Search results for 'tag:Numbers tag:Expressions' matching tags 'Numbers' and 'Expressions'

Re: The stiffness of the sewn cloth depends on the (fusing material)/(reinforcing material) used during stitching.

Avangi — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:21:15 GMT

Good questions. I'm probably too tired to answer them well. I may mix them all together in a salad.

In the physical world, I think of an insert as something designed for easy removal and reinsertion or replacement   -   such as a bushing, which is a very unsophisticated bearing.  Such things are usually intended to impart strength. The bushing's strength would be provided against wear, or abrasion. In my earlier post I was thinking of the reinforcement of a seam as providing tensile strength, or strength against being pulled apart.  In many such cases, stiffness would be an unwanted byproduct.

The addition of a stiffer "reinforcing" fabric in areas where stiffness is desired (as in your coat example with the red markings) would impart a different kind of strength. Let's call it "rigidity." Seams may or may not be involved in these areas. Such added fabric would not be removable, and therefore wouldn't be called "an insert." (I suppose that's arguable. One may insert an extra line into a poem, and just leave it there, but in my experience, an insert may be removed     -     but then, I've never been employed as a seemstress.

The reinforcing, insertable bones in my mother's corset and the collar of my dress shirt could well be described and classified as reinforcement. They may also be described as objects. It's possible to describe them as "material(s)," but that's sort of a grey area.

Padding, on the other hand, is often designed to be removable, but I'd describe it as "form enhancement" rather than "reinforcement," in agreement with what you said above.

Regarding my parenthetical addition of "in time," it was an afterthought. "To go way back" is something of a fixed expression. Two old friends may say, "We go way back," suggesting that their friendship dates from an earlier era. I thought you might be unfamiliar with the expression, and since I was speaking of insertables, I was afraid you might think I meant they went way (deep) back into the collar    -    back in space, not back in time. It was parenthetical by way of clarifying the expression.

Regarding my apostrophe in "the 30's," I prefer to use it when the number is not written out as a "word." Don't you think he makes his 7's funny? It's not a possessive, just a plural.

"These were removable (my mother's girdle bones) as are the shirt collar ones" equals "as are the ones in the shirt collar(s)." I guess I'm using "shirt collar" as a compound adjective. Is that permissible? I believe your suggested substitution presents a "parallel structure" problem. Yes, my mother's girdle was removable, thank God, but I was speaking of the bones ("these").

Cheers, - A.

Re: "have + to" versus "have + object + to + V"

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:00:02 GMT

MrPedantic

Anonymous
You mean you remembered that single occurence of "have to" without knowing which letter it came from?

I found; I transcribed; I departed.

Anonymous

Are obligative "must" and "have to" now on an equal footing in standard British English? Is "must" as common as "have to" when expressing subjective modality?

The question embodies a number of doubtful assumptions: that "subjective modality" is a phrase with any meaning; that the relationship between "must" and "have to" is of the kind that lends itself to an "equal footing", or a comparison in terms of common-ness; that their relationship "now" is somehow necessarily different from e.g. 20 years ago.

MrP

I see. So your underlying message is:

1. I don't accept the category "subjective modality".
2. The expression "equal footing" has no function or meaning in discussions on usage.
3. "Have to" in examples such as "I've had a wonderful evening. I have to see you again" is not recent in British English and is probably not an import or language used by young people.

Tell me, do you accept the terms "epistemic" and "deontic" (and dynamic) when used in reference to modality?

Words and coment. Tell me!

ayumiyoshi1314 — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:18:55 GMT

I did this for my teacher and she liked so I wondered how YOU would like it.

These are my words,

Beleaguered

To harass; beset

I am beleaguered by the problems in my life.

Irony

1 a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning âcalled also Socratic irony

2 a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c: an ironic expression or utterance

With a sense of irony I propose the word screeched.

nth

1. Relating to an unspecified ordinal number: ten to the nth power.

2. Highest; utmost

I am delighted to the nth degree because you came to my dinner party.

Organic compound

In physics, a material that contains carbon and hydrogen and usually other elements such as nitrogen, sulfur and oxygen. Organic compounds can be found in nature or they can be synthesized in the laboratory. An organic substance is not the same as a "natural" substance. A natural material means that it is essentially the same as it was found in nature, but "organic" means that it is carbon based.

This âylâ set occurs frequently and more or less each part in between them is the name of a independent group of an organic compound.

Postdoctoral

after doctorate: relating to academic work or research done after a doctorate has been awarded

I did some postdoctoral academic work yesterday.

Please tell me how you like it!

Yes" src="http://www.englishforums.com/emoticons/emotion-21.gif">Yes? No? Tell me!!

Re: import vs. imported

Avangi — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:26:04 GMT

I'm trying to remember how I went astray here. I'll just blame it on the Oops, which was going through a period of hyperactivity about then.

