" To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.

- Lao Tzu The best thing is to know the answer, while thinking that you do not know.

Mistakenly being sure that you know the answer in cases where you actually do not know the answer will lead to difficulty.

Breaking it up a little: "To know | yet to think that one does not know | is best; Not to know | yet to think that one knows | will lead to difficulty."

The two phrases are alike but reversed:

Knowing while not thinking that one knows is good.

Not knowing while thinking that one knows is bad.

The sentence can be changed like this: " The fact that you know something

but you believe you don't know it is better than the fact that you don't know anything

but you tell everybody you know.

The second fact might cause trouble."

In the original post's quotation, the word "not" just negates "to know".

The negation turns "something you know" (a "known") into "something you do not know" (an "unknown"). "not to know" is on the opposite side of the "yet" conjunction from "to think that one knows".

As Donald Rumsfeld explained : There are known knowns.

These are things we know that we know.

There are known unknowns.

That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.

But there are also unknown unknowns.

There are things we don't know we don't know.

Lao Tzu was saying it is better to be underconfident

(not trust that you know something) than to be overconfident (to think you know something, but be wrong).

Better to question, than to think you have the only answer.

Question: " To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet  to think that one knows will lead to difficulty ." Lao Tzu  Source   I could not understand this quote since the words are not very clear.  For example, does the word "Not" negate the whole "to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty"?  Can someone explain it?

What does this saying mean? "To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty."

This means that it is better to question, than to think you have the only answer. Knowing while not thinking that one knows is good. Not knowing while thinking that one knows is bad.

It is better to question than to think you have the only answer.


Both are nearly the same to me.

The nuances are about perspective:

The sentence that uses "she" is talking about the "the little girl" from the memory, almost as if she was a different person than the woman in the present.

You can use that phrasing to distance the two people.

This is especially common when the speaker's view of the person has changed: Before we started hanging out, I only knew you as the guy who came late to class everyday because he kept oversleeping.

The sentence that uses "you" links the person in the memory with the actual person.

There is no distancing.

Both are correct.

In the first sentence, the speaker remembers the girl with particular label.

The label being "a little-girl-who-over waters-plants-because-she-doesn't-know-when-to-stop-giving.".

In the second sentence, the speaker is directly telling her that he remembers her as a little girl who over waters her plants.

You can use both as neither is incorrect.

It is just the matter of the way you address the subject.

The key part of the sentence that you've not picked up on is the 'as'.

The writer is making a comparison between 'you' and 'a little girl who overwaters plants because she doesn't know when to stop giving'.

We can assume that the addressed audience of this sentence is an adult woman.

From one perspective, the adult woman and the little girl are the same person.

From another, they are not.

The little girl no longer exists and is not the same as the adult she later became.

I have no reason to suspect, for instance, that this woman over-waters her plants.

The model sentence assumes this second perspective.

The woman is represented by a second-person pronoun: "you".

The phrase "a little girl" is a third-person noun phrase.

The antecedent of "she" is "a little girl", making the third-person pronoun form appropriate.

The little girl isn't even real.

She's a product of the speaker's imagination or memory, nothing more than some hypothetical figment.

She might never have existed at all, outside of the speaker's perceptions.

We can treat her as an eternal concept.

As an eternal concept, that it agrees with a verb the present tense makes sense.

In the speaker's memory, the little girl still doesn't know when to stop.

Your proposed revision takes the other perspective.

The woman and the little girl are the same person, but at different stages of her life.

The "you" of "you didn't know when to stop giving" has the same antecedent as the "you" earlier in the sentence.

Both refer to the addressed adult woman.

Your revision uses the past tense.

This is sensible because that stage of development is in the adult woman's past.

The "you" and the "she" exist in different timeframes.

These different timeframes lead to different implications.

Your revision implies that the woman now knows when to stop.

She didn't know as a child, but the past tense lets us safely assume that she has stopped not knowing.

The difference between the woman and the child is established.

A different revision uses the present tense throughout:

I still remember you as a little girl who over-waters plants because you don't know when to stop giving.

This implies that nothing has changed.

The woman didn't know when to stop as a child, and she doesn't know when to stop as an adult.

The similarity between the woman and the child is established.

In the original, the third-person "she" is conceptually distinct from the second person "you".

The little girl eternally lacks that knowledge.

From that sentence, we have no idea at all whether the adult woman knows.

The original sentence gives me no reason to assume that the adult woman over-waters her plants, but it also gives me no reason to assume that the present-day woman doesn't over-water her plants.

The difference or similarity between woman and child is left unspecified.

That lack of specificity is not possible with the pronoun "you", but it is possible with the pronoun

"she".

That's the difference that a shift in perspective can produce.

The first sentence means: I still remember you as X. where the adjective-phrase X stands for "a little girl who over-waters plants because she doesn't know when to stop giving".

The second sentence means: I still remember you as Y because you didn't know when to stop giving.

where the adjective-phrase Y stands for "a little girl who over-waters plants".

There is a difference in the adjective-phrases.

As another example, consider: You have the same color as the tail of the horse that is white.

The second form of the sentence would not make much sense here.

Question: I read this somewhere and it said:   I still remember you as a little girl who overwaters plants because  she  doesn't know when to stop giving.   But in this sentence, the person says 'you' and 'little girl', but then uses 'she' as a third person.   Shouldn't it be:   I still remember you as a little girl who overwaters plants because  you  didn't know when to stop giving.

Using she or you to refer to someone "as a little girl"

Both are correct. In the first sentence, the speaker remembers the person. In the second sentence, the speaker is   directly  telling her that he remembers her as a little girl who over waters her plants. The sentence that uses "she" is talking about the "the little girl" from a memory, almost as if she was a different person than the woman in the present.

Both make sense, it is a matter of perspective.


It may sound boring, but the verb we most often associate with nightmare is simply have .

Last night I had a nightmare.

You can see the prevalence of this usage in this Ngram .

This other Ngram shows the most common words that are put in front of "a nightmare.

" Most are prepositions; the top verbs are had and was .

I'm guessing most of those uses of was

are probably more figurative usages of the word, such as:

My relationship with Chuck was a nightmare.

I can't believe it took me so long to dump him.

or: That project was a nightmare!

We were over a year late and a million dollars over budget.

Last night I've seen very bad nightmare.

You might say you "saw something in a dream" , or a nightmare.

But when speaking about just generally experiencing it, you would say you "had a bad dream" or "had a nightmare" .

You would not say "Last night I saw a bad dream", nor "Last night I saw a nightmare" when referring to the experience of dreaming.

The only way you would say "Last night I saw a nightmare" would be if you were speaking figuratively--that while awake, you'd seen something that was very bad--as if it were from a nightmare.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/9598/HostileFork says dont trust SE

You 'see' nightmares and dreams because a dream (or a nightmare) is like a movie, played by our sub-conscience.

So yes, we "see" dreams and nightmares.

I'm not an expert on that, however, I can help you with the sentence construction.

I'm afraid your sentence is incorrect, try: Last night I saw a bad dream.

