« first day (33 days earlier)      last day (3500 days later) » 
00:00 - 17:0017:00 - 00:00

00:00
(Why get it to here and get it here are basically the same thing.)
The to omission in English is a quite complex phenomenon.
All flavors of to, I'd say.
3
Q: how to distinguish "cost" from "price"

nimaTechnically, B could be—I think—wrong. However, would anyone please show me what is the difference in meaning between them? And whether B is incorrect? So, could A and B be used interchangeably? if so, when? A. the cost of moving house B. the price of moving house ......................

I think I'm close to an answer I'm satisfied with.
Sure it has a bounty on it, but I don't live on ELL anymore so I need to be picky about where I spend my time :P
<grin>
The current answers are decent enough, IMHO.
I don't know. They all seem to be intuition based.
Which is great.
That's how people use English :P
Agreed.
I don't actually understand the question in the bounty though.
> Specific problem: So, could we buy the following from a company and say" what is the price of the following?" that is, it might be labeled by a paper on it! The price of moving house
00:10
Me either.
My feeling is that the OP's reading comprehension skill could use a lot of improvement.
Lately, I haven't been as careful about my language, to keep it as plain as possible, as before in my answers.
0
A: how to distinguish "cost" from "price"

jimsugNominal uses There are some interesting difference in usage that help illuminate the differences in meaning. I'm using GloWbE because it contains samples from different varieties of English. Here's a corpus search for price1. Here's one for cost.2 ... all these tips might help me get a be...

About simple English, I agree with this quote:
in ELL's Cabin, Jun 3 at 14:48, by Damkerng T.
> "Simple English is no one's mother tongue. It has to be worked for."
--Jacques Barzun
@jimsug Nice! -- reading...
I thought my answer was long:
2
A: Use of "go" in passive form

F.E. Can we use verb "Go" in passive voice? Yes, we can. Golly, that was an easy one to answer. :D Wut? You'd like some examples? How about, The child's hair was gone through with a fine tooth metal comb to remove nits. which is an example of a prepositional passive. If that example is...

yesterday, by Damkerng T.
Which of these is transitive?
yesterday, by snailboat
> Two yards is a long way to walk.
> Three miles is a long way to travel.
> A few blocks is a long way to go.
> He walked two yards.
She traveled three miles.
They went a few blocks.
It's interesting that Macmillan Dictionary seems to think that "two yards" and "three miles" for walked and traveled are objects.
But "a few blocks" is not.
In any case, to keep things practical, I think it may be useful for the OP to think of the question as Is "something was gone by someone/something" possible?
This may be passable or acceptable by some speakers:
> The less-traveled road was traveled by us yesterday.
Though I think its acceptability score wouldn't be very high.
 
2 hours later…
01:58
0
Q: Which is correct? "Please submit a photocopy of a / the / your residence card"

kaobeWhat is the correct question? Please submit a photocopy of [a / the / your] residence card

"Residence card", Canada?
residency card?
Not sure. I think it's a little different in different countries.
Nope. Residence card. UK/Canada
Ah, UK too?
02:00
A-ha!
Hey, Wikipedia says, "Australia does not have an identity card."
I didn't expect that!
Anonymous
@DamkerngT. I think the analysis of those phrases is actually really difficult.
@snailboat The verbs walk, travel, and go are overlapping somewhat, I think.
Anonymous
But you can list the traits they share with objects and traits they don't and see if you can come to any conclusions
Anonymous
As verbs of motion, they take similar but not identical ranges of complementation, I think
nods -- Though all seem to accept a distance as its object/complement.
Anonymous
02:15
Objects are a type of complement, so you can just write "complement" and be neutral as to whether they're specifically objects
2
02:35
@DamkerngT. There are calls for it. We don't really have a national identifier.
@jimsug According to Wikipedia, it seems like the driver license is the de facto ID card over there.
@DamkerngT. yeah, but we don't need to actually hold a drivers licence
Anonymous
02:50
I have a driver's license.
Anonymous
I'm required by law to have some kind of state ID. You can get a non-driving one, but it's basically the same thing (apart from not allowing you to drive legally).
Anonymous
It's actually a driver license, not a drivers license or a driver's license.
Anonymous
But meh. Same diff.
Anonymous
I don't have a car and I don't drive, but I could if I really needed to someday.
We all knew what we were talking about ;)
Anonymous
02:51
Yeah. I just like pointing out that 's' thingy. :-)
I don't think anyone in Australia is legally required to have photo id...
Anonymous
We are here in California. I think in the UK you don't have to…
If you want to get into pubs and don't look the part, you might need one, though.
The only technically mandatory proof of identity is your birth certificate.
If you're willing to sacrifice access to certain services, you don't need anything else. You could live entirely off the grid, afaik
1
Q: Difference between earlier, recently, and lately

