying "Dear Bob" has already said hello, so you don't need to do it again.

If you're writing informally, you might prefer to write "Hi, Bob!"

instead of "Dear Bob".

"Dear Bob" is a greeting .

It's a standard part of a letter, but it does not necessarily require the word "dear".

In fact, "Hi, Bob" would itself be a perfectly acceptable greeting, provided that the letter is intended to be informal and friendly (and that you're on informal and friendly terms with Bob).

So do not use both, but remember that it's perfectly acceptable to use "Hi" instead of "Dear".

Using the name twice is redundant.

I would suggest: Dear Bob,

Hi, this is soandso.

If it is an email, you address the person as you would in person.

Their email goes directly to them in most cases.

If it goes to the department first, slightly more formality may be warranted.

If it is a business letter, the name, title, department, company name and address will be above the greeting.

So will yours be if you are writing on Company letterhead.

Once all those titles and addresses are on the letter, you politely address them as you would in a business meeting.

Even if you are writing your good friend in her capacity as your bank manager and you need her for a business reason, you would not say "Hi Mary", your would address her as Ms/Miss/Mrs.

Smith or Mary Smith.

You could, in an ongoing business relationship use, "Dear Mary,".

In the body of the letter, you might speak to her directly.

Thanks for your help, Mary."

"Dear Mr. Jones" is a formal opening, so people sometimes begin the body with "Hi" to transition to a friendlier tone.

"Dear Bob" is informal, so "Hi" would stand out as redundant.

However, it would never seem appropriate to repeat the person's name in the first two phrases.

Salespeople are (or were) trained to make frequent use of the person's name on the theory that it established some form of rapport.

However, the practice triggers people's "salesperson radar" because it usually seems uncommon and unnatural in normal speech.

So repeating the person's name in the opening of a letter would tend to be off-putting, the opposite of what you want.

Maybe, just maybe, if the "Dear" part is so long or formal or must follow a particular format that it actually ends up as its own section of the letter: If you must format your letter to open with a very formal salutation, in order to meet guidelines from your workplace/university/organisation, for example: "Dear Sir Henry Guffington the third, Duke of Australiama, Order of the golden Kangaroo, PhD, GSSE,Golden swimming certificate, Silver swimming certificate",

But you are actually quite close to the person I could possibly imagine following that up with: "

Hi Henry, how are you going?".

Question: I'd like to know whether it is okay to start a letter like this:   Dear Bob,  Hi, Bob...   I've been doing this but not sure it is totally acceptable. Isn't "Hi, Bob" somewhat redundant as there is already "Dear Bob"? Sure, there are many ways to start a letter but what I'd like to know is if it is appropriate.

Is it okay to start a letter with "Dear  " followed by "Hi,  "?

You are correct that "Dear Bob" followed by "Hi, Bob" is redundant, so do not use both. However, it's perfectly acceptable to use "Hi"  instead of  "Dear". It also seems pointless to repeat the person's name in the first two phrases.

Both "Dear Bob" and "Hi, Bob" serve the same purpose, so using them both is redudant and should be avoided. The same goes for repeating the name of the recipient; it is redudant and inappropriate.

Repeating the name of the recipient is redudant and inappropriate.


Measure phrases are special noun phrases that we use to explain how long or big or heavy or expensive something is: The programme was ten minutes .

The walk was five miles .

The meal was twenty pounds .

The word is only three letters

These measure phrases all include a number, like one or seven and a noun afterwards.

In the examples above these measure phrases are Complements of the verb.

You will notice that the nouns are all in the plural, as we expect.

We can also use measure phrases like these to modify nouns: a ten minute programme.

a five mile walk.

a twenty pound note.

a three letter word.

Here, these measure phrases are modifying the nouns programme , walk and note .

They are in the same position that we find adjectives in.

When we use measure phrases in this way, the noun in the measure phrase is not plural.

We see no S on the ends of the words in the measure phrases.

Really this is not very surprising.

Why?

Well, when we use a noun to modify another noun, we don't usually use plurals (there are exceptions of course).

So we usually say: a book collector an ant eater a cherry tart

We don't say: *a books collector *an ants eater *a cherries tart

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

You might mean 'two-letter words'.

Be aware that there's a real hyphen between 'two' and 'letter', with which we don't use plural from of the latter word because such a hyphened phrase is used as an adjective, not a noun.

For example: I went on a trip of four days after my three- day work was done.

A boy of five years and another six- year -old girl.

The measure phrases, such as "two-letter", act as adjectives.

We do not pluralize adjectives in English.

Any accurate translation is an equivalent: any phrase that gets across the same meaning, or as close to that meaning as possible.