Also, 'nightmares' are negative dreams.

So you don't have to mention 'bad' along with it.

It becomes redundant.

Optionally, you could also say: Last night I saw a nightmare.

But when we talk about dreams and nightmares, you generally use "had" .

I had a dream.

As Martin Luther Kings said: "I have a dream.." and not

"I see a dream.."

One thing missing from the answers is the point that "seeing" implies perception with one's eyes.

Since phenomena such as dreams, visions, hallucinations and nightmares are perceived with the mind's "eye" (a misleadingly corporealized abstraction), "seeing" does not apply.

That said, a sentence like "I see nightmares in my waking life."

is perfectly valid (syntactically and semantically), however, as someone above mentioned, that usage of "nightmare" is figurative and the implication is that you see (with your eyes)

material things/scenes that have a nightmarish quality.

So the rule still holds.

On rereading the above answers, I realize that Varun KN was alluding to this point but didn't quite get there.

You can't say you saw a dream or a nightmare but could suggest that the dream had a visual element by saying I had a very vivid dream last night

Here is the definition I am thinking of:

vivid: producing powerful feelings or strong, clear images in the mind.

A nightmare is more than visuals.

It's an experience, as you say.

Therefore, besides the already mentioned I had a nightmare,

you can also say I experienced a nightmare.

A number of words fit in this category, e.g. endure can also be used here.

I know what nightmare means,it is bad dream during sleeping.

I would

like know how we experience it.

Do we see it, my sentence make sense?

In proper English:

I know what the word "nightmare" means ...

it is a bad dream.

[Dreams occur while sleeping, so there's no need to mention that.]

I would like to know how to refer to the experience:

Do we see it?

Does that sentence make sense?

Answer:

In English, we talk about having experiences.

we have dreams and nightmares, accidents, lucky breaks, epiphanies, realizations, etc.

We talk about seeing the content of dreams and nightmares, e.g., "I had a nightmare in which I saw monsters eating people alive."

Question: I know what nightmare means,it is bad dream during sleeping.I would like know how we experience it. Do we see it, my sentence make sense?   Last night I've seen very bad nightmare.

Can "Nightmare" be seen?

The verb we most often associate with nightmare is simply "to have". When speaking about experiencing it, you would say you "had a bad dream"  or  "had a nightmare" . However,  you might say you  "saw something in a dream"  or a nightmare.


The first word that comes to mind is schism .

According to the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language schism : A separation or division into factions: "[He] found it increasingly difficult to maintain party unity in the face of ideological schism over civil rights" (Nick Kotz).

Obviously, there are many synonyms listed in the dictionaries that can be used.

As I was typing this question, I suddenly remembered the word divergence .

The situation in which two things become different.

Cambridge Dictionary

I'm posting this answer for peer review, since I'm not sure.

Also, I'm interested in other options, too.

After the divergence of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge.

What is the historical/etymological explanation for this divergence in names?

ell.stackexchange.com/users/26160/Revetahw says Reinstate Monica

bifurcation the division of something into two branches or parts.

After the bifurcation of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge.

What is the historical/etymological explanation for this bifurcation in names?

For the first example, you might be interested in: division : the act or process of dividing something into parts : the way that something is divided After the division of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge.

branch : to divide into smaller parts : to separate into branches After the branching of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge.

After Western philosophy branched into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge.

separation : the act or process of separating : the state of being separated

After the separation of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge.

Similar for the second example.

You could consider Fork From Dictionary.com : the point or part at which a thing, as a river or a road, divides into branches

The first word which came to my mind is fission .

It's perhaps most commonly used in the context of nuclear physics, but it doesn't need to be restricted to that context.

It could go directly into your first example sentence: After the fission of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge.

Looking through Google Books, I get the impression that it's a moderately popular word in the social sciences.

E.g. in Encounters and Transformations: The Archaeology of Iberia in Transition

we find sentences like ...

incipient complexity led more often to social fragmentation or fission than to pristine state formation.

I argue that too little attention has been devoted to fragmentation and fission and that more sophisticated models be developed to account for these alternate trajectories of social evolution.

Google Books also turned up the word in a number of titles or subtitles, often in opposition to fusion , as in the white paper Fission Or Fusion: What Kind of Commercial Culture Will Emerge in Southeast Asia? , but not always.

An example without fusion is the book Household Strategies for Survival 1600-2000: Fission, Faction and Cooperation .

The British National Corpus turns up a couple of nice examples in natural science literature.

From The Pacific by Simon Winchester: The slow fission of Gondwanaland produced two oceans -- the Indian, where Africa, India and Antarctica were hauled away from each other; and the southern portion of the Atlantic, where South America and its clearly closely-fitting neighbour Africa (which possessed an uncanny coastal match first noted by Francis Bacon) sprang apart.

And from Exploring the night sky with binoculars , by the legendary Patrick Moore: It used to be thought that a binary [star] resulted from the fission or breaking-up of a formerly single star which was spinning rapidly, and became unstable.

Bifurcation Meaning : to branch out in two For example: The path bifurcated on reaching the forest.

Ramification

Meaning : diverging branches or consequences For example: The army killed all the terrorists and all the related ramifications.

Fissuring

Meaning: branching , splitting For example:

The heavy earthquake created apparent fissures on the playground.

If one can overlook the second meaning in the Oxford Dictionary , the first definition of cleavage is A sharp division; a split After the cleavage of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge.

What is the historical/etymological explanation for this cleavage in names?

Here are some other examples from the Oxford Dictionary:

There was not this sharp consciousness of the cleavages and different realities in our social existence long ago as that which is so evident today.

To existing social splits were added inter-working class cleavages which were all too apparent by November 1916.

It is a function of that same openness that no sharp cleavages can be sighted between the traditional and the modern in India.

Perhaps a couple less literal but more literary options would be the nouns "cleft" and "rift."

Verbs would be "to cleave" and "to rive."

The issue created a rift in the party.

The setting sun shone through a cleft in the ridgeline.

Question: I know there's a perfect word for this, but I just can't seem to recall it.  I know about  split , but I'm thinking of something more eloquent.  For example:   After the  split  of Western philosophy into these major directions,  new thinkers began to emerge.   For another example, consider this sentence from  this question :   What is the historical/etymological explanation for this  split  in  names?

Noun for the event of something splitting in two directions

ell.stackexchange.com/users/26160/Revetahw says Reinstate Monica

Suggestions include schism, divergence, bifurcation, division, branch, separation, fork, fission, cleavage, cleft or rift.

"Schism", "Divergence", "Bifurication", "Division" (division into parts), "Branch", (as in separate into branches), "Separation", "Fork" (used to indicate the point where something is split) and "Fission" could be used instead. "Cleavage" can also be used. Finally, "Cleft" or "rift" are some less literal synonyms.

"Bifurication", which means division into parts.

For the first example, "division" could work.

"Fork" is also used to indicate the point where something is split.


Less formally, you might consider tell off .

tell sb off —

phrasal verb with tell to speak angrily to someone because they have done something wrong:

The teacher told me off for swearing.

