New answers tagged

0

There's no obvious difference in intent at all to me in the two examples you quoted ("hand" and "pass"). I suspect the perceived formality may vary depending on the listener's precise social background, but to me I can't tell any difference in formality between hand and pass. They do both mean give, and they are both more polite than &...


1

Both can technically be used interchangeably (also, you'll likely see "stumbled upon" instead of "stumbled on"). However, "came across" is presented as a somewhat more refined way of speaking as opposed to "stumbled upon". Both imply that the finding of the word was unintentional, but in proper writing "came ...


3

I would suggest first looking this up in any dictionary. You'll most often get no results——that is, 0 results found in your search. As shown here. You can also use WordReference to show you conjugated forms. According to usage examples in the OED, glowed is the past participle of glow. Glown is indicated as a form, but a rare form, and not cited in any of ...


0

I’m trying to bring it on with the fact that expecting a perfect job is unrealistic. bring it on - used for saying that you are confident and excited about facing a challenge or contest Source of meaning I am very confident that you aren't 'that' happy or excited about the fact that you didn't get the perfect job. I’m trying to get the news with the fact ...


0

Grammatically its correct. I don't know if it what you mean to ask, since I don't know which extinction you are talking about. I don't know why you've used a capital "E", that might be a mistake, or not. It might be that you wanted to ask about an extinction in the past, or the future, in which it is wrong because you haven't correctly communicated....


1

In your example "would" is only correct as a conditional (following a subjunctive). For example: Q: If you were to win the competition, would you be using these spices? A: If we were to win, we would be using these spices from next time onwards. So, yes it does refer to the future but the conditional future.


1

War is not a verb in that context. It's an abstract noun. "War" can be used as a verb meaning to engage in conflict, but not here. In this context, the verb use would be "If they war…". Is that clearly different? Even in "… to make war”, "war" would be a noun. Prove that by comparison to "make words/shoes/ships/sealing-...


5

It could be parsed either way, but it looks verbal to me. "War" does have use as a verb, meaning "to start or engage in conflict" It is somewhat elevated language as a verb, but she is speaking as a queen and dragon-woman.


0

The rule is: want takes a "to"-infinitive clause; can takes a bare infinitive (clause). These are properties of those particular words, as arbitrary as their pronunciation and meaning: they simply have to be learnt along with those other arbitrary properties. It might help to note that can is a modal, (like could, will, would, should, may, might, ...


2

These phrases are very similar. Often, more than one will be appropriate. I will try to explain the differences. A. Dry - The most simple. Something wet becomes more or completely dry. B. Dry out - Something that you is wet throughout(e.g. the tip of a marker pen or clothes that have soaked up water) has become completely or almost completely dry. C. Dry off ...


1

The rock crushed the driver flat. That one works. "Crushed dead" doesn't works so well; one would say The rock crushed the driver to death.


2

Your answer The violence on TV shows is bad for childrens. is almost correct but note that children is already plural so the s is not needed The violence on TV shows is bad for children. is the way to go. As you state the subject is violence which is singular.


0

There is no as such stark difference in the context that you are looking for. Draw and attract in this case are synonymous. However, both of them are not idiomatic in this case. So the word 'attract' is very less relevant to be used in such causes. Hence I would say, Tim completely lost his cool and started yelling at the waitress, drawing everyone's ...


1

I helped (to) test prototypes. I helped in testing prototypes. Both the above sentences indicate that you are involved in the process of helping someone to test the prototypes created. As said by Colin in their answer, help usually goes in its infinitive form. However, if you want to use gerund form in your sentence, you may consider using the preposition ...


0

Help in that sense normally takes an infinitive clause, with or without "to", so I helped [to] test prototypes. It does not normally take an "-ing" clause, so your second choice, though understandable, is not idiomatic. There is a different meaning of help, usually in the negative can't/couldn't help which does take an "-ing" ...


