92

I am a native speaker with a careful ear. From my experience, I can tell you that when the millennium turned from 19xx to 20xx, we said "two thousand" plus the remainder throughout the aughts (01, 02, ..., 09). To use the "twenty" construction would have required acknowledging the zero digit: "twenty oh-eight, twenty-oh-nine" or "twenty-aught-seven" etc. ...


81

"Can it" in this instance means "Shut up", stop talking - it has nothing to do with ability. It is very probably a remote reference to canning food to preserve it, the link being that to can something is to close it up tight, to put a lid on it - hence to stop talking, close your mouth.


78

Admittedly, I'm answering a BrE question as an American, but your source is suspect. 9.36 twenty-four minutes to ten This is grammatical, but nobody in their right mind would actually say it. Who's got the time to calculate 60 minus 36 to come up with this version? You'd just say "Nine thirty-six". (If the time is close to a round value, it's ...


73

Still (/stɪl/) and steel (/sti:l/) are distinguishable. The vowel sounds in these two words are different. Steal and Steel (/sti:l/) are homophones and are pronounced exactly the same. However, the words are, in this case, easily identified by grammar. In this sentence, "steal" is a verb and "steel" is a noun. "Steel" as a verb cannot take "steal" (as a ...


59

You seem to understand most of the implications, but the verb you are adding to the front leads to a different meaning than what was intended. Specifically, you expand "2 for 5" as Pay 2 dollars for 5 hamburgers However, the intended meaning of the phrase is Buy 2 hamburgers for 5 dollars When "X for Y" is used to describe a sale or deal that I've ...


59

There is variation in how people use these words and the meanings are shifting. In the past it was rare for an older person to be in an open, romantic relationship with someone, unless they were married. Older people had husbands, wives but not girlfriends or boyfriends. So these words were limited to young people. Now it is more common for people to stay ...


53

There are as many answers to this as there are situations. In informal settings, one might only give their first name. So, if I'm at a bar and I start chatting with someone, I would usually only give my first name... or if I'm being introduced to new people by friends, I'll only give my first name. In formal or business settings, one might give both first ...


47

I think the simplest, yet most idiomatic way to say that in English would be this: Cover her eyes with your hands. Or, as was suggested by brichins down below, the sentence can be made even shorter: Cover her eyes. if it's implied that it is your hands that you're going to use to cover her eyes.


38

I believe that schwa (ə) is something a bit mysterious to many ELLs. The number of questions here, at EL&U, and around the web seems to indicate so. If you are learning English as a second language, and your language has no such concept as schwa, I hope my answer may help you a little. If you look up words in dictionary, soon you will find this "...


37

I'd personally go with this example: Come over to my place, dude. I'll treat you to a delicious pizza. to treat means to give someone something, typically food, either because they've done something good to you or you're simply doing it out of sheer generosity. As for your examples, they sound weird. Come over to my home bro! I will make you eat a ...


35

It's fine as a response to an apology. However you should be careful not to use it if the accident is your fault (even if they apologize first) since, "It's all right," implies that you forgive the other person. Other responses: Think nothing of it. Don't worry about it. It's ok. It's quite all right. Also, there's an Australian ...


35

Context is the key to understanding. If your reader or conversation partner understands you are talking about someone or something with a habit of misappropriating steel, then it is perfectly reasonable to say they still steal steel or steal steel still. If they do not have that context, they you may need to explain it. Most native speakers of English will ...


32

Yes, to "do someone" can mean to impersonate them (wiktionary sense 16). That would be a reasonable interpretation given the context. If this is from Friends (as indicated in a comment), the actual exchange goes: Phoebe ... Yeah, yeah, they even do you! Chandler They do me!? Phoebe Y'know like, ok, um... {imitating Chandler's voice} Could that report ...


28

I will eat you a pizza doesn't make sense. I will make you eat a pizza means I will force you to eat a pizza. This does not suggest that it is a treat. Maybe you were thinking of I will make you a pizza. This means that you will make a pizza for the friend. I want to take a treat from you means that you want to take a thing away from the person. That thing ...