Mum told me off for slopping water all down her shirt.

If you make your sister cry, you'll get told off.

Their teacher told them off for chattering in the lesson.

The term "scold" meaning "reprimand/rebuke" is actually common, and as shown in Ngram

its usage is not decreasing.

The Oxford Learners Dictionary says it is formal , not old-fashioned, but I think you can use it also in colloquial contexts.

From Twelve Lauren Myracle - 2008

“Winnie and Ty, stop distracting your sister,” Mom scolded .

“Driving is very serious business.

One wrong turn and you could ruin a life forever.”

“We know, we know, we know,” I said.

Earlobes popping off, innocent bystanders getting killed in the blink of an eye—in Mom Land there was disaster lurking around every corner.

The phrase 'to get after' would be a less formal American English way to say this.

This phrase doesn't seem to appear in the Cambridge Dictionary, but does show up in Macmillan's.

Luke's mother got after him for having spent too much money last weekend .

Slang English would be "To bitch at".

John's mom was upset he came home with bad grades

and she bitched at him all night about it."

If you wanted to go really informal, you might say "to bollock".

As in: "I got a bollocking from my boss this morning for being late again"

"My girlfriend bollocked me for putting her bra in the dryer"

You've got a lot of options since your request is somewhat vague in context required .

Punish Chastise Ream Berate Chew out

Read the riot act Thrash Lay out

"Scolded" is fine -- it is not particularly formal.

Almost all of the suggested words are synonyms for "criticized," and many of these synonyms also carry with them an impression of the style (tone of voice, body language) in which the criticism is delivered.

If the criticism is intense , she "berated."

If the criticism is moderate, she "scolded."

If the criticism is mild, she "chided" or "reproached."

A truly formal ways of expressing criticism is "reprimanded," but this implies that the speaker is speaking in a distant or formal way, like a judge or employer.

A common institutional phrase is "a formal reprimand."

Another set of more formal words are "admonish" or "rebuke.

" These may be forcefully stated but convey a sense of the speaker's moral authority, like a preacher or prophet, and are often associated with religious writing, in which a holy figure admonishes or rebukes sinners (or devils).

To "have a go at" is a fairly informal/colloquial alternative.

Question: Luke’s mother  scolded  him for having spent too much money last weekend.   I've read in the Cambridge Dictionary that  to scold  is an old-fashioned term in British English, so I guess it wouldn't be used in a less formal context. How would you express the same idea in an everyday language?

How would you say "to scold" in a less formal way?

"Scolded" is fine -- it is not particularly formal. However, alternatives include to tell off, to get after, to bitch at, to read the riot act, to bollock, to chastise, to chide, to reproach, to berate, or to have a go at.

Other synonyms that could be used in this context are: "tell off", get after", "bitch at"/"bollock" (very informal), "punish", "chastise", "ream", "berate", "chew out", "read the riot act", "thrash", "lay out", "chide", "reproach", "have a go at". However, "to scold" can also be used in colloquial texts, expressing moderate criticism.

"To scold" can also be used in colloquial texts, expressing moderate criticism.


In the home, furniture means items like tables, chairs, beds, wardrobes, etc.

A more generic term is furnishings .

Curtains and cushions, etc, are called soft furnishings .

Sewing accessories are sometimes called notions by hobbyists, but it isn't a well-known usage.

furnishings noun [plural]  the furniture, curtains, and other decorations in a room or building:

Bathroom furnishings are in the basement of the store.

Cambridge Dictionary

The general term for those things, among people who sell and install curtains, etc. , is 'hardware'.

When you move from one home to another, you would say: All the hardware for the living room curtains is in that box.

When you buy new curtains, you would ask: Will my existing hardware work, or do I need to buy new stuff?

When you paint a room, you would say: I'll have all the hardware down off the walls tomorrow morning.

Hardware

(MW, definitions 1 and 2) ware (as fittings, cutlery, tools, utensils, or parts of machines) made of metal major items of equipment or their components used for a particular purpose

That's the specific sense of the word.

What's confusing about it is that a 'hardware store' sells a lot more than just hardware, including lumber, plumbing supplies, furniture, appliances, etc.

Some someone who is not an interior designer, carpenter, builder, or painter might refer to a piece of lumber as 'hardware', since they bought it at a 'hardware store'.

Some people also refer to those pieces as 'fixtures'.

Fixture

(MW definition 2a)

something that is fixed or attached (as to a building) as a permanent appendage or as a structural part

The word furniture cannot be used for all accessories and fittings but can be used for some.

The source you provided gives an example of rifle fittings (rifle furniture) and I would give an example of door handles, locks and hinges, referred to as door furniture.

There is also street furniture such as street lighting, signs, benches and litter bins

What you have pointed to is a definition that explains how to understand a word when it is used in a certain way,but not when you can use the word in that way.

The term "furniture" has a well-known technical meaning in printing,for example.

It means certain pieces that are fit among or around thepieces of movable type in an old-style printing press.

But I think one would not use "furniture" to refer to other small accessoriesor fittings (such as a composing stick) that are used to assemble the typeor operate the press.

If you search the Web for "rifle furniture," you may find anumber of links to manufacturers or sellers advertising certain parts ofrifles.

(The word seems to correspond to the stock of a rifle orparts that serve the function of the stock.)A rifle has other accessory parts (such as sights) that appearnot to be "furniture."

A Web search for "Mac furniture" is not as successful.

That usage may have been intended to work by analogy, comparing the assignment of functions of graphical objectsin software interface to the placement of pieces of furniture within a room.

So the question is whether "furniture" would correctly be understood when used to denote things such as curtain hooks.

Unless you have observed multiple uses of the word in that wayby people whose business it is to deal with such things ascurtain hooks and rods, I would not advisetaking the risk of using it that way.

The risk of misunderstanding is large, sinceyou mean to speak of things that are part of thegeneral furnishings of a roombut are not among the things most people would think of as furniture.

No, you can't use "furniture" as a general term for any accessories or fittings.

household furniture like sofa, table, chairs, book shelves this kind of product referred as furniture.

If you are still confused check out this Wikipedia article FURNITURE

Question: Can the word "furniture" be used as a general term for accessories and fittings, for example, curtain accessories (hooks, brackets, rings)?   Furniture: the small accessories or fittings that are required for a  particular task or function ( source )

Furniture as a general term for curtain accessories

Furniture may not often be used in this context as the risk of misunderstanding is great. Other suggestion for this would be "hardware" or "fittings".

The word "furniture" can be used only for some accessories/fittings but there is a big risk of misunderstanding if it is used, since it is reserved for more generic house furnishings such as a sofa, a bed, etc. Instead, the terms "furnishings", "hardware" or "fixtures" are used by professionals.

There is a big risk of misunderstanding if the word "furniture" is used, since it is reserved for more generic house furnishings such as a sofa, a bed, etc.

The terms "furnishings", "hardware" or "fixtures" are used by professionals.

The word "furniture" can be used only for some accessories/fittings.


If a thing is slap-bang on , it would mean "exactly right".

His answer to the quiz was slap-bang on .

That said, one would not usually refer to a person as being: slap-bang on.

Please note: the term is slap-bang [right, as in right in the middle of] and usually referring to a THING, not a PERSON.

Slap-bang is used to intensify: the dog was slap-bang in the middle of the road.

The other term: to be bang on means to be right.

slap-bang on merely makes it stronger.

So, if you want to join /bang on/

the verb to /slap-bang/

the adjective, the best way would be: slap-bang on .

That said, it is very odd to say that: Princess Diana was slap bang-on.

The only meaning here would be: She was right about the royal unspoken code of marriage.

That means: She knew that if Charles could have Camilla, then she Diana was perfectly justified (slap-bang on or right about) about having that lover of hers (I forget this name).

"Slap-bang on" is a BrE colloquialism that means (more or less) "exactly", or "right".

For example: They tried to take the tube and landed slap-bang in the middle of the daily rush of commuters.

In this case it means that while Diana was branded by the media as "paranoid", she actually was correct that Prince Charles was romantically involved with Camilla.

I wonder if this is a personal quote or a misquote because it isn't grammatical.

" They branded Diana, and still do, an hysterical, diva-ish and paranoid woman, but Diana wasn't paranoid about Camilla and the royal unspoken code of marriage, she was absolutely slap, bang on."

They branded and still brand Diana, as an hysterical, diva-ish and paranoid woman.

However , Diana wasn't paranoid about Camilla and in regards to the unspoken royal code of marriage, she was absolutely correct.

"Slap" and "Bang on" are slang expressions that simply mean exactly correct (at least in the opinion of the speaker/author).

If you look at the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, Slap , and look in the adverb section you can see definition 1.1.

1.1 Exactly; right: Princess Diana was correct in her suspicions about Camilla Parker Bowles.

As a "Yank from across the Pond" it seems to me the UK slang "slap-bang" is akin to our own "dead-center" (fairly self-explanatory).

We also have the slang "dead-on" which means perfection .

The problem seems to be the conflation of "slap" with "bang on" being a somewhat odd combination as I read it.

Over here the closest thing to "slap-bang on" might be "dead-on center" in US slang.

This is not a very common usage but you may occasionally hear it none-the-less.

Both would mean "perfectly correct" in the final analysis.

Question: From  Grace Dent on Television: Harlots, Housewivs and Heroines - a 17th Century History for Girls, BBC4 | The Independent :   They branded Diana, and still do, an hysterical, diva-ish and paranoid woman, but Diana wasn't paranoid about Camilla and the royal unspoken code of marriage, she was absolutely  slap , bang on.     What does  slap  mean in this context?

What does "slap" mean in this context?

"Slap-bang on" is a British English colloquialism , meaning "exactly right". Slap-bang is also used to intensify, to emphasize "exactly".

If something is slap-bang on, it means it is "exactly right", "exactly correct". "Slap-bang" is used as an intensifier in British English. In US English, the expression "dead-center" is the synonym of "slap-bang". Here, it means that Diana was right in her suspicions that Camilla was Charles' lover. However, "slap-bang" usually refers to a thing and not a person, like in the example at hand.


A good question!

No, you can't (normally) put an adjective before a pronoun.

All of your examples sound incorrect and non-fluent.

But there is one way that you can correctly put an adjective in front of a pronoun: as an exclamation.

For example, Poor me!

or Lucky you!

which is like a way of saying "How unlucky I am!"

or "How lucky you are!"

There might be a possible use for it: if you use it as some kind of "alias" for different outcomes.

It's hard to explain, so I'll just present an example:

You find a suitcase full of money.

You can either take it and become rich, or take it to the police and stay poor. "

Rich you" could buy expensive things and live comfortably.

Poor you" would have peace of mind because he did the right thing.

It's not orthodox, but it isn't wrong either (as far as I know).

(Wrong)

I saw rich him driving a supercar.

If you have not referred to him before then you should use:

I saw a rich guy/person/friend/neighbour driving a supercar.

If you have referred to him before then you might consider:

I saw him driving a supercar.

Such a rich guy!

The key is to identify what you want to focus on, and the order you wish to convey the information or your opinion.

(Wrong)

Poor you can't buy foods enough.

"Foods enough" is incorrect and should be "enough food".

Probably what you want is: You are poor and can't buy enough food.

If you want to emphasize the relation between the cause and consequence, you can use: You, being poor, can't buy enough food.

Or: You, as a poor person, can't buy enough food.

But note that all three sound quite rude if you are really talking to a poor person.

And in a generic sentence only the first is suitable: If you are poor and can't buy enough food, you can collect food stamps from the government.

(Wrong)

Smart

they graduated from a famous university.

If you have previously referred to those smart people then use: Those smart people graduated from a famous university.

If you are talking about them for the first time then use: Some/Many smart people graduated from a famous university.

If you want to be implicitly link smartness to the fame of the university (possibly sarcastically) then use: They, smart people, graduated from a famous university.

Possible alternative sentences that use correct English grammar:

I saw a rich guy; he was driving a supercar.

There was a guy I saw; he must be rich because he was driving a supercar.

You are so poor you can't buy enough food.

They were smart; they graduated from a famous university.

You can replace any semicolon in the example sentences above with a period if you are willing to use multiple sentences rather than just one.

As already noted, there are a few very limited circumstances in which you can modify a pronoun with an adjective.

One of the ways you can do this is in the exclamation, "Poor you!"But be aware that this means "you are unfortunate," not "you have little money."

You could stretch this even further and use "poor you" as the subject of the sentence, "Poor you can't buy enough food.

"But

this is only suitable for informal writing or speech, and it is not easy to know when you can get away with using such an expression.

As a general rule, I would advise you not to try, at least until you have a much better ear for the language.

Moreover, the sentence does not mean what you thought it meant: its meaning is close to the more formal sentence, "You are unfortunate because you can't buy enough food."

The opposite of "poor you" is "lucky you," not "rich you."

Question: I want to modify a pronoun with adjectives like "rich he", "poor they" and "beautiful I". Can I do that?  For example, can I say "I saw rich him driving a supercar", "Poor you can't buy foods enough", "Smart they graduated from a famous university"?

Can adjectives modify a pronoun like "rich they", "poor you" and "beautiful I"?

You cannot (normally) put an adjective before a pronoun. These examples sound incorrect and non-fluent. However, you can correctly put an adjective in front of a pronoun as an exclamation.

The examples sound wrong, normally the adjective does not go before the pronoun. Only in very few, specific cases is a pronoun modified by an adjective. The only way to be correct in putting them in that order is if it is an exclamation (Poor you!), or if it is used as an alias (Rich me would give money to the homeless).


If the lamp is lit by actual fire, I'd probably say: Put out the lamp.

This is like how you "put out" a barbeque or a camping fire.

Note that, at least where I am, "lamp" and "light" are now synonymous and it took me a while to figure out what difference you were implying between the electric lightbulb and your "lamp".

ell.stackexchange.com/users/626/Lightness Races in Orbit

you can use douse the lamp or extinguish the lamp for a fire-lit lamp.

