Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

8

In writing we sometimes have to be redundant. In case you are misunderstood, I suggest you use "totally opaque" or "one-hundred percent opaque".


5

I think that with non-transparent you are on the safe side: Not able to be seen through; opaque: a work rendered in non-transparent acrylic. (ODO) also non-translucent.


5

Calculus in the sense of "calculation" has appeared in editions of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary from the first one (published in 1898). In fact, this is the only mathematical definition of calculus in that dictionary: Any process of reasoning by the use of symbols ; any branch of mathematics that may involve calculation. However, the ...


5

Written English is governed by the principle "Anything which can be misunderstood will be". There is thus no practical difference between a syntactical ambiguity and a semantic one: even if the ambiguity is resolvable with only a little effort, some readers will fail to make the effort and will either misunderstand your meaning or dismiss you as an idiot. ...


4

Before the tragedy, people's willingness was low. The tragedy raised their willingness. Since the tragedy, what has changed? Their willingness. Their willingness is the the thing that has changed. If you replace "What has changed" with "The thing that has changed" in the sentence, it might be clearer.


3

In speech, the intonation patterns and parsing rhythms of a native speaker would disambiguate one meaning from another. Below I am trying to reflect a rising accent on the word run, a pause with the em dash, and words spoken in fairly rapid succession with "walkfast": Bob will either rún — or walkfast. Those rhythms and tonal patterns would be in line ...


3

The answer is: it depends The sentence as written is ambiguous. Both of these sentences are valid: Mental-health practitioners whose clients kill themselves can face stigma from their clients' colleagues. Mental-health practitioners whose clients kill themselves can face stigma from their own colleagues. "Their" could either refer to "the ...


2

In the context of the sort of use that your question focuses on, the verb take functions as a so-called "light verb", "semantically weak verb" or "delexical verb". In other words, it is a kind of placeholder verb, a mere vehicle for transporting the semantically important content, namely pee, piss and so on. As far as I can see, the kind of sense cited at ...


2

The traditional spelling was Ugh (or sometimes Eugh!) but this may be being supplanted by the American Eww! Since the word is near-onomatopeic, I would suggest you write it the way it sounds to you when your daughter says it.


2

And so I neither understand the obvious paraphrase "Raccoon Bite Victim helped by EMT". Well: bite Noun; an act of biting. Raccoon bite. The noun raccoon is used to modify the noun bite to mean an act of biting done by a raccoon. Victim Someone who has suffered something. bite victim The noun victim is used to modify the noun ...


2

Sentences of the form Bob will run or walk fast. are genuinely ambiguous: it is not explicit which is meant. You might guess from context that the most likely intepretation is "Bob will run or Bob will walk fast" but equally "Bob will call or email me when he arrives" is of identical form but the context indicates the reverse case. The way the ...


2

Like others I have heard the word used variously and sometimes with apparent contradiction. So I am quoting below the range of meanings given by the OED. Multifarious references are given against each, which I have not repeated. There are also a host of 'special references' which I have not included. This may not answer your question by providing you with an ...


2

I have the same issue and question. For example, I am pretty annoyed with questions being phrased as "Did you know that ... ?" For example, Did you know that the range and variation the life span of a humpback whale is the same as humans? Did you know that the white-tail (aka white tailed) deer is native to northern and central Americas? Why can't ...


2

Without the context it is difficult to reply, but it seems as if someone/thing died as a result of a seizure, e.g., an epileptic fit


1

They are both ambiguous, (b) is just a longer way of saying (a). Both could mean: I am not good looking but he likes me because I am funny. OR: I am good looking but that's not why he likes me, he likes me because I am funny.


1

Yes, both sentences are ambiguous. Either one can mean you're good-looking. A. "You are good-looking. Maybe that's why he likes you so much." B. "He likes me because I am funny, not (because I am) good-looking. If the verb used in the first clause fits the second, no problem omitting "not because + subject + verb" (e.g. I am funny, I am beautiful) If ...


1

Not only is it not an idiom, it is archaic both in the words and the expression. Perish is a literary word for die; but though we use die of (a cause), perish of is rare: the British National Corpus has 204 instances of perished, but only two of perished of. The OED says of fit: " A sudden seizure of any malady attended with loss of consciousness and ...


1

I would mirror Cindy's answer: she provides two different pieces of information, an arrival day and a departure day, so neither overrides the other; the relative strength of "can" and "will" don't come into it. She does not say whether Monday is when she must depart her current location to reach your location, or when she must depart your location for some ...


1

I'm not sure I understand where the problem is, but if she said she could make it on Saturday, then she meant to be at your place on Saturday. The later statement that she would leave on Monday comes after she has spent some time thinking about the plan, and has decided she has to leave her place on Monday in order to keep the appointment on Saturday, or ...


1

I see and use the phrase often as an American, and this cursory search of a UK news source shows it's common there too: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/search/?queryText=back-to-back&sort=recent It's common in both dialects and I've never thought of it as anatomical.


1

It's not resolved in your first example, which really is ambiguous. Are you asking for some best way to resolve it by rephrasing? Anything that works.


1

Example B sounds like it was the 1980s which offered childcare etc. Generally, 'which' should follow the thing it is referring to, as in Example A. The correct way to write Example B would be: The federal government was the largest single provider of day care for children in the 1980s, offering ..etc


1

In common usage as I know it, a "sub-project" is neither a child project nor a support project. A sub-project is ancillary to the main project- that is, it is related, but it is not subsequent (e.g. following) to the primary project. At the same time, it does not support the main project. To take your question and use it as an example, a main project would ...


1

If I had to create a new word for sub-project in English that for some reason couldn't use sub- I would favour something using the component, element, elementary, part etc. The sub-project is after all a part of the project. (I'd probably end up going for "child project" but that's because it's child is a short word in English and the metaphor is common ...


1

When teaching English (as a foreign language) I thought it caused less confusion to see the gerund ('-ing' form) as an activity noun when used like this. I like shopping, I go shopping etc. In the other case you mention, "she came crying and screaming", the gerund is really more descriptive, it's being used like an adjective, as is clearer when you put ...


1

Context is the key. Even English people can be confused. For example 'can you come singing' would normally be an invitation to a singing event but if you say 'can you come singing down the street' you then mean you want the person to sing as they approach you. You could also mean there is an event down the street where singing is required. In normal ...


1

1 A stone came flying through the window. In the combination of the verb to come + ing-form the ing-form describes the way. It it no indication of purpose. 2 In connection with outdoor and similar activites the ing-form is often used after to go/to come as in A Why don't we go swimming. B Come dancing this evening, Jane. C yesterday we went ...


1

Can you see any hikers, using binoculars? Can you see any hikers using binoculars? Obviously, the comma is not 'necessary': both are grammatical. But the first sentence would usually be taken to mean Using binoculars, can you see any hikers? Whereas the second can either mean that, or Can you see any hikers who are using binoculars? ...


1

might there be a negative side to it? Yes, but the emphasis is on might. On its own, given that the context is after all a professional one, "extremely professional" should probably be taken as positive unless other information (whether explicit or just tone of voice) gave a reason to interpret it in the "only professional" manner you mention. Without ...


1

To me, avoiding ambiguity in this case just requires you to use the word causes. For example: Why do you think the sky is blue? What do you think causes the sky to be blue? And Why do you think that life exists on Mars? What causes you to think that life exists on Mars?



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible