New answers tagged

2

It is acceptable and quite common to add a count like this. But it doesn't mean that they are equal. So if you write "The three most popular drinks are tea, coffee and water." It doesn't mean that they are equally popular, but it doesn't necessarily tell you which is first, second or third. Though it is natural to order the list if that is ...


3

Yes, you are right. Leave out might mean you did it intentionally. Miss out (which, as gotube points out and Lexico confirms, is not used in the US) sounds the most accidental. This may be because the word miss on its own is so often associated with failure. leave out: Fail to include someone or something. miss out: [British] Fail to include someone or ...


2

These are more or less idiomatic ways to express that: But when it comes to the question of who is invited, they... (note the addition of the word of) But when it comes to who is invited, they... (version without question of) But, as to who is invited, they... (a more compact expression with the same meaning) I've changed "are" to "is&...


3

"Hilda has been tormented by girls" would be more usual. Bedeviled is rarer and it tends to be more abstract or metaphorical. Looking at the examples from Merriam-Webster, one they give is a common usage "bedevilled by problems"; they also quote "The theory bedevils scientists, none of whom have been able to prove it true or false.&...


1

I think your intuition is correct—I would not say "I am holding a party" when the party is actively going on. I would say "I'm hosting a party" or "There is a party happening at my house." In both cases I would probably also add "right now" or "at the moment" at the end of each sentence to make it very clear.


0

According to a previous question here, holding a party doesn't necessarily mean just organizing the party in the sense of placing chairs and putting decoration. And, going by the dictionary, hold can mean "cause to happen" rather than merely "organize". So you "holding a party" means "causing a party to happen" - that ...


0

You're right that particular wording would generally come before the actual party. However, you could say that during the party itself if, for example, you get a phone call from someone you'd normally talk to but because of the party you don't really have time for it right that moment (although there are plenty of more normal ways of saying it).


0

You are currently not supersonic but I want to make you that way. This is from Queen's lyrics and the true meaning is that the singer wants to make you more that you currently are. He is full of life and wants you to be the same.


2

Just to add as an interesting point, as a native Australian English speaker, I would have said that it's negative. We use the phrase here almost exclusively in the sarcastic sense. I don't watch much American TV, and I was surprised to hear a person (American) running a follow-along style video tutorial use the phrase as encouragement for the viewers. That's ...


0

The only time you use the before a comparative (xxxxx-er) is when you are referring to the xxxx-er of two options. For example, it there were two tables, you could say The tall people can sit at the higher table. It would be perfectly acceptable to say: ...when the character count is high It might also be reasonable to say: ...when the character count ...


1

I think what you are trying to say If the ball lands on a dotted line, place a brick on the dot; if the ball lands between two dotted lines, place a brick on the dot in the line farther from the boy. Conciseness may be a virtue, but comprehensibility is a greater one. If you have different instructions for different circumstances, explain each circumstance ...


3

All three of, "I bought it at/in/from the drugstore" are correct if you went inside the building. If you stayed outside, like the top picture above, then only "I bought it at/from the drugstore" are correct. Generally, the difference between "in" and "at" is "in" requires the action to happen inside the ...


1

Its used generally to mean something like, This is my good faith quick impression or answer without having yet considered it in depth or checked other information. If I looked into it more deeply, thought about it more thoroughly, or looked elsewhere for information, I might revise that answer. But without any of those, and without taking undue time, this ...


0

I'm surprised that none of the answers so far give the source of this phrase: the poem Matilda, which is a precautionary tale for children, warning against lying, dating from the early part of the twentieth century when such tales were in vogue . Since it is still under copyright I shan't reproduce it in full here, but it can be found online. Matilda is ...


0

Almost. Like the other commenters said, the correct way to write it would be: "...is not comparable to that in rich countries". You're replacing "the situation" with "that". A good way to see if it's correct is to try to reverse it: "...is not comparable to that of rich countries" "...is not comparable to the ...


1

Both “big liar” and “little liar” are describing the person and not what they said. Some good examples are the book titles My Brother is a Big Fat Liar and God is a Big Fat Liar, which are humorous books about a child getting angry at someone. Pretty Little Liars is a book that is literally about attractive teenage girls who’ve told serious lies, whom we’re ...