Jaeger JayI am having difficulty in distinguishing between these time words. For example, I ate my meal earlier/recently/lately. When to use earlier, recently, and lately? What if I've done an action a few minutes ago? What will be the appropriate word?

I wonder if "I ate my meal earlier" is a naturally sounding sentence.
> I ate my meal lately
I wouldn't say that.
02:55
@jimsug Yes, I've found out why
"How about a bowl of rice? -- No, thanks. I ate my meal earlier".
I think earlier is more proximal.
Yesterday could be recently, but it couldn't be earlier, by default.
Hmm. It might have to do with the specific activity or context, but that's the feeling I get.
"Did you take out the trash?" "I did it recently, yesterday."
"Did you take out the trash?" "I did it earlier, yesterday."
Hrrrmm.
03:10
@jimsug Thanks! I thought that earlier only meant earlier than something else.
@CopperKettle You could specify how much earlier, if you said earlier this week/month/year
@jimsug nods
I don't think you could go any further than year without it sounding weird, but maybe just because we don't think in decades/centuries.
Oh, maybe decades if we were close to the beginning of one.
Umm. And of course, if you're referring to something in a series.
Eg, I've given a series of lectures.
"In my earlier lecture, I talked about blah blah"
Hmm.
That also sounds strange, I think.
"In one of my earlier lectures."
"I had my dinner earlier" elicits only 24 google-hits..
Try I had dinner earlier
No my.
The my sounds a bit odd.
03:15
85 results
Hrm.
What are you searching with? N-gram viewer?
just Google
I got 13,800 hits on I had dinner earlier
When I go to the last page of the search, its only 131 result(s?). But there are 14 hits at Google Books
Well, I'll let a native speaker answer that question. (0:
 
2 hours later…
05:04
Interesting: "It is well-known that, in general, people better remember the edges of sequences and particularly in language, when we must remember and recognize words, the brain gives greater weight to information at the beginning and the end of the word. "
Anonymous
@CopperKettle Well, the results estimates aren't accurate (what you see on page 1), and neither are the results left over after they've pared down the 1000 max (what you see after page 1)
Anonymous
There's no way to make Google search result estimates an accurate tool
@snailboat nods I'll try using corpuses (the?) next time.
Anonymous
05:24
@CopperKettle Yes, it is natural sounding :-) At least it would be in the right context.
05:45
@CopperKettle corpora. Though again, I know what you mean ;)
Anonymous
06:14
Welcome to the site, Richie! Present-tense, since did makes the "past-tense" job already. So, "Did you wake up.." — CopperKettle 13 hours ago
Anonymous
@CopperKettle I originally left a comment responding to this, but I decided to make my comment into an answer instead
06:32
@snailboat Nice!
I've deleted that comment since it's technically not "present tense".
The Opera Browser for some reason intermittedly fails to enter the chatroom and to post answers
Just begins the posting process and never finishes it.
I wonder if we can say "A journey to Vancouver takes 3 days by train" in a generic sense.
2
Q: How to know if a statement is general or specific when using articles?

Atm5I understand the meaning of the in the following sentences: The man who lives next door is Chinese. No one expected the results that were found. There can only be one man and a single instance of results. But what about sentences such as: The journey to Vancouver takes three days ...

