Yes, it is grammatically correct, but pretty obtuse. I'm also not sure if respectively can be used to refer to objects that have not yet been listed, but the intent is clear either way. A simpler phrasing might be:
There are two relations listed below. If X is used with reference, use the first relation. If X is used without reference, use the second relation.
The two meanings included in the Oxford English Dictionary for eyewash are:
A wash or lotion for the eye.
colloq. Something that is intended to obscure or conceal actual facts or motives; humbug, blarney; nonsense; something said or done merely for appearance or effect; spec. in Mil. slang = bull n.4 4.
The colloquial sense has written use dating from the 1800s:
1884 C. T. Buckland Sketch Social Life India ii. 45 Most officers of any tact understand the meaning of eye~wash.
The Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase gives some explanation of why eyewash also means to "obscure something", writing:
So this "fulsome adulation" is figuratively putting a wash over someone's eyes. There are no clear references on where this "wash" came from. It could be from the first meaning of eyewash--if you are flattering someone, you are figuratively putting some type of wash in their eyes that prevents them from seeing your true intentions. It could also be from a meaning of "wash" as in a coat of paint (a wash of watercolor), so you are again obscuring someone's vision. I would guess that the slang sense was actually a figurative application of the first sense, however.
Good question. There are two variants for not only but also. First, we use it straight as such, as in this sentence:
I have not only a pet mouse but also a pet dog.
My friend Joe has not only helped me but also given me a lift.
A pet dog does not only bark but also bite.
In these above sentences, the subject was before not only and hence those sentences all have a parallel construction in which either the action or an object are set off with not only-but also construction. Also notice there is no comma separating but also. This is important.
In the second type of construction, the subject of the sentence may come after not only. In such cases, we do not use but also as such. Instead, we slightly change it so that the second part also contains a subject that is relevant. As in these examples:
Not only did my friend Joe help me out, but he also drove me to the university.
Not only does my pet dog bite me, but he also barks at me. ;-)
Not only are there students in the room, but also parents. (here, the parents are there part is not quite required, so you don't have to say but parents are also there because it's implied.)
Why is the second type of usage relevant? Look at those sentences. You see the first part is a dependent clause and the main sentence comes after the comma. Hence, a comma is not only important but also necessary. Because we always set off the dependent clause with a comma, remember!
Hope this helps. I haven't edited my own writing here..
I guess the word by trying to think back in my own mother tongue (Thai). With a bit of help of some dictionaries, I believe this word might be what you're looking for:
confidant
a person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.
Some other words that come close, in my opinion, are acquaintance, intimate, and a common term such as close friend.
The reason that I prefer these terms over Samaritan and neighbourliness is that though they are quite close, they emphasize the sense of helping (each other) out, which might be correct, according to your suggestion. However, considering that the word renqing (人情) hints the sense of human or humane (I'm not very sure on this), and 在 hints the sense of "in", I would like offer the word confidant. (But I might be totally wrong, since I'm guessing Chinese words.)
I am creating an application which has a button which opens the settings pane, but there is just not quite enough space on the screen for the whole word (in a readable font size). Is there a shorter word that means the same? Something like "properties" except, well, shorter. Thanks!
In your reference, you can see that the word "weekdays" can be used either as a Noun (which you normally know) or as an Adverb:
The centre is open on weekdays. (Noun)
The centre is open weekdays. (Adverb)
In the second example, the adverb is describing the verb. So it doesn't need a preposition anymore to connect to the rest of the sentence.
In addition, we sometimes drop "on" before days in spoken English.
For example:
I work out Monday mornings.
See you Friday!
If we need to use different word order in direct and indirect questions (example: Are they planning to marry? / Do you know if they are planning to get married?), why do these embedded questions use the word order of the direct questions?
Which way did the car go? / Could you tell me which way the car went? (Instead of 'Could you tell me which way went the car?')
Why did she quit? / Can you tell me why she quit?
What time did they leave? / Do you happen to know what time they left?
Where does he live? / Can you tell me where he lives?