We should never primarily try for a word-for-word translation as our primary goal.

I don't have the "reputation" to comment on others' posts, but let's improve on sentences such as "The meal was 20 pounds.

No, the meal cost 20 pounds.

(More precise, easily translated, and enjoyable to read.)

For a combination of 2 reasons: English has a Germanic grammar, and in Germanic languages, "twoletterword" is one word – a noun!

It does not matter that English writes it in 3 words (and as a result, calls it a noun phrase , not a noun) –

Germanic languages are older than writing.

As far as I know, all other Germanic languages would write it as "twoletterword", which may better represent how they work.

Inflecting a word's constituents is undefined in English.

You can only inflect the word as a whole, which is indistinguishable from inflecting the last constituent word (because Germanic compound words read like domain names – most significant part last, which is also where the inflection is).

A compound noun combines multiple nouns to make a new noun, and treats the first noun as an adjective to describe the second noun.

Two letters and word are combining to make a new noun.

A car salesman is another example.

The true noun here is salesman.

The word car is there to tell us what kind of salesman they are, so it's being used like an adjective and therefore should not be pluralized like you might a noun.

Many compound nouns have no spaces between their constituent nouns, such as keyboard, dishwasher and bathroom.

Those examples demonstrate the sheer power of compound nouns--the ability to just take a singular noun and tack it on to another to make a new word.

Awesome.

And imagine how funny it would sound if you had to add s

/es to the first of the two nouns (keysboard, disheswasher, bathsroom...).

The issue is an understanding of the implicit but unspoken content:a 'letter' means an "instance of the letter object'a 'word' means a collection of letter objects Thus

a "two letter word" means two instances of the letter object combined in a wordwhile a word of 20 letters is a collection of size 20 containing letter objects

The English language recognises that the two usages describe different things and therefore have different structures

Question: Why is "letter" not plural in "two letter words"?  For me it's very strange as the equivalent in French would be plural but my English friend finds it totally normal.

Why is "letter" not plural in "two letter words"?

When measure phrases are used in this way, the noun in the measure phrase is not plural. Adjectives are not pluralized in English.

Measure phrases are special noun phrases that we use to describe the length, width, weight, or cost of something. The noun in the measure phrase is not plural when we use measure phrases in this way.

Measure phrases, such as "two-letter", act as adjectives. In English, adjectives are not pluralized. Any precise translation is an equivalent: any phrase that conveys the same meaning, or as close to it as possible.

A compound noun is formed by combining two or more nouns to form a new noun. Many nouns, such as keyboard, dishwasher, and bathroom, have no spaces between their constituent nouns. Compound nouns combine a singular noun with another to form a new word.

The problem is that people don't understand the implicit but unspoken content of the English language. A 'word' is a group of letter objects, and a 'two letter word" is a collection of size 20 containing letter objects.


You might use ' hustler ' for someone who puts something in your pocket without you asking for it and then asks to be paid for it: Hustle To push or force one's way.

To act aggressively, especially in business dealings.

To obtain something by deceitful or illicit means; practice theft or swindling.

You can use the following words to describe someone who sells goods on the street, rather than in a shop: Hawker - A travelling salesperson who tends to shout to advertise their wares Peddler (AmE)/ Pedlar (BrE) -

A travelling salesperson Huckster - (Old fashioned)

A salesperson, generally of small items who may employ "showy" or aggressive tactics to sell their goods.

Street vendor - Someone who sells goods on the street.

Street seller - See "Street vendor".

None of these words require the selling to be aggressive, however.

I can't think of any one word that you could use to define an aggressive street seller.

The action you describe is often more associated with a street "vendor" than a shop.

People cleaning your car windshield uninvited at a traffic light and then demanding money is another example.

However, it isn't limited to street vendors.

For example, there are restaurants, particularly in areas frequented by foreign tourists, where they will leave an unordered, apparently complimentary, dish on the table, and then charge for it.

"Forceful" is sometimes associated with this but isn't necessarily the fundamental method of manipulation.

What you describe is a form of fraud, or trying to get money through deceit or manipulation.

These people may escalate to more assertive tactics if the ploy, alone, doesn't work--righteous indignation, trying to embarrass you, aggression or other attempts at intimidation, etc.

Dan C's "hustler" is a good term.

Another is scam artist .

A "scam" is a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation - M-W "Con artist" is related, but is typically associated with something more complex, involving multiple steps to "set up" the person being taken advantage of, while a scam can involve just a brief encounter, like your example.

A similar term that is a bit dated is flimflam : deception, fraud - M-W .