26

I can't speak to its accuracy, particularly since it doesn't even merit inclusion in the overlong Hiberno-English page over at Wiki, but in North American books, shows, and movies it's a standard marker for old-country Irish. Bill Conner, The Preacher: "That's me Pa all right," she said, "the Irish blood takes over and he says the first thing that comes ...


23

There are a few things I would like you to take note of: Read: Don't stop reading. Try reading aloud and attentively. Try to listen to your own reading. The more you read, the more your ears get accustomed to normal English constructs. Write: The more you write, the easier it is for you to remember new words, grammar usage etc. Practice of writing would ...


23

This is a verb based on use of a can, specifically a trash can. can, v.³ 2. trans. a. U.S. slang.... b. can it: used in the imperative to command someone to stop talking, esp. on a particular subject; ‘shut up’, ‘give it a rest’. 1915 G. Bronson-Howard God's Man vii. i. 398 Archie brooded over his wrongs; his shrill voice ...


23

In this particular context your interpretation seems to be correct. Saying that you can "do someone" could mean that you can imitate them. However, the vast majority of time this is a euphemism for sex, specifically having sex with that person (the person you're "doing"). I haven't seen the episode in question, but this double meaning could be adding to ...


22

There's nothing wrong with that construct, and nothing in English forbids it. Of course, if you think it is awkward to read, see, or hear, you could change the wording easily enough: "I," I said, "am not amused." "I am not amused," I said. I said, "I am not amused." I said that I wasn't amused. I think your wording might be effective, though, if ...


22

In the United States it is not very common to lead with your last name when introducing yourself. Mostly, this will happen in situations where what you are is more important than who you are, and will generally drop the first name altogether. A good example of this is a police officer, who will only commonly introduce themselves using their first name in ...


20

I believe the phrase "my treat" covers this, as in: Come over to my place for pizza, my treat. "my treat" was referenced in another stack exchange question here:


20

You wouldn't normally refer to yourself as "this" without using a personal pronoun in the predicate. I usually say, "This is she," but my usage is probably a bit overly correct. Probably, most people say "That's me." (Even though the objective "me" is technically incorrect here.) Regardless, "this is speaking" is neither correct nor natural grammar.


20

I've heard these words (boyfriend/girlfriend) applied to people in their fifties. So yes, they have expanded to cover people of all ages. The 2015 edition of The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage notes, boyfriend, girlfriend. While some traditionalists still view them as informal, these terms are now widely accepted for people of any age. ...


20

In spoken English, you can always state the time as the hour and minutes (aside from the top of the hour), and you would only state minutes if you need to be explicit or if you are deliberately drawing attention to the time for rhetorical effect. Ten eleven, eleven past ten, or eleven after ten (at least in American English) would all be far more common ...


18

Yourn is a dialect form of yours—it has the same -n affix as mine, which shows up in the corresponding dialect forms hisn, hern, ourn. That sorrel of yourn = That sorrel of yours. So Shark is expressing a wish ("I'd a good deal rather") that Bob's sorrel (a chestnut-colored horse) had not "hurt himself"—that is, had not been hurt.


17

You can't easily establish how the year component of C21 dates is spoken by searching online, because hardly anyone would actually write, say, two thousand [and] sixteen or twenty sixteen. Note also that the [and] there is usually omitted by AmE speakers, and no-one includes it unless they explicitly articulated thousand (or nineteen hundred and sixteen for ...


17

It just means that the duration was approximately three seconds long. She is either referring to how long she held down the pillow or to how long he was pretending to be dead, but I can't find the clip online to confirm.


16

The suggestion in the question is fine. You could also point at the people and say, "You first, then you, then you, ..." Any difference is practical, rather than linguistic. It's probably easier for most people to remember "I go after Jane" and then just wait for Jane to go, than it is to remember "I'm number 17" and accurately count the number of people ...


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