A single word for ending fires of all kinds: extinguish : (transitive) to put out, as in fire; to end burning; to quench This works for all kinds of flame lamps equally well (as does the original, put out ): candles:

snuff , snuff out , put out , extinguish gas lights: turn off , put out , extinguish oil lamps: turn off , put out , extinguish burning torches: douse , put out , extinguish "Extinguish" and "put out" also appropriate for electric lights, for which I'd not use any of the other terms above.

"Turn out the lamp" was also used more than 'off' in the times when lamps were oil or gas - see this ngram search .

Snuff or Snuff out applies specifically to lights based on fire: lamps, candles, torches.

It's perhaps a little bit old fashioned (though so are fire-based lights!)

Your two choices in your scenario are Turn off the lamp.

which is most idiomatic.

Another possibility might be Shut off the lamp.

but less often used.

Blow out is an other precise phrase which can be used in this context.

It means: Be extinguished by an air current.

Example usage:

She blew out the candles , posed graciously for countless photographs and accepted cheek kisses galore.

Seattle TimesNov 29, 2016

Question: We often say turn off the lights. Is it correct to say  turn off the lamp  when referring to a non-electric lamp (lit by fire)?That doesn't sound proper. Which is the better phrase to use there?

What is the correct word for "turn off lamp" for a non-electric lamp?

"Put out the lamp" is the term used in this context.

If the lamp is lit by actual fire, one probably say:   Put out  the lamp.
This is like how you "put out" a barbeque or a camping fire.
Note that, at least where I am, "lamp" and "light" are now synonymous and it took me a while to figure out what difference you were implying between the electric lightbulb and your "lamp".


I expect most Americans, when seeing this, would call it a Swiffer , even if it is not actually a Swiffer brand product.

It’s similar to how many Americans call any kind of facial tissue a Kleenex .

After doing a web search for "dust mop", I agree with Corvus B that the generic term for this product seems to be dust mop .

Either plain mop or dust mop , depending on how it's used.

A dust mop is used dry to pick up dust.

It is not used with water or soap.

Your pictured mop looks different than a traditional dust mop, but it would probably work as one.

If it's used with water, it is not a dust mop.

Some mops of this style have sprayers that squirt soap ahead of the mop.

If that's the case, I would just call it a mop.

They're essentially the same principle as a traditional mop, just implemented a bit differently to make cleaning them easier.

It's not different enough to need a distinct name.

If you do need to differentiate it from a traditional mop, I would focus on the specific thing you need to differentiate.

If someone wants to know where your mop bucket is, you could say something like, "I don't have one; I have a mop with an attached sprayer.

" If you're trying to find replacement heads in the store, and you don't see the style you need, then you'd say, "where are your flat/microfiber/Swiffer mop heads?" (Pick the descriptor that best matches your particular mop.)

If you are trying to find a similar mop on Google or Amazon so you can buy one, then my testing shows that "microfiber mop" or "flat mop" both work well, although I've never heard anyone actually use those terms.

If you're asking an employee in a physical store, you can simply call it a mop, because all mop types will be together.

It is definitely not a squeegee or sponge mop, because it doesn't have a sponge head that is squeezed with a mechanism on the mop handle.

How about flat mop ?

I had only heard such mops referred to as "mops" before, but the Wikipedia page on mops seems to be calling them in general "flat mops" (with other more specific terms based on their features or intended uses).

I would immediately understand the term, as it's a mop

and it's flat, and a web search for "flat mop" brings up similar results.

It looks like a dry mop to me, Dry mop is listed in Merriam-Webster dictionary online as "a long-handled mop for dusting floors".

In my place of work we use mops similar to this to dry floors after moping with a regular mop, so as to reduce the risk of people slipping.

We call these dry mops.

I work in UK.

It's a sweeper floor mop , both a sweeping and a mopping tool.

There are many different models and shapes.

As Todd answered, Swiffer company and many others make such mops.

Norwex makes this one we have, they call it a mop.

That being said, my wife and I call it the swiffer-- and

yes, every time I know I am being wrong and/or lazy.

In line with the US "Swiffer" (brand; which I've also seen in Holland), I think in the UK the same market position is held by "e-cloth"; and "e-cloth mop" gives sponsored/shopping results on Google from competing brands, so they use it as a keyword.

More generically it would be "microfibre mop" as that's the type of cloth without brand name.

Question: What this pictured object is called in English?   I was googling for mop and squeegee and got confused since based on the pictures in google images the most mops and squeegees look different. Then what is the accurate name for that?

What is this mop-like tool called in English?

It's not different enough to need a distinct name, so you could just call it a mop. If you do need to differentiate it from a traditional mop, focus on the differentiating factor, such as "dust mop" or "floor mop".

A dust mop is used dry to pick up dust. It is not used with water or soap. They're essentially the same principle as a traditional mop, just implemented a bit differently. It's not different enough to need a distinct name.


Both names are used today, but I think scale has become more popular.

I tend to use scales, but I've hear younger people saying scale.

I think scales probably came about because in past days these devices had two pans (scales).

In one pan you would place a known weight (2Kg for example) and then you would add a substance like sugar until the pans/scales balanced.

From this you would know that you had measured out the correct amount of sugar desired i.e. 2 kg.

Today most devices have one pan /scale

hence the singular form.

I agree that this usage is very confusing.

Here is a sloppy collage I made to try and explain the difference.

All of the pictures here could be called "a scale" in a general sense.

For example, if I said, "Weigh it on a scale!"

any of these tools would be appropriate.

However, the top row here depicts some scales or a set of scales

If the weighing tool has two or more parts to balance (like the top row), you can refer to it as the scales or a scale .

The middle image is the plural form of scales, while the scales in the first image could be considered a noun with no singular form .

The bottom row depicts a specific scale .If

you're in the gym, the more common usage is the version without the -s, scale : "Step on the scale in the corner."

For context, I am a young, Midwestern American.

Older folks or other countries might use scales instead.

Of the top 10 digital kitchen scales on Amazon UK today, 5 describe themselves as "scales", 1 describes itself as "scale", and 4 hedge their bets and use both terms.

The numbers are exactly the same for the top 10 bathroom scales.

Anecdotally, I would say that the UK is undergoing a shift from scales to scale, partly generational.

"Scale" sounds odd to my British English ears, but it is increasingly heard and read.

Neither is wrong in British English usage, but using "scales" in the UK is still safer in that hardly anyone (yet) will regard it as wrong whereas the reverse isn't the case.

According to the Global Corpus of Web-based English, both forms are used in North America and Australia, with "scale" being slightly preferred; but "scales" is strongly preferred in the UK, Ireland, and New Zealand.

Looking for "scale (noun)" near a form of "weigh"

, I get US: 36;

CA: 28; GB: 15

; IE: 8; AU: 10; NZ: 1. but for "scales (noun)" near a form of "weigh", I get: US: 32; CA: 21; GB: 50;

IE: 21;

AU: 10; NZ: 10.

