+0
The last mammoths that existed were the woolly mammoths, with larger species still alive around 6,000 BC and a smaller species existing as late as 2,000 BC.

Hi,
Is "woolly" in the above equal to "hairy?"
Besides, is "species" interchangeable with "speciesmen?" Thanks.
1 2
Comments  
.
Is "woolly" in the above equal to "hairy?"-- No, the name of the group is '[url=http://explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa032400a.htm] woolly mammoths[/url]'

Besides, is "species" interchangeable with "speciesmen?"-- I suppose you mean 'specimen'. No. A specimen is an individual; a species is a group of very similar individuals.
.
.
Mister Micawber.
Is "woolly" in the above equal to "hairy?"-- No, the name of the group is 'woolly mammoths'

Besides, is "species" interchangeable with "speciesmen?"-- I suppose you mean 'specimen'. No. A specimen is an individual; a species is a group of very similar individuals.
.
.

Thanks, Mister.

To make sure, doesn't "woolly" equal "hairy" at all? They are the same in our language, so could you tell the basic differences between them? Thanks.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
.
Did you look at the link?
.
Mister Micawber.
Did you look at the link?
.

Yes, Mister.

I did know what a woolly mammoth look like. My problem is on the two words, woolly and hairy, because we use the same expression to refer to the two words in our language. But apparently, they are different to you, so I'd like to know the basic distinction between them.
.
Here, woolly mammoth is the accepted name of the beast, so no discussion of textures is necessary.
.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Mister Micawber.
Here, woolly mammoth is the accepted name of the beast, so no discussion of textures is necessary.
.

Hi, Mister.
You misunderstood my further question: do "hairy" and "woolly" amount to each other in meaning to you? For example, there are many hairy/woolly animals on this planet. Do hairy and woolly both fit in the example and convey a similar idea to you?
No, I'm afraid you misunderstand.

The NAME of the animal is "woolly mammoth." It does not DESCRIBE the mammoth. It's part of it's name. If there were a bird called the "crimson-throated bandersnatch" you cannot say "Can I call it the 'red-throated bandersnatch'?" If there were a lizard called the "Verdant-capped gila" you cannot ask if it can be called the "green-headed gila." Once it has a name, it has a name.
Grammar GeekNo, I'm afraid you misunderstand.

The NAME of the animal is "woolly mammoth." It does not DESCRIBE the mammoth. It's part of it's name. If there were a bird called the "crimson-throated bandersnatch" you cannot say "Can I call it the 'red-throated bandersnatch'?" If there were a lizard called the "Verdant-capped gila" you cannot ask if it can be called the "green-headed gila." Once it has a name, it has a name.

Thanks, GG.

I did know the fixed NAME, but my further question is whether woolly and hairy in other conditions coney a similar concept to you?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more