A scam artist or con man used to be called a "flimflam man" or "flimflam artist".

Pusher - a person who too readily or forecfully promotes the use or purchase of a particular thing.

(Google definition).

Haven't seen this one in the answers yet

A tout

The verb " to tout " can mean "to solicit, peddle, or persuade importunately"

As a noun it means "one who touts: such as [...] one who solicits patronage"

I think hustle is correct.

He is a 'fast talking street hustler' trying to 'con you into' buying his flower.

Speed is his friend because, if you take time to think about it, buying the flower will just encourage the same person to pull the same stunt next time they see you or anyone like you

and you're better off nipping it in the bud!

hus·tle

verb 1.

force (someone) to move hurriedly or unceremoniously in a specified direction :

they hustled him into the back of a horse-drawn wagon

You can also combine some of these words, as in " street vendor scam artists ", " scammy street hustlers ", "*hustler scam artists", " high-pressure street vendors ", etc.

Planter.

Actually, that's not a word that is commonly used for a person doing that.

However, a guy put a flower into my pocket and asked to pay for it.

the verb "plant" is commonly used for such a thing.

Especially in terms like this: The police officer planted evidence

That sort of usage of the word is quite common.

(If he accuses you in front of other people, then he chose to "frame" you.

That implies an accusation of something you are innocent of.)

Some other possible words: swindler (kind of derived from part of Dan C's answer ), fraudster, criminal, crook

Question: What is the word meaning people who sell something in forceful way on the street or places?  For example, a guy put a flower into my pocket and asked to pay for it. I wonder I can say street seller. But  street seller  means people who has their stores on the street, doesn't it? He has no store or shop. He just carries many flowers and sell them in forceful way.   What is "the word" meaning people who sell something in this way?

What is the word meaning people who sell something in forceful way on the street or places?

Many words can be used in this context, including  hawker, peddler, huckster, salesperson, street vendor, street seller. However, these words to not imply any aggression, so you could say street vendor scam artists, street hustlers, or high-pressure street vendors, for example.

The following words can be used to describe someone who sells things on the street. In order to sell their products, a salesperson may use "showy" or aggressive tactics. Someone who sells goods on the streets is known as a street vendor. "Street vendor" is a synonym for "street seller." You can also use phrases like "street vendor scam artists," "scammy street hustlers," "*hustler scam artists," "high-pressure street vendors," and so on to combine some of these words.


In AmE, they would be called "tire tracks".

Possibly also "tread marks" but that would more likely be used for marks left on a hard surface like concrete or pavement.

It's mostly called a "tyre tread/track mark" or a "tyre tread pattern" , also a "tyre track" and a "tyre print" , for instance: tyre tread pattern in mud , tyre track mark in mud or tyre print in mud

In British English it's " tyre ", and it's " tire " in American English.

The phrase you are looking for (in BrE at least) is tread marks .

They can also be called tyre tracks .

These are not specific to tread patterns left in mud, but can also be used if a vehicle leaves rubber tyre marks on a hard road.

As a non-native English speaker the first thing that came to mind is (mud) ruts .

Rut [ruht] (noun) a furrow or track in the ground, especially one made by the passage of a vehicle or vehicles.

Ruts aren't necessarily limited to tyre treads or mud (i.e. ski tracks in the snow would work too), but as far as I'm aware they generally do refer to tracks made by vehicles.

I'm repeating other the content of other answers, but only because I want to clarify that they are not necessarily correct, depending on exactly what you're referring to and

how specific you want to be : A fairly broad answer tread marks

The tread of a tyre is the rubber on its circumference that makes contact with the road or the ground - the black bit.

You also have a tread on your shoe.

Tread marks (also commonly known as skid marks , as they are most often caused when vehicles brake hard and skid) are generally the black marks left on the road or elsewhere by tyres (this is the same reason why you're requested not to use black-soled shoes in an indoor gym, so you don't leave tread marks on the gym floor).

While it is true that the imprints of the tread are visible in the mud, these aren't tread marks in a strict sense.

Example images of tread marks on a road surface, probably skid marks .

A very broad answer

ruts A rut is a a long deep track made by the repeated passage of something - most often made by the wheels of vehicles, but can also be made by water flowing downhill, by animals following a game trail, and so on.

It is not specific to vehicle wheels.

Example image of vehicle ruts in mud

- note that tread marks are sometimes, but not always, visible inside the ruts.

Probably the least ambiguous answer tyre tracks (US: tire tracks) To answer the OP's question, the patterns left in mud specifically by vehicles would be called tyre tracks , which is a fairly literal definition.