Certainly I (BrE speaker) would always say "scales" (and use a plural verb and pronouns).

My daughter and I have just had the same argument.

It may have a generational element to it as well as regional.

Scales are in the category of nouns that, because of having, or originally having, two parts, took on plural usage.

Scissors, shears, and pliers fall in this category.

So do pants, trousers, slacks, even culottes and shorts.

We even speak of them as plural: a pair of pants when we are referring to a single garment.

Interestingly, when they are used as adjectives, they become singular: a pant suit; a scissor cut.

Question: When referring to Weighing scale/s that for weighing things or people in gym for example, then what's correct? scale or scales or both correct?   I am asking it right after looking at the entry in  Cambridge dictionary  and I got confused because it is not clear there.

Weighing scale or scales?

According to the Global Corpus of Web-based English, both forms are used in North America and Australia, with "scale" being slightly preferred. However, "scales" is strongly preferred in the UK, Ireland, and New Zealand.

In North America and Australia "scale" is slightly preferred, but "scales" is strongly preferred in the UK, Ireland and New Zealand.

In North America and Australia, both forms are used, whereby "scale" is slightly preferred, according to the Global Corpus of Web-based English, but "scales" is strongly preferred in the UK, Ireland and New Zealand.


Because drinking isn't dangerous, and driving isn't dangerous – at least, not in comparison to the single activity "drinking and driving" – the two words are treated as a single unit.

This might happen a lot when we combine two or more elements in a sentence:

My favorite drinks are gin and tonic.

This could mean I have two favorite drinks: gin is a favorite drink, and so is tonic.

My favorite drink is gin and tonic.

This means that a gin-and-tonic is my favorite drink.

There, and is understood to mean "in combination with" hence the singular is appropriate.

They are not individually dangerous

(if you don't drive recklessly and drink in moderation) and that's why you wouldn't say are .

If you say: Drinking and driving are dangerous.

this is the equivalent of saying: Drinking is dangerous.

Driving is dangerous.

By saying: Drinking and driving is dangerous.

we mean that drinking to the state of being intoxicated, even mildly, and then driving while still intoxicated, is dangerous.

However, the quote is much pithier than the explanation!

The combination of drinking and driving is a single object.

Here we see one combination of two things.

The common phrase 'drinking and driving is dangerous' is leaving out some clarifying words.

"Drinking and driving are dangerous" has a particular meaning:

drinking is dangerous (perhaps) and driving is dangerous (perhaps), if you look at each singularly.

The meaning of your sentence is that [the combination of] drinking and driving is dangerous.

An new example of 'is vs. are' with clearer context may help: Singing and rock climbing are challenging activities.

Singing while rock climbing is a more challenging activity.

In standard English when a list of items is used as the subject of a verb then, that verb takes the plural even if all the items in the list are singular.

For example you would say Gold, iron, copper and aluminium are metals rather than is metals (although some dialect have the opposite convention).

BUT 'drinking and driving' is a list but effectively a single compound noun.

actually 'drunk driving' would be more grammatically correct but has been abandoned as the precise definition of 'drunk' is too ambiguous in this context and the phrase is used to reinforce the idea that drinking any alcohol before driving is dangerous even if you don't think you are 'drunk'.

This is different to saying 'drinking is dangerous, driving is dangerous'.

It is the singular act of drinking and driving that is being described as dangerous.

In describing multiple acts that are individually considered to be dangerous you would use the plural form of the verb.

For example: Drinking and driving is dangerous and illegal.

Smoking and mountain climbing are dangerous and legal.

"Drinking and driving" is treated as one unit in this case.

"Drinking and driving" is dangerous "X" is dangerous Interestingly, in the UK

the expression is "drink-driving", and it's still treated as a singular unit and can be placed right into the same structure: "Drink-driving" is dangerous

Question: In the sentence: "Drinking and driving is dangerous". Drinking and driving are both subjects and the word dangerous is the object (I think) but why do I have to use the verb to be in singular?

In the sentence: "Drinking and driving IS dangerous", why does the verb "to be" need to be singular?

The combination of drinking and driving is considered to be a single object. The meaning of your sentence is that [the combination of] drinking and driving is dangerous.

The combination of drinking and driving is a single object. Here we see one combination of two things. The common phrase 'drinking and driving is dangerous' is leaving out some clarifying words.


If this is a useful piece of information about the job offer then " tip " could be helpful: Thank you for the tip.

Instead of the word " information " you can say " info " which will sound less formal.

Thanks for the info.

If it's a reference to a webpage or maybe some other source then the word " link " will be the right one.

Thank you for the link.

I wouldn't say that the word information sounds formal.

Though, I agree with you that it is, in some sense, broad in meaning.

It's nevertheless a very basic and everyday word just like many other words in English.

So, there's really nothing wrong in using it the way you're using it in your sentence.

But if you do insist on sounding a little bit more terse and casual, consider substituting the whole thing with find : Thank you for your find .

Thanks for the find .

Possibly, a word like tidbit would work even better: Thanks for the tidbit .

It depends on what exactly you want to say.

As Cookie Monster mentions, Thank you for your find works well.

Also: Thank you for the listing.

Thank you for the lead.

You may want to thank him for contacting you rather than for the information -- that is, the communication is more important than the data.

So you can choose from many synonyms for the communication itself and the act of communicating: contact, notice, notification, note, message, email, reaching out, letting me know, telling me, and so on.

For example: Thank you for letting me know about the job.

or Thank you for your message about the job

You can even use word particulars (that is, the details).

The sentence could be structured as: "Thank you for the particulars."

According to Dictionary.com (definition 11), the word means: particular (noun) usually particulars .

specific points, details, or circumstances : to give an investigator the particulars of a case .

You can always look up the word in a good thesaurus .

My recommendations, though not a native speaker, are info tip notice

guidance news update guessing from the context.

Question: A friend sent me an email telling me about a job opening.  I want to send him an email telling him " thank you for the information about the job ", but I feel that the the word "information" is very broad and formal, I want something specific and casual.  What one word or phrase can I use to replace information in the  bold  sentence above?

Synonym for the word "information"

You could use many terms for this communication and the  information in it, including particulars, details, note, message, contact or email. A set example would be "Thank you for letting me know about the job" or  "Thank you for your message about the job".

You can either say thank you for contacting or thank you for the particulars

You may want to thank him for contacting you rather than for the information. So you can choose from many synonyms for the communication itself and the act of communicating. For example:  Thank you for letting me know about the job.

You can even use word  particulars  (that is, the details) . The sentence could be structured as:   "Thank you for the particulars"


"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."

My above quote referencing the use of diminish is from "For whom the bell tolls" written by John Donne, who lived from 1572 to 1631.

"Diminish" is rarely used in this context today, although it is valid.

I would write your second sentence as

I would never mock you or

put you down .

Or even I would never mock you or

disrespect you .

The most common way of phrasing this would be to include the verb "try":

I would never mock

you or try to diminish you.

This is a fairly common usage, which sounds like what you want to say.