3

As with much in the English language, it's entirely dependent on context and tone. I would say they are different but not actually in the difference between the definitions of 'little' and 'big'. Best illustrated with a few examples. If my daughter said "Daddy, the mice ate all the chocolate biscuits again" with a naughty grin on her face, I might ...


1

Yes, it's legitimate to say, "He's two grades senior to me." It's not idiomatic English though, and sounds old-fashioned. "He's two grades my senior" is more idiomatic, but still old-fashioned. Natural English of today would be "He's two grades ahead of me" or "He's two grades above me." For the reverse situation, ...


1

"You little liar" and "you big liar" are diminutives and/or familiars. They are also an example of the simplified usage that is typically reserved for children, akin to "baby-talk". While the meaning intended can somewhat echo the definitions for "little" and "big", the real point is to diminish, insult, or ...


7

"You little liar" is in common usage. It is a compound insult, both calling the person little (e.g. petty) and also calling them a liar. "You big liar" is not in common usage. It wouldn't be paired like that, because "big" is not such an insult. "Big liar" is common; such as "Jim is a big liar". But it ...


2

Said in anger at someone who has seriously deceived you, "You little liar!" is not at all childish. It calls them a liar, but also shows contempt for them by the use of "little", which here can mean "petty" or "insignificant". I would say "You big liar" is more likely to be used playfully towards children, or ...


0

It's a friendly riposte to someone who speaks a probable untruth. It's not meant to be an insult.


50

The word "little" here is native colloquial English, in the UK at least, but this specific example is likely to be of, to, and between children, or in a child-like manner. The little here, is to emphasise the offense perceived, and diminish the person it is addressed to. Similar phrases you might hear in arguments between adults - "You little ...


2

When do we say "You little liar" and "You big liar"? Neither of these sounds to me like idiomatic English, although it could depend on the context. "Little" and "big" in these sentences modify "liar." They don't describe the lies. They describe the person telling the lies. "You big liar" sounds to ...


1

"Little liar " applies the "little" to the person telling the lie. Usually a child or person of much reduced social status to the recipient. "Big liar" applies the "big" to the nature of the lie. The lie is an exaggeration, or an outrageous claim. Neither of these are hard rules, just the most common usage. For example,...


5

"Little" or "big" in that sentence applies to the "You" word in the sentence (the person you're addressing), not the "Lie" word in the sentence.


5

If these phrases are used between adults, it would be pretty likely that the adults are being playful or teasing. Adding "little" or "big" changes the tone from something more harsh as in saying "you liar," which I mostly hear only rarely and as more of a serious accusation.


10

It certainly depends on the context. To my ears both "little liar" and "big liar" sound colloquial and familiar, things you'd say lovingly to your kids. Not seriously to someone who's betrayed your trust. For that you'd use other adjectives like "dirty", "ugly" or even the f word. Maybe even without an adjective is ...


2

According to several sources it can perfectly be used for personal things - all definitions I've found never mention what the thing on your head has to be about. Also, for what it's worth, it's totally understandable.


22

These would need to be understood in context. "You little liar" sounds like something you might say to a child who lies, or someone who is childish. "You big liar" sounds like something you might say to someone who tells "big" lies. Both sound colloquial and childish. It is extremely rare for adults to tell adults that they are ...


0

I would say "100% correct" means "indisputably correct". Ironically, I think the phrase "100% correct" is itself 100% correct. I am speaking rhetorically. Of course, there is nothing to stop anyone disputing my interpretation. Richard Mullins


0

I would say "100% correct" means "indisputably correct". Ironically, I think the phrase "100% correct" is itself 100% correct. Richard Mullins


1

(for) long is preferred for statements in the negative: I will be busy for a long time - positive I won't be busy for long - negative (for) long is preferred for questions: Have you known him long? - question I have known him for a long time. - statement


0

I would say "perfectly correct" or "exactly correct." Using "100%" is weird because it's not something that can be quantitatively measured (or even defined).


1

The sentence It is the 100% correct pronunciation of 'mischievous' you just heard in the video is grammatical, but it is ambiguous, and it is unidiomatic. It is grammatical because it agrees with the rules of how English noun phrases can be constructed. The pattern of the 100% correct pronunciation of 'mischievous' can be analysed as DETERMINER + ADJECTIVE ...