**I'm assuming code is referring collectively to all the pieces of coding in files SVN and Test case document.
In this sentence:
"Code in SVN and Test case document is updated accordingly."
the code is being updated, which is present in the files SVN and Test case document. Since 'code' is singular, you should use 'is', not 'are'.
We aren't referring to the SVN and TCD while talking about the updating. That is only to do with the code. So we check out the plurality by seeing 'code'.
Even if your sentence were, say:
"The code in all the files has been updated."
Even though 'files' is plural, it is the singular 'code' which is being updated. This is why we use 'has been updated' (which is used for singular) rather than 'have been updated' (which would have been used in case of plural).
Check out this sentence:
"The Java codes in the file are being updated."
Over here, we've used 'are' because the update is happening to the Java codes, which is plural. Even though the word just before 'are' is singular (file).
Yes and no. Yes, when you're talking about multiples of fractions eg. two thirds they are plural. But when you're talking about a portion of a single item, that item is singular.
1).
One third of the pizza was eaten. (part of one pizza was eaten)
Two thirds of the pizza was eaten. (part of one pizza was eaten)
The subject is pizza - singular. If you have one third of a pizza, and I have one third of that same pizza we have two thirds (plural) of one pizza (singular).
Of course this changes when the subject becomes plural:
One third of two pizzas were eaten. (part of two pizzas were eaten)
2).
One third of the visitors were men. (multiple visitors were men)
Two thirds of the visitors were men. (multiple visitors were men)
The subject in this case - men - is plural.
The sentence doesn't make sense if the subject is singular (Two thirds of the visitors were man). I'll just change the meaning slightly so it works:
One third of the man was on fire. - Singular
Two thirds of the man was on fire. - Still singular
Clear as mud.
"Make sure" here is a command means "Be sure" or "Be certain" or in a single word "Ensure".
It does not mean "make yourself sure" but "be certain that". But you can easily replace "Make sure" in your link with "Ensure" and all of it means the same.
Interestingly the origin of ensure is attributed to "make sure".
ensure
late 14c., from Anglo-Fr. enseurer , from en- "make" + O.Fr. seur
"sure," probably infl. by O.Fr. asseurer "assure."
This link offers
Both assure and ensure came into English in the late 1300s, assure
from Old French asseurer, “to reassure, calm, protect, to render
sure,” and ensure from Anglo-French enseurer, “to make sure.”
A little more digging gives the Latin word
assecurare
which means "To make sure or safe"; to assure
from Vulgar Latin
*assecurare, to make sure : Latin ad-, ad- + Latin scrus,
So it has quite an old history in the form "make sure" derived from a single Latin word
They are both correct. They only differ in meaning.
The first one, "Please let us know if we need to do anything about it," means "You paid for the chair; we delivered it. Hopefully there's nothing at all wrong with it, so please don't call us unless you want to buy something else. Even if you really, really want to call us, please, just bite the bullet and don't call us. Desist. Control yourselves."
The second one, "Please let us know if we need to do something about it," means "That chair we delivered to you the other day is missing a leg. We know because you've already called us about it three times. We hope you don't mind. You don't mind, do you? It's just a chair after all. It's not that big a deal. However, if you really insist and keep annoying us with your calls and complaining, and threaten to sue and all, we might actually consider fixing it, or giving you some of your money back. We would still have to charge you for the original delivery, as well as for taking the chair back, so it's probably not even worth it, but, well, if you insist on being a pain in the ass, yeah, we'll swing by your house at 4 p.m. tomorrow or next Tuesday and give you an assessment and an estimate."
So, yeah, the first version is better: it's a lot cleaner, and might save you a whole lot of trouble.
The use you encountered in the novel ("the gig is up") is not idiomatic...which doesn't mean it's wrong...it might be a clever pun, or written by a slightly confused author steeped in etymology. According to The Word Detective, the first written use of the phrase was in a Philadelphia paper in 1800:
At The Word Detective, under the heading "I say, chaps..."
The Word Detective also elaborates on the origins of 'gig':
As you will see, the words 'jig', in the sense of 'a lively dance' rather than the later, extended sense of 'a trick or cheat', and 'gig' are closely related, etymologically.