The sound of "import food(s)" bothered me from the beginning, but I knew I'd heard it a lot, and it seems like a good candidate for a compound noun. I should have pursued that issue first. There are many internet references to "import food safety," "government import food regulation number 1234 etc.," "Mrs. So-&-So's Import Food Mart," etc.

How do we know when these expressions rise to the level of legitimate compound nouns?

Anyway, I finally decided it was all a mistake. It looks like I copied from A.Stars, but I didn't see her post til afterward because of the Oops activity. How embarrassing! Sorry.

Re: out of

CalifJim — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:59:50 GMT

Yes. out of is commonly used for talking about the location of a business. Verbs like operate and run are the most usual.

George runs a business out of his garage.

I would like to know how to run a business out of my home.

Operating out of an office in the suburbs, the organization runs various youth clubs and sports activities.

In 1903 the Buick Motor Company moved to Flint to operate out of a new factory.

Note also the emphasis is on the location as a hub of activity, making the expression appropriate for transportation systems.

Diesel railcars operate various trips out of Kingsville every Sunday.

Fly-with-Us Airlines will operate out of Johnston Air Force Base.

The pirates operate out of a limited number of ports.

Can American fall asleep at university graduation ceremonies?

copysnake — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:26:59 GMT

Over the past century, all kinds of unfairness and discrimination have been condemned or made illegal. But one insidious form continues to thrive: alphabetism. This, for those as yet unaware of such a disadvantage, refers to discrimination against those whose surnames begin with a letter in the lower half of the alphabet.

ããIt has long been known that a taxi firm called AA cars has a big advantage over Zodiac cars when customers thumb through their phone directories. Less well known is the advantage that Adam Abbott has in life over ZoÃ« Zysman. English names are fairly evenly spread between the halves of the alphabet. Yet a suspiciously large number of top people have surnames beginning with letters between A and K.

ããThus the American president and vice-president have surnames starting with B and C respectively; and 26 of George Bush's predecessors (including his father) had surnames in the first half of the alphabet against just 16 in the second half. Even more striking, six of the seven heads of government of the G7 rich countries are alphabetically advantaged (Berlusconi, Blair, Bush, Chirac, ChrÃ©tien and Koizumi). The world's three top central bankers (Greenspan,Duisenberg and Hayami) are all close to the top of the alphabet, even if one of them really uses Japanese characters. As are the world's five richest men (Gates, Buffett, Allen, Ellison and Albrecht).
ããCan this merely be coincidence? One theory, dreamt up in all the spare time enjoyed by the alphabetically disadvantaged, is that the rot sets in early. At the start of the first year in infant school, teachers seat pupils alphabetically from the front, to make it easier to remember their names. So short-sighted Zysman junior gets stuck in the back row, and is rarely asked the improving questions posed by those insensitive teachers. At the time the alphabetically disadvantaged may think they have had a lucky escape. Yet the result may be worse qualifications, because they get less individual attention, as well as less confidence in speaking publicly.

The humiliation continues. At university graduation ceremonies, the ABCs proudly get their awards first; by the time they reach the Zysmans most people are literally having a ZZZ. Shortlists for job interviews, election ballot papers, lists of conference speakers and attendees: all tend to be drawn up alphabetically, and their recipients lose interest as they plough through them.

49. What does the author mean by "most people are literally having a ZZZ" (line 2, paragraph 5)?
ãã They are getting impatient.
ãã They are noisily dozing off.
ãã They are feeling humiliated.
ãã They are busy with word puzzles.

which one is the best answer?Â The answer reference is B

what do you think ? Can American fall asleep at university graduation ceremonies? what "literally" means here? why not A ?

Â "as" is a conjunction or a adv. in theÂ sentence âAs are the world's five richest menâ

Thank you very much for reply!

Re: IS this change for the better, or for the worst?

Cool Breeze — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:03:50 GMT

RayH

Cool Breeze
is there a word meaning "liberal" that isn't pejorative in American English?

Only a bunch of euphemisms that mean the same thing and try to hide the underlying philosophy, which is what the word "liberal" itself was intended to do when the left first started using it. The most common euphemisms being "progressive", "moderate", and "centrist."

It's the underlying philosophy that's the problem, not the word used to describe it. Just to be sure we're all on the same page that philosophy is socialism. I know that in most of Western Europe and much of the rest of the world socialism is considered a fine and wonderful thing and that it goes by many names, some of which you have mentioned in your post.

"Greenness" is nothing more than a cover for socialism, as is environmentalism, the anthropocentric (human caused) global warming movement, the animal rights movement, the militant vegetarian movement, radical feminism, the list goes on.