0

The expressions "better off" and "better served" are natural and grammatically correct, and they mean the same thing. However, "better served" is quite formal, which clashes in style with the very rude, "I hope you get fired", so these two wouldn't normally appear together, except maybe coming from a condescending ...


1

Echoing others' answers: whether or not it is "correct" by some standard, it would sound completely fine in an informal setting, and might sound a bit silly in a more formal setting. That is, as others have already noted, the assertion cannot be literally true, because that alleged literal true statement does not admit precise parsing. But in ...


3

In a friendly situation, "100%" is often used in place of "completely" or "absolutely" or "perfect". For example, calling a hamburger "100% delicious". It's a funny metaphor suggesting that a deliciousness-meter would bang the needle at the far side. People might even say "110% delicious". But in a ...


0

If I had to refer to those specifically, I would call them tines. 1 : a slender pointed projecting part : prong as in "Look, my hairclip has a broken tine." This word does seem to be in actual usage, for example in US Patent US7066185B2: The legs each have a tine base and a number of curved tines...


20

Understandable? Yes. Almost all English natives would understand your intended meaning. Correct? I'd say so. Some might argue that it should be an adverb like "fully", but if it's correct to say that something is 100% correct, I don't know why it wouldn't be correct to use that as an identifier. Proper? Not really. There's nothing "wrong&...


10

‘100% correct’ is grammatically correct in this context, though the organization of the sentence is a bit atypical for many more formal dialects of English and may be difficult for some people to understand without having to think a bit (I would instead restructure things as suggested at the end of Astralbee’s answer as that resolves both issues). However, ...


1

I hope you are asking for the sake of writing a novel, not for real! "Better off" or "better served" are both possible. "Better served" is rather formal, and could be used in a formal expression such as "The company would be better served by you leaving your employment". We tend to say "would be better served by ....


1

Your example is a little more difficult because of the final "s" sound in "Jones", so let's try with "Potter" instead. It is possible to use "The Potters" in context to refer to the family with that name. It is only possible when there is a clear context. Most often when talking about a relation. So my Dad might say ...


1

Sure, "teeth", "claws", "prongs", "grippy bits"... There's No well-established term that I am aware of, though there may be one used by hairgrip designers and manufacturers. It is just not something that comes up in everyday conversations very often. Oh look one of the grippy bits has broken off my pink hairgrip. ...


23

Some English speakers feel that '100 per cent' is overused as an expression, especially in connection with things that cannot be measured. For example, you couldn't say a pronunciation was '87% correct' - how could that even be measured? But in colloquial speech, '100%' is often used to mean 'completely', and '99%' (or sometimes '99.99%') to mean 'almost'. ...


2

Idiomatic expressions would be: Burst into laughter or burst out laughing "Burst into laughs" is not idiomatic. Don't be surprised when native speakers mix up their idioms. That video doesn't seem like a professional production, anyway - I skipped through it and heard at least two other mistakes.


1

"Thrust" is a verb often associated with both sword and knife combat"poke" not so much. Another such word is "stab" (though generally much more with knives than swords). However, I would usually expect an attack against a dragon's wing to be some kind of slash (that is an arcing movement). I suppose if your hero is on top of the ...


0

The first is incorrect -- see @gotube's excellent comment for details. The other two are (again, as @gotube commented) fine, but have slightly different nuances. The first could be leaving it open that the person from whom we're expecting to hear might not contact us. It might even be used as a euphemism, and is actually a demand, or plea that they do ...


4

"Bear with me" does tend to have a split timeframe. It usually holds meanings of "just a moment" or "forever." But less often in the middle. Common: "Bear with me for a few minutes." "I know our marriage is hard because of my job, but please bear with me, I'm doing my best." Less common: "Bear with me ...


2

This is more a matter of connotation than definition. A talk (or sometimes "presentation") is usually more casual, with more chances of audience interaction, and often focused on transmitting technical information to the audience. A speech (or "address") is generally a more formal event that conveys the speaker's intentions or desires ...


Top 50 recent answers are included