Of course you can say it without the "try" but that implies that you actually have the ability to make the other person "less" simply by making fun of them, so it would be a rude/insensitive choice when you want to be nice.

Some similar examples from around the web:

“They tried to diminish me and Joe , and the whole point of their character assassination was to divert attention from the real issues.”

Valerie Plame, quoted in "Valerie Plame Wilson: the housewife CIA spy who was 'fair game' for Bush",

The Telegraph , 15 Feb 2011 When someone curses you out or insults

you profane language, he is trying to diminish you .

Stuart Schneiderman, "The Civil and the Profane" blog entry, December 19, 2013

You’ve had more than enough of those who tried to diminish you .

These guys always tried to be above you.

They insulted you, they patronized you and diminished you in all possible ways because that was good for their egos.

Selma June, "A Man Who Thinks You Are Worthy Will Come Along", Her Way , March 09, 2018

I think there is a difference.

Mock, belittle, disparage, disrespect, put you down, diss:

these are all things I can do to make you seem less worthy than you are.

Diminish, in the sense Donne uses it, means you actually become less worthy.

For all his greatness however, he was diminished by his last years and by Churchill's disastrous decision to recall him to the Admiralty soon after the outbreak of the First World War. "

- book review on Amazon

He was able to handle Martinez with ease — yes, he was diminished, but no, that didn't stop..."

- article discussing whether a boxer is likely to win his next contest.

These quotes use "diminish" to mean "become less".

It is harder to find uses where it means "to make less", and where the subject and object are both persons ("I would never diminish you").

In none of these examples is someone diminished merely because of what people say about them.

Hmmm ...

By a dictionary definition it sounds valid, but I've never heard a native speaker say that.

People will say "diminish your reputation" or "diminish your status", but not simply "diminish you".

I wouldn't say it's wrong, and people would understand what you meant, but it's just not how people commonly use the word.

In terms of grammar your sentence makes perfect sense.

It is possible to diminish a person.

Generally however, an english speaking person wouldn’t use the word diminish and would use something else.

Maybe replace it with something more common like “shame” or “tease”.

If you want the meaning to stay the same but sound better try “belittle”.

"I will diminish and go to the west" --Lady Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings , J.R.R Tolkein

Using this as an example, I'd say it's acceptable if you're a writer to use the word this way, if what you intend is to create a very formal (archaic) character.

That said, there is some cross-over between the ideas of archaic English, and more "high" English among intellectuals who aren't exactly concerned with what is used in laymen circles.

diminish might be used in that manner in a book about interpersonal relationships intended for lay audiences ("popular psychology") or in a psychology text.

I would never mock or belittle you.

I would never mock or disparage you.

belittle

Question: In the following dialogue, is the second sentence correct?   "Thank you for not making fun of me."   "I would never mock you or diminish you."   I checked the Oxford dictionary and it defines  diminish  as  Make or become less .  Can I use the word in reference to a person in this context?

Is it okay to use the word "diminish" for a person?

It is acceptable to use the word "diminish" for a person.  "Diminish your reputation" or "diminish your status" are also used.

This is a valid term meaning to put someone down, although it is not very commonly used by native speakers. Someone could accuse another person of trying to deminish them, but "diminish their reputation" could be more common.


A trend can be either negative (decreasing) or positive (increasing).

For that matter, a trend can be neutral (flat).

A trend is simply the continuation of what has gone before.

The Longman on-line dictionary defines it as follows: a general tendency in the way a situation is changing or developing

So your sentences could be:

Sales declined to 10 in November, and to 5 in December.

This trend repeated the following year.

As you have already mentioned that sales declined in November and December, it is not necessary to state, 'This negative trend repeated the following year', although doing so would not be frowned on.

If you are talking about 'sales' generally, there is no need to precede it with the definite article.

If you are talking about a specific 'sales of something', then you may precede that with a definite article, although it is not essential, e.g. (The) sales of automotive parts declined in August.

Because you are talking about two different trends, the results of sales in November and December in two consecutive years, it is correct to say, 'The trend repeated...'.

If you had said, 'This trend repeated the following month', this would have been wrong, because the following month would have been a continuation of the trend in the two previous months.

In this case you would have had to say, 'This trend continued the following month'.

You can use the word decline as a noun to mean a negative/downward trend.

decline has many synonyms , but most are specific to particular circumstances.

fall would work in this context.

In a more technical vein, you could talk about a positive slope (increase) and a negative slope (decrease) but as you mention sales as your example this may not be as common - if the example was voltage change over time then it wold be fine.

Another word for declining trend is downturn .

One thing that immediately came to my mind is pattern :

The sales declined to 10 in November, and to 5 in December.

This pattern repeated the following year.

It's a little more general that trend , because it can describe something other than a steady incline or decline, but it's still a way of describing the behaviour of something.

From Merriam-Webster : 7 : a reliable sample of traits, acts, tendencies, or other observable characteristics of a person, group, or institution • a behavior pattern • spending patterns •

the prevailing pattern of speech

It does not mean negative on its own, but you can easily add that adjective and describe a negative pattern which will be understood in context.

Alternatively, if you really do want a single word that's specifically negative, try erosion :

The sales declined to 10 in November, and to 5 in December.

This erosion repeated the following year.

The word has the benefit of having a negative emotional connotation to it in addition to just a metric.

From Merriam-Webster, erosion is "the action or process of eroding," which redirects to erode : 1 : to diminish or destroy by degrees: c : to cause to deteriorate or disappear as if by eating or wearing away • inflation eroding buying power

Question: Is there a word for that?  Example sentence:   The sales declined to 10 in November, and to 5 in December. This __ repeated the following year.   Note: I checked the synonyms for  trend . But none of them imply a negative/downward trend.

Is there a word for "negative/declining trend"?

One might say negative or downward trend, or decline/downturn.

A trend can increase or decrease, and is the continuation of the past direction. Decline or downturn are two nouns that could be used.


That somebody is wrong and does not speak proper English.

You are correct on both of your sentences.

My friends and I went snowboarding.

Is a perfectly valid phrase

( And by FAR the most common).

However, you could also say I and my friends went snowboarding.

Which is also valid (but in REAL life no one uses this phrasing) .

I would use your first choice though as it is more commonplace and is more courteous (as you put your friends before you).

Also the first phrase just has more of a ring to it (sounds better).

Your sentence is entirely correct.

I'm not sure why they thought it was incorrect, but I'll explain why you're correct, and then guess what their mistake may have been.

When we use two subjects together, we should be able to use either one by itself.

My friends went snowboarding.

I went snowboarding.

Both of these work fine, so there is no mistake there.

Further, it is traditional to place "I" as the last person in a list of subjects (probably to be humble).

"I and my friends", while not grammatically wrong, is generally considered to be incorrect.

Next, we use the verb "go" for (almost) any activity that is made with [verb]-ing.

Go shopping", "go swimming", "go skiing", etc.

You used "go" (or here the past tense, "went"), so that's correct.

The only thing that could possibly make your sentence wrong is if it was for the wrong time.

For example: I went snowboarding next week.