Although we can distinguish the tread of a tyre from the tyre as a whole, it's a much finer point of semantics as to which made the track in the mud (you could just as well call them wheel tracks or vehicle tracks , but these phrases are not commonly used and are less accurate).

Example image of tyre tracks in mud.

The word "track" is the closest literally to stopa -- they both can also mean to follow (as if by following footprints or hoofprints), and both have the secondary sense of a section of music (probably the Czech word is a calque).

As for "rut", that has the meaning closest to the marks showing in your picture, but its secondary meaning, "a fixed routine" especially one you would like to break out of, has grown to overshadow the original use.

Also, there is the fairly rare sense of "to copulate".

So... maybe "tire track".

Question: What's the name for this ... chase? stria? groove?  In Czech, we call it "stopa" - which literally translates as "footprint" but has a lot of other meanings as well so I can't really work out which of the tons of the English translations I should use here. Trail? Trace? Vestige?

What do you call the imprinted pattern left behind a car in mud?

Suggestions include tread marks, skid marks or track marks.

Tread marks are the rubber on a tyre's circumference that makes contact with the road or ground. They are also commonly known as skid marks, as they are most often caused when vehicles brake hard and skid. Tread marks can also be found in the mud, but these aren't tread marks in a strict sense.


Others have explained why you can't simply omit the "that".

However, in this case it would be idiomatic to omit "

that is", leaving "There is so much at stake for many."

No, the relative pronoun that cannot be omitted in the sentence "There is so much (that) is at stake for many" .

This is because that functions as the subject of the defining relative clause that is at stake .

When the relative pronoun is the subject of the relative clause it cannot be omitted.

The same applies to the other relative pronouns.

For example: There are so many people who are in jobs they dislike.

There is so much which is unknown about the universe.

If, on the other hand, the pronoun functions as the object of the relative clause, then it can be omitted: There is so much (that) you can do to make the world a better place.

There are so many people (who/m)

I would like to thank.

There is so much which we don't know about the universe.

Object pronoun omission is very common in spoken English.

More information:

Defining relative clauses

Addendum:

This addendum picks up on points made by @BillJ and @Snailplane

that that in sentences such as the OP's is not regarded as a relative pronoun by some modern linguists.

In chapter 12, section 3.5.6 of

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language Huddleston, Pullum and Peterson make the case for that being treated as a subordinator, not as a relative pronoun.

They discuss several ways in which that is different from the 'uncontroversial' relative pronouns ( who, which, whose ), including Lack of upward percolation , Finiteness and Omissibility .

Huddleston and Pullum's A Student's Introduction to English Grammar contains a shorter analysis of the same issue.

It contrasts the two sentences:

They rejected the suggestion which your son made.

(relative clause)

They rejected the suggestion that your son was lying.

(content clause)

Clearly, it would be problematic to call that in the second sentence above a relative pronoun, not least because it cannot be replaced by the relative pronoun which .

But, for me the issue is less clear cut in sentences such as:

They rejected the suggestion that your son made.

The Hyundai Santa Fe was the first car that crossed Antarctica.

where that can indeed by replaced by which .

Ultimately, however, I suspect that visitors to this ELL site are less interested in terminology than grammaticality.

The terminology issue would be a good one for the sister site ELU .

There is a discussion of

that as a relativizer on Wikipedia's English relative clauses .

There is so much that ___ is at stake for many Initial point: "that" is not a relative pronoun; it is a clause subordinator.

In this case it is not omissible.

The relativised element is covert; it’s missing and represented by the '___' notation, called 'gap'.

"So much" is antecedent to the gap functioning as Subject, which is the reason that "that" is not omissible.

We understand the relative clause to mean: "so much is at stake for many".

Yes, but you must also omit "is."

"There is so much at stake for many.

Now it's a nice, concise phrase.

This kind of elision is common in spoken and written English.

"That is...

" phrases can help clarify and position ideas in complex sentences, but they can often be left out to make shorter, more forceful sentences.

When the relative pronoun acts is a clause subordinator and is the subject of a relative clause, it has to be included.

You cannot omit it in this case.

More examples:

I have a robot that can speak.

Mary has got toys that are made of metal.

BBC Learning English

Question: There is so much ( that ) is at stake for many.   Can we omit ' that ' in this sentence?

Omitting 'that' in this sentence

No, the relative pronoun that cannot be omitted in this sentence. When the relative pronoun is the subject of the relative clause it cannot be omitted.

Relative pronoun that cannot be omitted in the sentence "There is so much (that) is at stake for many" can't be omitted when it is the subject of a relative clause. The same applies to the other relative pronouns. When the relative pronoun is the subject of the relative clause it cannot be omitted, and so happens to the rest of the pronouns as well


I commend your desire to be polite!