This is a matter of using a proper name with a style of punctuation. Your first guide should be the usage preferred by the named entity itself. Use whatever Acme Brocade, Decoration, and Costumers, Limited calls itself, whether that be
ABDCL
ABDC, Ltd
ABDC, Ltd.
or other combination of their choosing.
Style guides differ. Oxford Dictionaries says that initialisms like ABDC and NASA don't use periods and neither do abbreviations using the the first and last letter of the word abbreviated. That means
Mr Dr Ltd and US
They do note some American exceptions (e.g, U.S.). The Chicago Manual of Style, however, puts the period after Mr. and Dr.
Chicago recommends dropping an abbreviating period at the end of a sentence and dropping all punctuation except terminal (i.e., sentence ending) punctuation before a closing parenthesis. If the company or your style guide required a period -- Ltd. -- then
XYX signed the contract with ABDC, Ltd.
XYX signed the contract
with ABDC, Ltd. (ABCL).
XYX signed the contract with the company
(ABDC Ltd).
To flag something is to mark it as something. You can flag comments that you find offensive, funny, useful etc.
Interest has it's usual meaning here.
Also, does "interest" mean "people likes" here??? is incorrect English. Should be people's likes
Contributor is used to refer to the person who makes the comments in question. He who contributes those comments.
None is indeed originally from not one or not a/an (since this happened before one and a/an became separate words, c.f. How French uses un/une for both the number one, and the indefinite article).
At the time that this happened though, it could be declined according to gender, number and case. King Alfred's translation of Boëthius' Consolatio Philosophiae (888CE) uses none not just plural but in a plural form.
So, even in very early use, while its origins may have been from not one, it had a meaning not any, and hence could be plural as well as singular.
It's also worth noting at this point, that no is also derived from not one in many senses (where used as a negative response, it has a different origin; no is a merging of two words), and it's use with both singular and plural use is less controversial (though not without differences of opinion as to just when it should be treated which way).
It would seem that the “logical” argument that none must be singular, because not one/not a/not an is singular is mistaking the word’s etymology for the word itself.
Of course, in leaving a defence of none being used in both the singular and the plural at this point, I could be doing the same thing: After all, Old English had different forms, and we do not. Some forms have given us separate words and we now have why as a separate word from what rather than their being the same word with different declensions.
It’s perfectly possible therefore, that by Modern English, none had become singular. However, it had not:
I will converse with iron-witted fools
And unrespective boys: none are for me
That look into me with considerate eyes:
High-reaching Buckingham grows circumspect.—Shakespeare, “Richard III”, Act IV, Scene ii
Before him there were none so beautiful, even from the beginning.—Ecclestiastes 45:15 DV
For the people were numbered, and, behold, there were none of the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead there.—Judges 21:9 KJV
None that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life.—Proverbs 2:19 KJV
None were his friends but courtiers and clergymen, the worst at that time, and most corrupted sort of men; and court ladies, not the best of women; who, when they grow to that insolence as to appear active in state-affairs, are the certain sign of a dissolute, degenerate, and pusillanimous commonwealth.—Milton, “Upon The Earl of Strafford’s Death”
So was this a new strictness introduced in the 18th or 19th centuries, when some of the more notorious “rules” in English were introduced?
Lindley Murray’s English grammar: adapted to the different classes of learners, with an appendix, containing rules and observations for assisting the more advanced students to write with perspicuity and accuracy (1835) argues:
None is used in both numbers: as, “None is so deaf as he that will not hear;” “None of those are equal to these.” It seems originally to have signified, according to its derivation, not one, and therefore to have had no plural; but there is good authority for the use of it in the plural number: as, “None that go unto her return again.” Prov. ii. 19. “Terms of peace were none vouchsaf'd” MILTON. “None of them are varied to express the gender.” “None of them have different endings for the numbers.” Lowth’s Introduction. (Emphasis his).