1

They are all grammatical, and vary in naturalness, but there are two different meanings. To look at somebody or something means literally to turn your eyes so that you are seeing that person or thing. To look to somebody or something means to expect or ask for help or some other kind of contribution. To me it seems a rather literary expression, but it may be ...


1

What is the meaning of your sentences? The verb look can function as a phrasal verb so the meaning is changed depending on the preposition. look at someone​/​something means to direct your eyes towards someone or something so that you can see them. People looked at her in astonishment. look to sb to do sth (phrasal verb) to hope that someone will do ...


2

Kate has the word in her comment: "Relish" meaning "to enjoy the taste of something" (and figuratively "to enjoy doing something") It doesn't explictly mean "... and so made others hungry", but you can easily add that to your sentence. She relished her meal, and everyone's stomachs began to rumble. Also as a noun (...


2

The verb appetise is defined by the full OED as To give (a person) appetite, to cause relish for food. It's flagged up by them as "rare", which in practice means it's never used (except as the adjectival derived form appetising). Assuming I've understood OP's intended meaning, his example could be idiomatically rephrased as... He ate so eagerly ...


1

All fine. It doesn't matter much which one you choose. "Bumped" sounds like it is fairly harmless, use this for a sensitive child who may be upset by car crashes. "Crashed" sounds dramatic. Use this for a child who would be bored by mild play and wants something more exciting. Of course, if the child doesn't speak English, then it matters ...


0

There are a few things wrong with both your examples, but the short answer is yes - you can sometimes omit the verb "do" from a correctly worded sentence. Firstly, the correct expression is "I do believe" (not "Do I believe" - that would be a question). It is a slightly formal way of saying "I understand that...". &...


4

The word “expound” would be appropriate for conveying the idea that someone is speaking in great detail: expound present and explain (a theory or idea) in detail.


0

All the sentences are set in the past and the actions (to follow, to step, to start) have already ended, this is why you use the past participle. You would use the "ing" form in the past continuous: for something which happended before and after another action for something that happend before and after a specific time to show that something ...


2

Wikipedia about be: "The English copular verb be has eight forms (more than any other English verb): be, am, is, are, being, was, were, been." If this is be, then what is to be? In many languages, including English, the infinitive serves as the citation form of the verb, which is how the verb as a whole (encompassing all its forms) is referred to ...


0

I need you to be here, right now. This sentence expresses that the person (I) is expecting the person (you) to be present right then and there, in front of them. I need you here, right now. This sentence is suggesting the fact that the person (I) is commanding or asking the person (you) to go there immediately. This sentence is more often used in one's ...


0

The "hairs on the back of a horse's neck" are called its mane. Looking for "mane VERB" in the iWeb corpus, the only word that comes up with this meaning is mane flowing.


0

In the sense of this sentence engaged implies it is an ongoing conflict that has been happening for some time. It can also be used in past tense. Whilst engaging implies there is a sudden outbreak of conflict. Consider these two example sentences: During the war, we engaged with the enemy forces near the river for 3 days straight. and: "We have heard ...


2

There is no need for a determiner in this example: Mangroves live life on the edge. You could use the possessive determiner their and say they "live their life on the edge", but there is no doubt that one can only live their own life, so although it would be grammatically correct, it would be no more idiomatic and somewhat redundant. Consider as ...


3

Big up (tr, adverb) slang to make important, prominent, or famous. we'll do our best to big you up Collins Dictionary So: the first [mistake] is to do Russia’s job for them by bigging it up means "the first mistake is to do Russia's job for them by giving it greater prominence or by drawing attention to it". ("Them" here refers back to ...


3

This is not an example of a phrasal verb "trap to". Instead, this is a usage of the verb trap in its intransitive sense: 1: to engage in trapping animals (as for furs) In this case, the context tells us that the animals the speaker is trapping (i.e., capturing) are kit foxes. The phrase beginning with "to put on ear tags..." is an ...


Top 50 recent answers are included