However, since your question is specifically about “stackoverflow sites”, I recommend you do not respond to “thank you” comments or post your own “thank you”-type comments.

The “What should I do when someone answers my question?”

section of the site's Help Center says this: Please do not add a comment on your question or on an answer to say "Thank you".

Comments are meant for requesting clarification, leaving constructive criticism, or adding relevant but minor additional information – not for socializing.

If you want to say "thank you," vote on or accept that person's answer, or simply pay it forward by providing a great answer to someone else's question.

All your examples are fine.

I would offer the following advice to make it sound more natural to a native, however, the most important of which can be summarised by saying keep it short .

Shorten

"You are welcome" to "

You're welcome" .

You don't necessarily need to say

I'm in the follow-up sentences, as this is obvious to the reader from context.

Saying something like "Happy to help" or "

Glad it helped" is fine.

In fact, if you use the word "I" or "me" too much, it can come across as being self-congratulatory/boastful/self-centered/self-important.

The simple acknowledgement of thanks is often sufficient ("You're welcome"), you don't necessarily also need to state your happiness for being helpful.

(Flagrantly stealing from Robusto's comment)

You can often shorten "you're welcome" or "no problem" to the acronyms YW or NP .

Use exclamation marks or smiley faces to appear more jovial, e.g. "Happy to help!" or

"You're welcome :)" .

Contribute is probably more appropriate if it was a group effort, e.g. a discussion, otherwise, help is probably more appropriate.

You can also use "to be of service"

(e.g. "Glad to be of service"), but "help" is again probably more informal/generally appropriate.

If you don't know whether the OP has found something helpful yet, you can use "I hope" to indicate that you would like your contribution to be helpful.

You could say something like

"I hope you find it useful/helpful" .

(Especially if you are Australian/speaking to an Aussie) You can use the phrase "

No worries" in a similar way to "No problem".

None of the above.

Comments are not supposed to say thank you or anything in return.

Comments are not recommended for any of the following: Compliments which do not add new information ("+1, great answer!");

instead, up-vote it and pay it forward;

Source: https://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges/comment Edit

: Comments are not for extended discussion either.

Your responses #1, #3, and #4 are entirely appropriate since you're answering directly to an individual.

#2 might be more for a general or bigger audience/community.

Depending on what the original question was

Glad I could help.

Good luck! may also be appropriate.

When people thank me I usually say: You're welcome, glad it helped.

By the way thanks are immaterial in the Stack Exchange sites, so you can vote on or accept my answer if you find it useful.

By saying so you also have the chance to get an upvote.

Question: In order to be polite and answer in a social way I have had some hesitation to choose which phrase I should use.   You are welcome. I'm glad it helped.  You are welcome. I'm glad I could contribute.  You are welcome. I'm glad that I could help.  No problem. I'm happy that I could help.   If you have better phrases, please add, since it's fun to learn more.

How should I reply when I answer some question on Stack Exchange sites, people thank me and say it helped?

"You're welcome, glad it helped" is one suggestion. However, people prefer votes on stack exchange. If you want to say "thank you," vote on or accept that person's answer, or simply pay it forward by providing a great answer to someone else's question.

If you want to say "thank you," vote on or accept that person's answer. When people thank me I usually say:   You're welcome, glad it helped. By saying so you also have the chance to get an upvote.


What about good old "so"?

German-made parts are way too expensive, so we ordered Chinese ones.

This is by far the most natural way of saying this.

I guess you want to use a subordinate conjunction (or a phrase with similar functionality) which simply means "because".

In this context, I can mention several ones as below: Thus

Therefore Hence

consequently In this regard With this regard Under this consideration ...

However, I think you can reword that sentence to a more concise sentence: Since German-made parts are way too expensive, we ordered Chinese ones.

We ordered Chinese ones because German-made parts are way too expensive.

And many other similar sentences.

Note :

In line with the constructive feed-backs, "due to the reason that" and "due to" has been replaced by "because".

Given : assigned as a basis of calculation, reasoning, etc.:

Given A and B, C follows.

dictionary.com

So your sentence would read: German-made parts are way too expensive.

Given that , we ordered Chinese ones.

Your phrase as-is is exactly what I'd use.

Except I would probably change it to "this," not "it."

German-made parts are way too expensive.

Taking this into consideration, we ordered Chinese ones.

Meanwhile, if you want a one-word answer, you could use, " thus " and various other synonyms for "thus."

German-made parts are way too expensive.

Thus , we ordered Chinese ones.