Interestingly, he cites the “not one” argument for singular-only use, and seems to suspect none was once singular-only for this reason, but is quick to reject it. One example quoted is from the KJV as given above, “Lowth’s Introduction” mentioned above is Archbishop Lowth’s A Short Introduction to English Grammar, so looking at this 19th Century grammarian gives us an 18th Century grammarian for free!
At the same time, it does point to when the edict against plural none may have arisen. We might suspect it came with modern style-guides choices being taken as overall edicts upon the language, but that Murray mentions the “not one” derivation could mean he is taken the effort to debunk advice found anywhere.
Still, with this bringing us close enough to the current age that we can take the very existence of questions like this on websites like this to bring us through to the home stretch, it’s safe to conclude:
If nothing else, the form “Almost none…” would seem to forbid the singular,
rather than the plural:
*Almost none of the apples is edible.
EDIT: I originally titled this "Master of Architecture student" or "Master of Architecture candidate"? My apologies if the question was unclear, I couldn't think of a better title at the time, I hope this title is clearer. I'm not asking the definition of "candidate" vs. "student". Despite being a less common usage, "candidate" is sometimes used to describe students who are working towards a degree.
My question is about achieving the correct formal tone and concision for the context: a business card. A full sentence seems inappropriate in such a context, and I'm hoping to avoid acronyms because they are typically meaningless to those outside the discipline.
I'm looking for the right, concise way to indicate current enrollment in multiple specific master's degree program on a business card. I sometimes see "candidate" used for master's students, but it seems much more common for PhD students. Does "candidate" denote something more specific than "student" in this context?
Furthermore, if one were enrolled simultaneously in two master's programs, would it be appropriate to combine the two into "Master of Architecture and City Planning student" or "Master of Architecture and Master of City Planning student"?
Public works is a common phrase for such things as building new hospitals, and I imagine some bureaucrat could not resist the play on words between this (which historically involved work for local unemployed labourers, though less so nowadays), and a slogan about 'getting Ontario back to work'. As a bonus, it implies that the Ontario administration is working well. Clever, eh? (at least by political standards.)
Yes, it is possible and common. The meaning is as one may expect, to connect/relate some(usually two) concepts, ideas, etc.
Take a look at these examples:
If we attempt to bridge two concepts that are very far apart, more energy will be consumed (and lost) to achieve it.
...and by Doctors Without Borders It may be possible to bridge two ideas which are...
It basically means, "I know I might jinx myself". It reflects the awareness that what I say might be "famous last words". Some have considered it a way of "breaking the fourth wall". Great for describing sports predictions. To "jinx" refers to the power that spoken words have of counteracting the very thing they predict.
How to knock on wood:
Goofus: When the Rangers sweep the Canadiens, I'm going to take a week off work to watch the finals!
Uh oh! Goofus here is taking for granted the fact that the Rangers will sweep the Canadiens! But he is not protected from, either (1) the gods who hate hubris, (2) that life is but a stage, and has a penchant for dramatic irony, or (3) the magical power of spoken predictions to influence the world! He is in danger, in short, of being jinxed!
Gallant: When the Rangers sweep the Canadiens -- knock on wood -- I'm going to take a week off work to watch the finals!
See how, by knocking on wood and aknowledging those mysterious powers above, Gallant has not only insulated himself from those magical forces, but also the embarassing possibility of his freinds later bringing up this statement in his face! Huzzah!
"That" can introduce an explanatory dependent clause. "What" cannot. "That" indicates a specific quality of the object in question, or a subset of a larger set. "What" indicates the object in question itself, or the entire larger set. (e.g. "What was the bird you used to own that was red?")
In your example, "what" is incorrect because it creates a logic problem; it establishes an equivalency between the two clauses. The second clause, however, is not equivalent to the first; it explains the first clause. "What would you like to do?" is a reference to the entire set of all possible things you would like to do. "That others have told you is impossible" specifies the particular characteristic of the subset the questioner wants to identify.
Notice how I can restructure the sentence so that the two clauses become substantively and logically equal, and THEN the word "what" would be correct, thus: "What you would like to do IS what others have told you is impossible." (I emphasize "is" to point out the equivalency.)
