The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: FounDit
About
User Name: FounDit
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests: Psychology, philosophy, thought-provoking discussions
Gender: Male
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, September 19, 2011
Last Visit: Friday, February 15, 2019 12:18:09 PM
Number of Posts: 10,299
[1.12% of all post / 3.80 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Hello to Everyone
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2019 11:58:33 AM
a2zbuzzer wrote:
Hello


Hi. Welcome to the forum. It's a bit unusual for someone to pull up a nearly four-year-old thread just to say "Hello", but that's okay.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: fog, mist, the wind, etc.
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2019 11:53:30 AM
Hurricanes and typhoons are the same thing, as Drag0nspeaker noted. They just go by different names depending on where one lives. I've lost count of how many I've been through (there's that funny word again).

Tornadoes and "twisters" are the same thing also. I've never experienced one of those and hope I never do. Not much survives one of those if it hits something directly. Fortunately, they are relatively small and tight in shape, so the damage path is narrow, whereas hurricanes and typhoons can cover very large areas with wind and water being the major source of problems and damage.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Through
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2019 11:43:28 AM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
The difference seems to be (looking at Wilmar's examples and FounDit's examples) that "through" is used of people:
"Are we about through?", "I can't wait to be through with this", "I'm through with waiting forever", "Are you quite through with blaming me?"

Whereas Wilmar doesn't feel that "be through" works when the subject is a thing like a meeting - and FounDit gives no examples of its use with a thing as a subject.

**********
In British English, we would commonly use "over" (and no 'that'):
Jan couldn't wait for the meeting to be over so she could go home.

Or (slightly less informal):
Jan couldn't wait for the meeting to finish/end so she could go home.


Hmm,...Think I thought my example of "I can't wait to be through with this" could cover a meeting or a task. And, "Are we about through?" could also be used for a task at hand, as well as a person. At least, that's how I might take them.

Although your examples work fine too.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Could
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2019 11:35:48 AM
Atatürk wrote:
This sentence is OK if it refers to an ongoing possibility.

Wouldn't it be more natural to say "on Saturday nightS" in that case?


It wouldn't matter if it was one Saturday night, or many Saturday nights. The possibility of catching the train would still be possible every time.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: provide a suitable date and time vs suggest a different date (and time)
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2019 11:18:41 AM
Carmenex wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Carmenex wrote:
Thank you, FounDit. In your opinion, are the expressions in bold correct in the following sentences (which are meant to be used in a formal setting):
Regardless of whether/(the fact that) an exam (is required)/(you need to take) an exam (or not), (do you know)/(are you aware) whether the degree would be recognized in such countries as X, Y, Z, ...
Sorry, I missed your call. What did you need to talk to/with me about?


You could say,

"Regardless of whether an exam is required or not"

or

"Regardless of the fact an exam is required/you need to take an exam"

or

"Regardless of whether or not an exam is required/you need to take an exam"

All of these can work.

For the next part, I think "do you know" and "are you aware" both work fine, but I would substitute the word "if" for "whether". I think it reads better that way.

Lastly, you might hear both words used, "with" and "to", but my personal preference is "to".


Thank you, FounDit. Only one question: with regard to the second option for the first part of the sentence, did you mean:

"Regardless of the fact an exam is required or not/you need to take an exam or you do not"?

As I read it, the main idea in the first part is: "regardless of the fact whether an exam is required or not". This means that there should be no regard given to the fact, or idea, or an exam. If an exam is required, you would have to take it. If an exam is not required, then no problem. But the idea expressed is that this is not important. You do not regard that fact either way. The important part is: do you know if the degree is acceptable in countries x, y, and z?


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Could
Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2019 2:04:22 PM
Atatürk wrote:
Maybe it's a British/American matte.

See 3:30:

https://youtu.be/TqES1mwxjpI


Perhaps. The speaker in the video isn't wrong, its just that in the U.S., we do use "couldn't" as I described. The phrase, "He/she/they/I/we couldn't wait" has an idiomatic meaning of "I want this to end" or "I want something to happen". So we want that possibility.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Reasons Iran does not trust the West in General and Israel and the US in particular.
Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2019 1:48:57 PM
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:
Game of Europe ;-)


I guess I didn't do so well. I got only 55% of them. Some of the smaller places really got me, like Andorra, montenegro and Slovenia.

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Through
Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2019 1:33:02 PM
Wilmar (USA) wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but, in USA, I've never heard of a "meeting to be through". Meetings end. I've also never heard "meeting to close", and rarely, "to finish." Attendees will sometimes ask (only if the boss isn't there), "are we about through?"


That strikes me as odd. I've often heard, and used, "through" to mean "end, or come to an end". To make up some examples:

"I can't wait to be through with this."

"I'm through with waiting forever at airport terminals for delayed flights."

"I'm through with him! All he'll ever see of me again is my back!"

"Are you quite through with blaming me?"

(the first one in the list is the only one I've ever actually said, just in case you're wondering...Whistle )


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Taking advantage of the fact
Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2019 1:26:15 PM
Nikitus wrote:
Hello.

First of all, thanks for all your help and time.

Are the following sentences grammatically correct?
A word is missing in the last part — "share", I believe is the one you want to use. That said, the sentence is overly long, and would benefit from making it into two. Additionally, the latter part about interacting with some of her students and sharing with the rest of the class seems odd.

"Taking advantage of the fact that she had the attention of the vast majority of her students, the teacher decided to give more dynamism to the class. She did this through an exercise in which she, through color print-outs of famous paintings, would interact with the students in her class."

Thanks.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: fog, mist, the wind, etc.
Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2019 1:14:11 PM
onsen wrote:
Hello,

Wife: What is your new job like? Recently you’ve been looking for one.
Husband: I found a job as a parking attendant. It’s hard work.
W: Yes, it's hard. You’ll work in the open air almost all day, I suppose. The problem is the weather.
H: Yes. Fog, mist, the wind, blizzards, storms, typhoons, the rain, the snow, thunder.
W: You’ll have to work under such conditions.
H: Yes, I’ll manage in some way or other.
(self-made conversation)

The conversation is made in such a way that the weather terms may be used in their general meanings.

Are 'fog, mist, the wind, blizzards, storms, typhoons, the rain, the snow, thunder' correct as meaning generally?
Yes, because you are listing conditions, not specific occurrences of each.

fog, mist, wind…………………………………countable, uncountable These become countable only if you are referring to a specific instance of them. Otherwise, they are not countable. They are simply general conditions which could also be shown by making them plurals: fogs, mists, winds, blizzards, storms, typhoons, etc. Rain and snow are uncountable unless you are talking about a specific instance of (the) rain or (the) snow. Thunder isn't usually a problem. It is the danger of lightning that is a problem. So working when it is thundering would be how that is said.
blizzard, storm, typhoon…………………countable The same is true here. General, unless speaking of a specific occurrence.
rain, snow, thunder…………………………uncountable Same here. General, unless speaking of a specific occurrence.
(for reference)

Thank you.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.