If you want to consolidate your sentences even more, you could try a semicolon.

German-made parts are way too expensive; thus , we ordered Chinese ones.

Semicolons show you really know your stuff, add sentence variation in construction, (slightly) lead into the next train of thought without breaking the reader's flow and just look cool .

If you definitely want a single word, then I would go with 'accordingly' - "in a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances".

"German-made parts are way too expensive.

Accordingly, we ordered Chinese ones."

Consider:

In light of or similar phrases .

From the Macmillan Dictionary because of a particular fact

In light of your good driving record, we’ve decided to overlook this offense.

The majority of answers are looking to satisfy the original requirement and don't seem to consider sentence order.

What you are trying to convey can be said in a single short sentence without archaic words like 'thus' and without the use of complex punctuation I.e. We ordered Chinese parts because the German ones are too expensive.

Knowing that German-made parts are way too expensive, we ordered Chinese ones.

Or if you were to keep the structure same you could say German-made parts are way too expensive.

Knowing that, we ordered Chinese ones.

knowing Showing or suggesting that one has knowledge or awareness that is secret or known to only a few people.

Reference

Question: Is there an introductory word or phrase which means  considering what was said ?    German-made parts are way too expensive.  Taking it into  consideration , we ordered Chinese ones.

Introductory word meaning "considering what was previously said"

Suggestions include thus, therefore, hence, consequently, in this regard, due to the reason that, and due to.

In this context, the follwoing may be used:   Thus
Therefore  Hence   consequently  In this regard  With this regard  Under this consideration.
In line with the constructive feed-backs, "due to the reason that" and "due to" has been replaced by "because". Semicolons show you really know your stuff, add sentence variation in construction


A "hunch" doesn't seem like quite the right word here.

It would be possible to say "I had a hunch that, if I took the bus I would be late.

" A simple word to use instead might be "feeling": "I had a feeling that I should avoid the bus".

Or if you want quite formal: "I had a premonition that if I took the bus I'd be late.

" The word "intuition" is another possibility.

I would prefer these to "sixth sense" in this context.

To add onto the good answers people have already given, I wanted to address the general form of these types of sentences.

As Tᴚoɯɐuo already mentioned, hunches are not actors who try to make you do things, but merely inform you.

This is true of any of the other words or phrase you may use instead.

You can see that in James K's example:

I had a hunch that if I took the bus I would be late.

In this example you can see that hunch has been changed to merely inform your decision-making, rather than actively make the decision by stopping you.

However, other feelings and emotions can take a more active role.

Something like:

My fear was trying to stop me from entering the building.

Fear makes more sense in this sentence because the effects of fear on a person are more involuntary and out of a person's control.

Try gut feeling A gut feeling was trying to stop me from taking a bus to the English learning center.

Or alternatively intuition might be correct too

My intuition was telling me to walk instead of taking the bus.

I think I would say: Something told me not to take the bus to the English learning center.

"Something told me" is an expression for the feeling you described -- when an instinct tells you something is true or that you should act in a certain way, even though you have no concrete reason for doing so.

You might also use it like:

He said he was at school, but something tells me he was at the movies with his friends.

Your use of "hunch" is certainly understandable here, and perhaps you could say that when you didn't take the bus you were "acting on a hunch".

But hunches are usually objects, not subjects.

To say that the hunch "told you" something doesn't sound totally natural to me.

How about "premonition"?

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)

[wn]: premonition n 1: a feeling of evil to come; "a steadily escalating sense of foreboding"

; "the lawyer had a presentiment that the judge would dismiss the case" [syn: {foreboding}, {premonition}, {presentiment}, {boding}] 2: an early warning about a future event [syn: {forewarning}, {premonition}]

Actually, a few others in this definition are not bad on their own...

Question: When I was leaving home for a language learning center, something inside my mind was trying to tell me to walk instead of taking a bus or I would be late for the class. I might be too tired to walk so I chose the bus, and then I was late.   Given that situation, is it formal to use "hunch" in the following sentence?    A  hunch  was trying to stop me from taking a bus to the English learning center.   Or using the sixth sense is better?

Is "hunch" the right word for this situation?

"Something told me" is commonly used in this context. However, although the phrase is understandable, to say that the hunch "told you" something doesn't sound totally natural. "Hunches"  are usually objects, not subjects.

Something told me is an expression for a feeling -- when an instinct tells you something is true or that you should act in a certain way. hunches are usually objects, not subjects. To say that the hunch "told you" something doesn't sound totally natural to me, says writer. "Your use of "hunch" is certainly understandable here, and perhaps you could say that when you didn't take the bus you were "acting on a hunch"


You are right that sentence 2 is better, since it is people not willingness which the site is attempting to motivate.