"Liberal" people seem to aspire for very different things in the USA and Finland. Our liberals hate socialism, of which The Soviet Union was a prime example. People had no freedoms in the Socialist countries and the Communist Party was the only one allowed. Our Liberals advocate all kinds of freedoms. They understand the word very differently from you, very much along these lines:

libÂ·erÂ·al, adj.
1.    favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.    (often cap.) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.    of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4.    favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.    favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6.    of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7.    free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.    open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9.    characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10.    given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11.    not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12.    of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13.    of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
ân.
14.    a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15.    (often cap.) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
âSyn. 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.
âAnt. 1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.
(Webster's Unabridged Dictionary)

I'll give you an example. In the 1960s alcoholic beverages could usually not be served outdoors in Finland. People had been making trips to Spain and Greece since the fifties and seen the local people (socialists?) enjoy their beer in outdoor bars. The liberal people were in favor of changing Finnish legislation, which eventually happened. I never met anyone who considered a drink outdoors socialism.

Another example is passport-free Scandinavia. Liberal politicians wanted to get rid of passports in Scandinavian travel in the early fifties, but many conservatives were against the idea in all Scandinavian countries. Scandinavia did become a passport-free zone in 1954, I think. Nobody here would associate this with socialism, quite the reverse! In the socialist countries people were not allowed to travel anywhere on their own, only in small groups monitored by the state.

The Greens in Finland don't want to socialize the country; they want to improve recycling and use non-polluting energy sources like solar power. If solar power is socialism, there is a lot of it in Nevada.

Of course there are people who regard socialism a good system in Finland too. At the moment they constitute about 9 percent of the electorate. As long as they don't advocate violent means to change the social system, they can pursue their chosen interest. A system that does not allow opposition to exist is undemocratic.

I never thought of this before but I assume that the reason our Liberal Party ran out of support and adherents is that such a vast majority of the people began to consider nearly all the other parties liberal enough.

I have dwelt on Finnish affairs long enough. I'll just briefly say that after George W. Bush spoiled the reputation of the USA and caused immeasurable pain and suffering to people in Iraq, no new president can possibly do worse in foreign policy. The western world's road to economic recovery is long and little can be attained in a year or two. The dollar has already strengthened a little, which is good for Americans taking holidays abroad. It is also good for non-American companies exporting goods to the USA. Tourism to the USA may suffer a little, but as entering the country is so complicated nowadays, America isn't the number one choice for as many people as it used to be anyway. No passport is needed for travel in much of Europe.

Re: After screwing up everything, you come and say ''sorry''.

Jackson6612 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:36:40 GMT

Yankee
Hi Jackson

I would suggest an alternative for "The word made up of five letters":

"That five-letter word"

Hi Amy,

Why isn't plural used? Singular expressions such as letter and hour don't go well along numbers which stand for more than one thing such as two, three, etc.

Example:
After a five-hour operation, Wendy is coming along just fine.

Re: I will be damned

Avangi — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 06:26:40 GMT

It has a couple of meanings:

Well I'll be damned! The Red Sox lost the pennant. It's just an expression of extreme disbelief, and/or disappointment. Wow! I just can't believe it! When used in a negative way, the expression could be replaced by any one of a number of obscene four-letter expletives. (But you don't look like a girl who would say such things.)

You can say the exact opposite: Well I'll be blessed! The Red Sox won the pennant. Again, you're expressing extreme disbelief, but in this second case you're pleased with the outcome. In the first case, you're displeased with the outcome.

But it's also quite common to say "damned" when you're pleased with the outcome: Well I'll be damned! I just found out I won the Lotto!

"Damned" means "cursed." "Blessed" means "blessed."

You can use the expression to voice opposition, or determination not to do something:

An angry father - I'll be damned if you're going out with that guy! I'll be damned if I'll let you go out with that guy. It sort of implies that you'd rather go to Hell than to let something happen or to do something. BUT, if that were exactly true, you'd say, "I'd be damned before I'd let you go out with him," OR "I'd sooner be damned than [to] let you go out with him," and we don't usually say it that way. But then again, sometimes we do.

Strictly speaking, "I will be damned" means "I will be sent to Hell."

Re: grammar error

Avangi — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:44:47 GMT

Hi,

1. You could use a relative clause, "which makes workers feel undervalued," but to my ear the participial phrase is a bit smoother. Can you explain your objection to it?

2. "Who" is about to become the subject of a relative clause. It's interrupted by a parenthetical expression. When you come back to complete the "who" clause, you need to say what "who" does. "People who speak" makes sense. "People who the languages at home" makes no sense. "The languages at home range etc." is an independent clause. It has no use for the "who" which was left dangling before the parenthetical expression, "although their common language is English."

3. There's a limit to how much the second clause can make up for information missing in the first clause. Because the first clause is in the passive, there's simply nothing to connect it to the second one. (I'm speaking here of the original version.) The age of eighty-two may have been attained by his parrot.
Of course, "same" is not an option here, as it was in number two. I would choose A because it includes the word "he", making the connection clear - a reason you reject.
So why do I reject B ? Mainly because the word "for" makes it nonsensical. "Reaching for an age" is not idiomatic. Without the "for," it would be as good as A, the phrase clearly modifying "author."

Best wishes, - A.