@snailboat A very thorought answer!
@CopperKettle It's mostly to do with reference to whether the speaker expects the listener(s) to know what they're talking about.
You can definitely say "A journey to Vancouver takes 3 days by train"
@jimsug And both the and a would refer to some generic journey, "any journey by train", not a specific journey advertized by an agency?
(articles is the most horrible part of the English language)
06:50
It's about context.
> Journeys can take anywhere from a few seconds to a few days. A journey to your bedroom door from your bed might take a few seconds, while the journey to Vancouver takes a lot more time.
Also:
ell.stackexchange.com/questions/22647/… is quite related, and the answer's explanation of Definite Article Meaning Syndrome is very good. — Nathan Tuggy 42 mins ago
12
A: Uses of the definite article (the)

J.R.Yes, your rewrite is acceptable. As for your confusion, it looks like you might have a case of DAMS (Definite Article Meaning Syndrome, a relatively common affliction that often affects English learners. It's chief symptom is confusion, generally caused by the erroneous belief that definite art...

with adjectives, to refer to a group of people (This is another tax break for the rich.)
^ This can apply to any group of things.
> The red fish swim fast; the blue, much more slowly.
"Journeys can take anywhere from a few seconds to a few days. The journey to your bedroom door from your bed might take a few seconds, while a journey to Vancouver takes a lot more time." - I wonder if this would be okay.
@CopperKettle Sure, I don't have a problem with that. Confused yet? ;)
I shall be confused by articles till the end of my days. (0:
 
1 hour later…
08:22
I wonder if we can say "Journeys to Vancouver take 3 days by train".
I don't mind it.
 
2 hours later…
10:16
in ELL's Cabin, 10 mins ago, by Hakase
my neighbor teaches English and most of his students actually do want to be able to read newspapers, which I don't really understand
in ELL's Cabin, 8 mins ago, by Hakase
"going abroad", "being able to understand movies and newspapers", "discussing weather with new acquaintances", "making smalltalk with cab drivers"
in ELL's Cabin, 8 mins ago, by Hakase
probably seems very cool to them
Great point!
It reminds me of the very most fundamental question: why do people learn a second language?
I guess we all have our own reasons.
Not necessarily the same.
10:47
For me, "to be cognizant" is probably the most solid one.
@CopperKettle Somehow I find that weird, even though its meaning is clear.
It could be less weird or not weird at all in a right context, I guess.
For later: Learning a second language as an adult seems to be challenging because we tend to conceptualize things the way we do in our first language, which is not particularly the same--well, most of the time it's not the same--in the second language we're learning, but by definition, "as an adult" means that we already know at least one language, the first language.
That's probably not a big deal, if we don't want to get very deep into that second language.
"discussing weather with new acquaintances", "making smalltalk with cab drivers" -- these are fine with shallow learning.
"going abroad", "being able to understand movies and newspapers" -- these may need deeper learning.
Because a lot of tasks are possible by learning a second language shallowly, things like fluent in X months and intensive courses are possible.
(So far, the winner of "fluent in X months/days" genre I've seen is "You Can Speak English in One Day".)
@DamkerngT. No, it's mainly challenging because adults don't learn easily anymore.
11:03
Physically, or simply because they can't devote the same amount of time and effort as they did in their childhoods.
Either it's because of ego or pride, or something biological related to brain, or something else (like maybe their minds and ideas have shaped, they have less time to devote etc.) adults will have more trouble learning a language.
Or a little bit of both.
But I believe contrary to the popular notion here, adults can learn something easily if they want to.
Adults actually have several advantages, though the advantages are different from children's.
(And I said that with just a vague idea about what those advantages are.)
11:05
This is a masterpiece:
-3
Q: Java Code to convert csv file to mdb !!! Working fine

Sandeep Narayananpublic static void main(String[] args) throws IOException { try { Database database = createDatabase("MDB_FILE_NAME here"); ArrayList<String> Header_Values = new ArrayList<String>(); CsvReader products = new CsvReader("CSV_FILE_PATH here"); products.readHeaders...

Where is the question?!
(It's "Working fine", even!)
BTW, gotta leave for half an hour. BBL
@DamkerngT. I don't recall what those are vividly too, but the point is, they don't usually make use of them well.
11:31
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Agreed.
11:46
1
A: Difference between earlier, recently, and lately

user3169 I ate my meal earlier. means you ate your meal before that time, in the same day. I ate my meal recently. means you ate your meal before that time but not long ago. But I would not say it is a normal usage in this example. I ate my meal lately. means on some past occasion(s). But...