Even so, I think it is still too verbose.

The words motivation and willingness are near synonyms, and to include both of them is unnecessary and awkward.

Surely "I hope this site motivates people to learn English" is quite sufficient, isn't it?

There's nothing grammatically incorrect with the first sentence.

Motivate may seem like an odd modifier for willingness, but it's effectively a shorter way of saying "affect a person's willingness to learn English in a positive way" and I think it works fine here.

Your corrected sentence deviates from that meaning a bit.

Instead of modifying the level of willingness, the sentence talks about modifying whether a person has or doesn't have willingness at all.

The first sentence is a bit awkward because it's as though willingness itself is the thing that is being motivated.

I think your revised version is slightly better since it is more clear that the people are the ones being motivated.

It's perfectly correct to say "motivate willingness", "motivate desire", or "motivate opposition".

For example: Reconstructing Education: Toward a Pedagogy of Critical Humanism (1992) says: They claimed that a strong feeling of individual self-worth was a necessary condition to motivate students' willingness to contribute to a group.

Strategies for successful classroom teaching (1998) says: Postinstructional design also can result in motivating students' willingness to participate in group activities.

The restoration mode from Milton to Dryden (1974) says: ...

which serves partly to motivate her willingness to talk with the Hind Literature of the Sturm und Drang (2003) says: Although the play does not explicitly motivate her willingness to go to the masked ball with him...

Teacher Education Yearbook XXV

(2017) says: ...

her involvement in the Peoria Counts project generated hope through success and confidence visible in the collective positivity needed to motivate her willingness to become...

Writing:

the shapes of experience (1967) says:

And so James takes the liberty of simplifying the old lady in terms of her cupidity, which, whether it was true in reality or not, was necessary to

motivate her willingness to take a lodger in the first place

It's technically correct, but may not mean exactly what the author seems to have intended.

This kind of usage of "motivate" is uncommon but not unheard of.

I've truthfully seen this usage primarily in the sense of a "motivating example" in mathematics textbooks.

A "motivating example" is an example of some concept or procedure that shows why you'd even bother with it in the first place.

So, in this context, "motivate people's willingness" means "explain why you'd be willing to learn English in the first place."

The problem with this usage is that it's not clear if the purpose of the site is to make people willing to learn English or to explain why some people actually are willing to learn it.

Technically, it should mean the latter (which probably isn't what the author intended).

TL;DR

The first sentence is grammatically correct, but it doesn't mean what the author thinks it does.

Your edit is an improvement.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/55030/EJoshuaS - Reinstate Monica

Answer - should be comment.

The word willingness here is synonymous with with being motivated - If a person is motivated then they are willing.

In this sense the word 'willingness' is superfluous and adds nothing to the meaning of the sentence.

If you want to correct the sentence then remove the superfluous word:

I hope this site will motivate people to learn English.

This is sunjuntive sentence so the language can be a little ungrounded.

Losing 'will' may have been an unnecessary cut, however I thing willingness is the wrong word.

I have a willingness to do my taxes.

Not a passion for doing my taxes and no even an interest in doing them.

I passively try to get them done.

The original wording works aside.

Acting on a part of a person is an action that affect the whole.

Question: I saw a sentence like this on the Internet:   I hope this site will motivate people's willingness to learn English.   I thought that there were some mistakes in the sentence, so I fixed the sentence like this:   I hope this site motivates people to have the willingness to learn English.   Do you think that I fixed the sentence well?

Is "motivate people's willingness" grammatically correct?

This kind of usage of "motivate" is uncommon but not unheard of. In this context, "motivate people's willingness" means "explain why you'd be willing to learn English in the first place."  The problem with this usage is that it's not clear if the purpose of the site is to make people willing to learn English or to explain why some people are willing to learn it. The first sentence is grammatically correct,  but may not mean exactly what the author seems to have intended.

This type of "motivate" usage is unusual, but not unheard of. The problem is that it's unclear whether the site's goal is to persuade people to learn English or to explain why some people are willing to do so. Technically, it should mean the latter (though this is unlikely to be the author's intent). Although the first sentence is grammatically correct, it does not convey the meaning intended by the Author. The revision is a step forward.


The obvious answers are the words you've mentioned, but with un prepended: unpopular or unwanted .

You could easily say that "people (at work) avoid him", but if you want to use an adjective (grammatically speaking a past participle used as an adjective) you could use shunned .

