mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: chromomancer
User Name: chromomancer
Forum Rank: Newbie
Gender: None Specified
Joined: Thursday, March 14, 2013
Last Visit: Saturday, March 12, 2016 8:31:35 AM
Number of Posts: 20
[0.00% of all post / 0.01 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Error correction 8
Posted: Sunday, April 20, 2014 7:32:25 AM
"I am used to hard work" is perfectly ok (in my dialect - I am english). But it does seem to be an idiom - "I am used to working hard" seems more regular and is also ok, "I am used to driving fast" (in my car) would be similar and is ok, "I am used to fast drive" is definitely wrong, and "I am used to fast driving" is ok, but "driving fast" seems more natural.

Hmmm. "I am used to a fast drive" would be acceptable, I think, for talking about some exceptional journeys (it wouldn't mean you drive like that all the time).

"Hard labour" is like "hard work" (but would connote a punishment of some kind).

All very subtle distinctions, and possibly not everybody would agree with my intuitions.

Topic: billion vs. milliard
Posted: Sunday, March 9, 2014 9:36:13 AM
I tend to use mega and giga nowadays, as in megabucks (for lots of dollars).

Mega is much more common here (in Britain) than giga, but I'm old enough that I remember when a billion was 10^12, although nowadays I'd say the American billion totally dominates, especially among younger people.

That's why I might use giga (instead of a billion): I'd expect it to be understood, even if only as "lots". It would be informal, though. If I used "billion" and worried it might be misunderstood I might say "American billion".

If I wanted to be absolutely sure, I'd write "A thousand million." I know what milliard means, but I wouldn't use it.

(And, if appropriate, I'd certainly use scientific notation, as someone suggested, but it's not always appropriate.)
Topic: Is this grammatical?
Posted: Sunday, March 9, 2014 9:20:43 AM
I wouldn't use both. It's saying the same thing twice. I'd probably leave out the "too".

But that's just my personal opinion of my own, from me, myself personally! :)

I probably wouldn't notice anything unusual if you hadn't pointed it out.
Topic: make mistake in knowing
Posted: Sunday, March 9, 2014 9:13:06 AM
sb70012 wrote:
Context: suppose that I am a teacher and want to talk about the difference between "a motif" and "a theme".
I have made up a sentence myself but I'm particularly curious to know whether 'make mistake in knowing' makes sense in this context. In fact I want to say that some students do not know the difference between "a motif" and "a theme" very well.

"Some students make mistake in knowing the difference of a motif and a theme."

Thank you

I'd say "Some students don't know the difference between "a motif" and "a theme" very well."

And then I noticed you said it in your question, so now I'm puzzled why you are looking for a different way to say the same thing!

You can't "make a mistake in knowing". You can have mistaken beliefs, but either you know something or you don't. (If you think 2+2 = 5, that's not wrong knowledge: it's not knowledge at all. It's a (wrong or mistaken) belief.)
Topic: Indirect speech
Posted: Sunday, April 14, 2013 6:32:52 AM
She said that she had been sleeping when I called her.

"When I had called her" would be a time after you called her.
Topic: At/in/on...?
Posted: Sunday, April 7, 2013 3:24:45 PM
FounDit wrote:
I hope I don’t confuse things, but I can’t think of a single instance when “at” would not work when speaking of a location. In fact, I believe I use it consistently.

I work at IBM.
I work at the University.
I work at the local market.

If you work in room 123 on the 44th floor of building 77, could you use "at"? I don't think I could. I could just about say, "I work at building 77" but "I work at room 123" sounds like I'm constructing it, not working in it :-)

And certainly for other verbs, e.g. sleep. I can't say "I sleep at my bedroom" it has to be "I sleep in my bedroom".
Topic: "He felt OF his knee."
Posted: Sunday, April 7, 2013 3:16:09 PM
My opinion:

He felt of his knee = he examined his knee using the sense of touch.
He felt his knee = he experienced the sensation of a knee (his own, presumably, in this case).

For example, "James felt Sally's knee pressing into his back" = the sensation of someone else's knee.

It's a bit difficult to say that "James felt of Sally's knee pressing..." is actually wrong though, but it would suggest conscious attention to it.

But "of" seems to be very variable in its usage by different people: "The kitten jumped off of the table" is completely wrong to me, but many people say it; conversely "The kitten jumped out the window" seems wrong to me (but many people would say it that way). I say, "The kitten jumped off the table" but "The kitten jumped out of the window".
Topic: "Unbelievable" vs. "Non-believable"
Posted: Friday, April 5, 2013 1:04:28 PM
I agree with what thar said, except that I think I have a stronger preference for "not believable" over "non-believable".

But I wouldn't have posted except to say that it's interesting to compare this situation with "disinterested" and "uninterested" which do have very different meanings. It's a fairly common mistake to use "disinterested" when people actually mean "uninterested". But the meaning has flipped a couple of times over the centuries. There is an interesting "usage note" about it in

There are some other interesting cases where there are two different "negative" forms of a word, like the difference between "immoral" and "amoral". Both are different kinds of "not moral". The first describes someone who is bad and knows he/she is bad, the second describes someone who doesn't have morals (and so isn't doing anything wrong from their own point of view) although it includes people who know that society thinks their behaviour is wrong (e.g. psychopaths).
Topic: embarassing thing
Posted: Friday, April 5, 2013 12:49:15 PM
RuthP wrote:

A substance which does not pass fluid is impermeable to the fluid, though it might pass air.

A thing, like a condom or a bag, which is supposed to be impermeable and is impermeable/has not been broken/is functioning properly is patent. (That word has a long 'a' sound: Pay-tent)

That's not a meaning of patent I've come across before, and I can't find it in dictionaries. Is it slang? Regional dialect? Or a common word where you are? (And where else?)

For the meaning you describe, I would have said "intact" or "unbroken" (which is not answer to the original question - for that I wouldn't use an adjective, I'd just say "it doesn't leak" :-) although I'm not disagreeing with the various suggestions).
Topic: 'HOTCASH'
Posted: Friday, April 5, 2013 12:38:24 PM
"Hot" can be slang for "stolen", so "hot cash" (two words) could mean stolen money. But it would have to be traceable (e.g. banknotes, and the police know the serial numbers of the stolen notes). If you couldn't prove it was stolen, it wouldn't be "hot". (I think.)

From the little bit of context you provide, it doesn't seem likely but I would have to read more of the article to be sure, or as DragOn implies, it could be a misuse of the expression to make the newspaper article sound more interesting - sort of suggesting that the hidden wealth is somehow illegal.