> I ate my meal earlier.
Hmm... that's a little awkward, I guess.
In I [do] X earlier, I think I expect I [do] X earlier than Z.
Unless earlier is embedded in a time expression (like Earlier today, I [do] X).
+1 for the second sentence. — Maulik V 3 hours ago
> We should allot everyone equal time to speak.
^That's the second sentence.
Apparently, a lot of learners/non-native speakers think that sophisticated words equate higher level of proficiency.
A lot of non-native speakers probably have the same idea.
(They learned it that way, they teach it that way.)
(So the circle continues.)
2
A: Cut off with indirect object

CopperKettleYour first option is incorrect, and your second is seemingly correct, judging by a Google Books search: When they dismissed us, they cut off electricity to the villages outside Nablus. (Staughton Lynd, ‎Alice Lynd, ‎Sam Bahour, 1994) Another option is getting rid of the idea to use an indi...

@CopperKettle "Your first option is incorrect,"
> They cut off electricity yesterday.
Why is it incorrect?
I agree that in most news reports, They cut off electricity to [somewhere] yesterday is felicitous and probably sounds better.
12:02
I mean his own proposal, "They cut off us electricity."
Oh, they edited the examples in the question?
Sorry!
Ahh... I see what you meant now.
Thanks for pointing that out!
I've clarified the answer.
BBL
See you around!
I'm around, see me. (0:
"I'm passionate about software development, also I'm a computer geek, a little bit of a system administrator and an IT support engineer."
(Could not go past this fresh question)
0
A: Unsure about articles

CopperKettleOne stock expression is "a little bit of a [noun]". Hence, I'm passionate about software development, also I'm a computer geek, a little bit of a system administrator and an IT support engineer.

I wonder if I should've written "I'm passionate about software development, also I'm a computer geek, a little bit of a system administrator and of an IT support engineer."
12:18
nods
To me, it's somewhat problematic, semantically.
You're never sure with English. (0: (The Fifth Noble Truth)
But "a little bit of both" is a common expression, so-- yeah, we can't be very sure.
Semantically, the sentence makes me think funnily.
If I'm a computer geek. And I'm a little bit of a system administrator and a little bit of an IT support engineer. What is me in the most part?
^maybe 'for' is better than 'in'
@DamkerngT. A robot.
Some folks upvoted the answer thrise. I'll hope those were native speakers, and will depart for some translation work.. BBL
12:24
Or a computer system engineer.
Bye, Muhammed, Damkerng!
See you soon!
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Or a system support engineer administrator. o_O
Or an IT computer support engineer administrator geek.
12:26
LOL -- I guess you're probably right!
> "Human beings, bunch of backstabbin' weasels."
--Transformers 4
Hmm, what's the difference between LOL and LOL!? I might ask it on ELL.
@DamkerngT. Crosshairs?
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Apparently, one has an exclamation point!
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Not sure which one said that.
I wish he would maintain a more neutral attitude toward human beings. :-)
Because you say so? I wonder how you and them are related. . .Cousins?
Probably a remote cousin.
I don't know whichth and how many times removed, though.
(BTW, whichth is a proposed word on ELL.)
12:32
LOL!
A-ha! I was right!
Lockdown's accent is BrE.
I think it's a thing in Hollywood that bad guys usually have the BrE accent. :D
Definitely a thing.
Ouch!
@Dam @Copper you wouldn't believe what I saw.
Tell us, asap!
12:48
> 'Meatie' (as the moderators can tell you) is the latest avatar of a troll notorious here and on ELU. His standard ploy around here is to pose a far-fetched objection to some perfectly ordinary and even clichéd figurative use of a term, whining indignantly that "dictionaries" (which he never cites) give no warrant for the use.
Interesting. I think it's more specific than a message I can remember. Is it recent?
I disagree in this particular instance - I provided explicit references to three dictionary definitions which to my mind make the meaning of the passage in question clear. But it is possible that I let my distaste for OP's questions influence my judgment. 'Meatie' (as the moderators can tell you) is the latest avatar of a troll notorious here and on ELU. His standard ploy around here is to pose a far-fetched objection to some perfectly ordinary and even clichéd figurative use of a term, whining indignantly that "dictionaries" (which he never cites) give no warrant for the use. — StoneyB Jul 19 at 6:52
@Stoney I would really be gladder if you tell me more. I always thought that was a legit asker, not a troll.
I hope ColleenV will run for a mod if we are going to graduate.
Yeah, @Stoney too.
And @Cat. She'd make a good mod too.
BTW @Dam I wonder if meatie is equivalent to that troll in ELU @snail was talking about the other day.
I'm not sure which troll she was talking about.
13:01
Maybe it was Cabin?
Looky what I found!
@Dam I know my Google Fu wouldn't fail me:
@Esoteric - This particular user in a known SE troll who has played the same game for years, under different monikers and sock puppets. I was trying to dance around that backstory while informing the community about who they are "helping" with their time and efforts. I don't so much mind the questions – some of them are a bit clever and may be helpful for the learner – but I'm not quite so fond of the ensuing discussions. — J.R. ♦ Sep 15 '14 at 9:20
Oh, same user.
That explains why they sometimes post clever comments @Copper.
Because they don't have the simpler/easier questions at all. . .They just wanna troll.
Hehe! @snail plane this is a masterpiece:
20
Q: Please use specific titles. Don't just ask "Is this grammatically correct?"