Definition of shun: in the wiktionary : "to avoid, especially persistently."

in Cambridge online : "to ignore someone and not speak to that person because you cannot accept their behaviour, beliefs, etc.

Here are examples of the use of the word in this context:

In a book about Michael Jackson: A man who won eight Grammys just four years earlier was shunned on that night;

( Michael Jackson & the Music That Was , The Voice of One, 2016)

In a conversation in a contemporary "romance": My mother, you see, was shunned when she became pregnant with Roland and me.

( Mated in Mist: A Paranormal Shifter Talon Pack Romance , Carrie Ann Ryan, 2016)

In an autobiography: At play time I was shunned.

The boys and girls didn't want to talk to me.

( He Touched Me: An Autobiography , Benny Hinn, 2001)

In a detective novel: You knew what would happen to his family if he was shunned.

( Roots of Murder , Janis Harrison, 1999) In the written press: Those born on Skye are shunned if they say anything against the wind farm.

They no longer exist.

( The Telegraph - 05/06/2005)

They survived Ebola.

Now they are shunned ( The Washington Post , 13/08/2014)

What about unwelcome ? unwelcome : not wanted or welcome •

unwelcome news • an unwelcome guest (M-W)

This is especially apt if you are trying to join some groups or activities.

I think the simple avoided could work:

avoid transitive verb 1 a : to keep away from : shun • They have been avoiding me.

(M-W) Ignored could work, especially if you are actively trying to get everyone's attention or approval.

In my opinion, the first part of the sentence implies that it is because you are not wanted.

ignore transitive verb 1 : to refuse to take notice of (M-W)

There are some good answers, but I wanted to add Pariah to the mix.

one that is despised or rejected In your sample sentence, it would read like:

My friend is always wanted while I am always (treated like) a pariah.

It is pretty strong though.

You wouldn't necessarily use it to describe a one-off situation, rather if the rejection was a fairly regular occurrence.

If you want something with a negative ring to it you can use scorned a. Contempt or disdain felt toward a person or object considered despicable or unworthy: viewed his rivals with scorn.

b.

The expression of such an attitude in behavior or speech; derision: heaped scorn upon his rivals. c.

The state of being despised or dishonored: held in scorn by his rivals.

Archaic

One spoken of or treated with contempt.

tr.v.

scorned, scorn·ing, scorns To consider or treat as contemptible or unworthy: an artist who was scorned by conservative critics.

To reject or refuse with derision: scorned their offer of help.

See Synonyms at despise.

To consider or reject (doing something)

as beneath one's dignity

Disliked. From Cambridge: Dislike ( noun ) a feeling of not liking something or someone.

Actually, outcast is a pretty good word to use here.

The usage would be like so: My friend is always wanted, while I'm always the outcast.

or as others have noted, if you're not actively cast out of groups but rather just not noticed: My friend is always wanted, while I'm always overlooked.

My friend is always wanted, while I go unnoticed.

Undesireable Either in the adjective form: having qualities that are not pleasing or wanted an undesirable effect or the noun form one that is undesirable

Seem to fit here.

Repulsive would fit in case where you describe a person you don't want to work with, but with a more emotional (they behave badly, smell/look unpleasantly), rather than objective (if they are a low productivity worker) sense.

I feel like out of place would fit here.

Out of place :

[...] Fig.

[of someone ] awkward and unwelcome.

(*Typically: be ~; feel ~; seem ~.)

I feel out of place at formal dances.

Bob and Ann felt out of place at the picnic, so they went home.

My friend is always wanted while (I am always/

I always feel) out of place.

I like Anathema, myself.

As in, "Gideon was anathema at the office."

It has the connotation of someone who is avoided, shunned, and held in low regard.

Anathema, in common usage, is something or someone that is detested or shunned.

In its other main usage, it is a formal excommunication.

The latter meaning, its ecclesiastical sense, is based on New Testament usage.

Wikipedia

Question: When a person is  wanted  everybody wants to work with him, he's popular and is always asked for. But is there an opposite for  wanted , meaning a person who isn't popular at work, someone whom nobody wants to work with.  I was thinking of the word  outcast  but I doubt it can refer to such a meaning considering its definition.  I would like to fit it into this context:   My friend is always wanted while I am always [this word].

The opposite of "wanted"

Suggestions include disliked, outcast, undesirable or repulsive.

Disliked, outcast, repulsive, undesireable, repulsive would fit too.

Disliked form dislike = a feeling of not liking something or someone. Outcast is a pretty good word to use here. Repulsive would fit in case where you describe a person you don't want to work with. Undesireable: either in the adjective form:  having qualities that are not pleasing or wanted an undesirable effect. Repulsive would fit too.