snailboatToday, I was looking over at the related questions module on a recent question, and it looked like this: It would be nice if we could tell questions apart simply by looking at their titles. But seven out of ten of the related questions above have non-descriptive titles: Is this gra...

I'm gonna use it to comment on ELL from now on.
13:18
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M I don't see this as trolling if I can just ignore it. I just ignore meatie's questions.
1
Q: were having to make everything up

bart-leby When he talks of "enemies of the people", the analogies with Stalinist Russia and other 20th-century regimes are so glaring that you have to keep reminding yourself that the French Revolutionaries were having to make everything up as they went along, against a very different background from th...

(an interesting question of the progressive use of a semi-modal)
@CopperKettle You do?
And no, covering poop with blanket doesn't mean there isn't poop beneath it.
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M My guess is either this person has some issues or it's a Artificial Intelligence being trained to use human answers for refining its internal lexicon
@CopperKettle My guess is this person's Indian.
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Well, they could be Chuckcha for all I care. I'm an internationalist. (0:
Where is that?
13:22
I hope we all will maintain a neutral attitude toward human beings. :-)
The Chukchi, Eskimos of Western Chukotka (Russian: чукчи (plural), чукча (singular)) are an indigenous people inhabiting the Chukchi Peninsula and the shores of the Chukchi Sea and the Bering Sea region of the Arctic Ocean within the Russian Federation. They speak the Chukchi language. The Chukchi originated from the people living around the Okhotsk Sea. == Cultural historyEdit == The majority of Chukchi reside within Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, but some also reside in the neighboring Sakha Republic to the west, Magadan Oblast to the southwest, and Koryak Autonomous Okrug to the south. Some Chukchi...
Do they eat Chukchi too?
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M What?
They are Chukchi, they live in Chukchi which is beside Chukchi and another Chukchi, so I thought their food is related too.
They eat raw meat, by the way.
So maybe that's why he/she is called meatie
13:27
Bows down to the mighty internationalist
(0:
Humans and chimps share 98-99% of DNA, so who cares.
PEU 239.2 @CopperKettle
The eighth commandment says:
Thou shan't change thy uthername twice in a score and ten dayth.
> Progressive forms are possible to talk about temporary continued obligation. -- I'm having to work very hard at the moment.
Something interesting I'd wanted to share.
13:30
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Somewhere on Meta.SE?
Close. . .
in g-block elements, 2 mins ago, by inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M
The eighth commandment says:
in g-block elements, 2 mins ago, by inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M
> Thou shan't change thy uthername twice in a score and ten dayth.
But it's an SE rule anyways.
How many rooms does Chem.SE have?
@DamkerngT. Thanks! But my guess was that "as they went along" drove the author to pick the progressive
A lot of them are frozen.
This G-block elements is for German dudes to talk there. . . Yeah I know, clever name.
13:35
(looks up PEU 239.2)
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M A-ha!
13:48
Since have to is suppletive of must in the past (see below), there seems to be no way to distinguish in
the past between subjective and objective obligation imposed by the speaker or some other authority.
Sentence (a) may be the indirect version of either (b) or (c):
(a) Mary said that John had tocook dinner.
(b) John has to cook dinner. (= he is constrained by circumstances or an outside authority)
(c) John must cook dinner. (= he is constrained by the speaker)
Haegeman (1980: 5) suggests thatthe past progressive is used in place of the simple form to express
Hmm.. so "was having to" is close to objective obligation, while "had to" is allegedly more often used when the speaker imposes his will
Oh, this is reflected in Swan's PEU 361.1
14:12
nods
Another interesting thing related to bart-leby's question is the progressive aspect, when we use as/when/while-clauses.
Basically, we have 4 possible combinations.
> a) X does/did this, as/when/while Y does/did that.
> b) X does/did this, as/when/while Y is/was doing that.
> c) X is/was doing this, as/when/while Y does/did that.
> d) X is/was doing this, as/when/while Y is/was doing that.
I wish I could delete all the commas above...
Also, not all verbs are the same. This is about aktionsart as well.
"Revolutionaries were having to make everything up as they went along" - to go along is an activity, so it could take the progressive
and to make (something) up is either an achievement or accomplishment
I think even have to can be considered as either a one single act or a condition that was going on for a period of time.
@CopperKettle A process to reach some achievement or accomplishment, perhaps?
But yes, I think we can think of make as a verb of accomplishment.
14:28
So maybe "were having to make everything up" is necessary to express repetitive accomplishments as those revolutionaries went along
The problem is even go along is an activity, when being used in the past tense (went along), I feel like it's state-ish.
@CopperKettle nods -- probably not absolutely necessary, but the most natural choice.
Maybe @snailboat will undo this knot (0:
I think Swan's simplified explanation works fine (it's temporary).
@CopperKettle nods
> They were having to make everything up as they were going along.
I think that alternative would work fine.
It just somehow suggests something subtly different.
"I'm having to make everything up as I go along"
It looks a bit weird in the present tense, but I think it's fine in the narrative present too.
> "I('ll) have to make everything up as I go along (with him/her/etc.)"
I can imagine someone saying that.
14:38
nods
0
Q: Why "book" is considered as a subject in the following sentence?

Yael"Books which cost half price are sold quickly" Can anyone explain to me please why "book" in this sentence is the subject? And why it is not the object?

Now it makes more sense to me. Thanks. — Yael 25 mins ago
Problem solved!
But the comment above seems misleading.
"the books" is subject not because "the books are being sold"
Hmm... possibly, but practically, I think we can say what the comment says.
I think native speakers would simply say "the books sell quickly", and even likelier "the books sold quickly".
(It's another sentence that looks odd to me in the present tense.)
15:29
Could be a good clue:
> We watched him drowning. -- He was drowning as we watched.
> We watched him drown. -- He drowned as we watched.
15:42
Hi @DamkerngT., just came in to say "hello"...how r you doing?
o/ @Man!
He's fine I think.
how about you?
@Man_From_India I'm doing good, thanks! It's been a while. How are you?
Yes I am good, finally in a new office :-)
Hooray!
15:44
:-)
I'm trying to understand why the heck cbcsd.org doesn't let me connect to the internet without VPN.
Dunno. The site says it's in IA.
(Iowa)
Which is in the US right?
O.o
How in the world do they control my proxy?
15:48
Council Bluffs Community Schools
@Dam how do I change my computer's proxy settings?
Eh?
You use Chrome, right?
Yes, I know the proxy setting can be modified using firefox.
How?
In Chrome, there is a settings page.
Look for the wrench, and click Options on its pulldown.
Yes, but when I turn browsec off, it says Chrome uses the computer's proxy settings and doesn't allow me to modify it.
15:52
Oh!
Aren't you the admin of your computer?
It's weird then, that it told you that message.
I edited it in Internet Explorer.
That would work, too.
00:00 - 17:0017:00 - 00:00

« first day (33 days earlier)      last day (3500 days later) »