This is wrong (assuming you don't have a time machine), but I really don't think you made that mistake.

So why did they say it was wrong?

Well, there are two possibilities I can think of.

First, they may have been thinking that you should use the verb "do" or "play" instead of "go".

That's wrong.

"Go" is the correct word.

Second, they may have been making a common mistake (even among native speakers).

Many people say "My friends and me went snowboarding.

" This is not correct, because it doesn't pass the test I mentioned in the beginning.

My friends went snowboarding.

This is correct, but...

Me went snowboarding. ...is not correct.

Therefore, it should be I, not me.

Hope that helps!

My friends and I went snowboarding

There's nothing wrong with the sentence; it's perfect.

How come somebody says that your sentence is not correct?

Maybe he likes to use object pronouns when they are cojoined with other nouns/subject pronouns as many people tend to do so in informal speaking and writing.

In this case, the sentence will be: My friends and me went snowboarding.

Or maybe he likes to begin the sentence with "I"

as follows: I and my friends went snowboardig.

This sentence is also OK grammatically, but your sentence is more polite and common.

Another reason may be that he prefers the following sentence as presented by J.R:

I went snowboarding with my friends.

This sentence like yours also sounds easy on the ear.

It is possible your friend had your sentence confused with a similar grammar error that you did NOT make.

It is incorrect to say "John gave apples to Ann and I" Same reason:

You can say "John gave apples to Ann" but you cannot say "John gave apples to I"

Your friends expected to see 'me' instead of 'I' .

For example: 'Me and my friends went snowboarding.'

Generally speaking..

My friends and I went snowboarding ..would be considered good "proper" English and is grammatically correct.

However, in general conversation people will say.. Me and my friends went snowboarding ..which is perfectly acceptable in all but the most polite of circumstances - by which I mean - meeting the queen etc.

( "The Queen"?? :) )

If someone picks you up on using the second form then they are probably either..

Joking President of the Correct English Society (fictitious)

In need of a stick removing from their a**

But I and my friends went snowboarding ..

is not correct, and just sounds "wrong" to a native speaker.

It should either be me and my friends or my friends and I (see above).

"me and my friends" is a fixed construction, which works well as subject in this sentence, allowing the object form "me".

"I and my friends" is not.

One could argue that "my friends and me" is a totally acceptable construction too, but in this sentence, "me" would be followed by the verb, which makes it sound much too close to "me went skiing..", which is by most considered grammatically very wrong.

Question: When I say    My friends and I went snowboarding.   somebody said to me there is a grammar mistake in my sentence but I could not figure out what it is. What is the grammar mistake in the sentence? Should it be    I and my friends went snowboarding.

My friends and I went snowboarding

Your sentence is entirely correct. It is traditional to place "I" as the last person in a list of subjects).

"My friends and I" is correct. "I and my friends" is not grammatically incorrect, but it is normal to place 'I' last. It is possible that your friend thought that it should be "my friends and me", which would be incorrect.


A good term for that is a mixed blessing .

You would use it like Being the only person in town who could read or write

was a mixed blessing ; the villagers were impressed and respectful, but they also came to me with a non-stop flow of letters to read, contracts to sign, etc.

A common expression is a double-edged sword : something that has or can have both favorable and unfavorable consequences Here is an example of it in use, showing the subject's positive and negative effects, from an article titled, Technology is a double-edged sword : ...

innovation is a double-edged sword.

Digital technology is indeed creative, in the sense that it enables us to do new things that were hitherto impossible....

But technology is also destructive in the sense that it destroys or undermines things that are valuable: bookshops and print newspapers...

Alternate versions of the same concept are " two-edged sword " and " it cuts both ways ".

So we could reword the above example as either: ...

innovation is a two-edged sword.

or: ...

innovation cuts both ways.

Something that has both good and bad qualities can be said to be a blessing and a curse : Something that is both a benefit and a burden or that may seem initially beneficial but also brings unforeseen negative consequences.

Here's an example sentence:

The Internet is both a blessing and a curse —a blessing in that you have easy access to all the information in the world without having to leave your house, but a curse in that it gives evil people like terrorists and pedophiles an easy tool that they can use to commit their crimes.

Another phrase for something that has both positive and negative aspects is a mixed bag .

Here is an example of how it's used in a sentence.

The service at the restaurant was a mixed bag.

The staff were very friendly, however, the service was incredibly slow and we had to wait nearly half an hour until our food was served.

Maybe the term trade-off ?

Although it is sometimes used to describe a compromise which may be neither the "pro" nor the "con" but somewhere in-between, it is also often used to describe something which has both pros and cons.

For example a piece of software that lacks some features of one competitor (so has cons) but has advantages over another (pros) may be described as " a good trade-off ".

I suspect this is quite a niche colloquialism (I'm English) but we use the term swings and roundabouts to describe something that can be positive or negative, ie where there are two options, both having positive and negatives but overall adding up to making no real difference.

Related question on ELU:

Why does 'swings and roundabouts' mean 'gains and losses that offset each other'?

Question: Is there a word for anything that is a con and a pro at the same time. I mean it is both good and bad, has both a minus and a plus, is an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time.   A second entrance door is a ____  Two heads is a ____  A fifth wheel is a ____ for a car.

A pro and a con at the same time

"Mixed blessing", "mixed bag", "double-edged sword", or "swings and roundabouts" are all suggestions in this context.

Mixed blessing or mixed bag indicates that there are positive and negative aspects. Double-edged sword is often used to talk about positive and negative consequences. Swings and roundabouts suggests that there are multiple options that make little difference on balance.


"Interlocutor" is a great word!

But it is rarely used and will have most people reaching for a dictionary.

The others are not telephone-specific and also carry other inferences, especially interviewer which suggests that the telephone conversation itself is a formal interview and perhaps rather one-sided.

The two parties on a telephone call are officially called the calling party and the called party , although I have not personally heard this used and may be considered old-fashioned.

If the other person initiated the call, you could refer to them simply as " the caller ", which is more common.

Alternatively, you could just refer to them as " the other party ".

People often say " the person on the other end ".

We speak of a party on a call or of the parties on a call.

In legalistic contexts, party is the word used for either person (or any person) on a phone call.

The formal term used in telecommunications is caller and call recipient.

This text on caller ID shows this usage: caller and [call] recipient

In everyday language, as has been suggested, the person I was talking to, the person called, etc., the call taker, for example.

There is no single term that is commonly used.

None of these are good words for this idea.

"Interlocutor" means someone involved in a conversation of any kind, not necessarily on a telephone.

If you're not worried about that distinction, then it's a valid word.

But it's a very rarely used word.

I haven't taken a survey

but I suspect most English speakers are not familiar with the word and would have to guess its meaning or look it up.

"Interviewer" implies that this conversation is an interview, that is, that someone is being questioned by a reporter for a news story, by a company that is considering hiring him for a job, or something of that sort.

We don't use this word for an ordinary conversation.

"Addressee" is normally used for someone to whom you have sent a letter, not a participant in a verbal conversation.

It can be used in cases where a speaker calls someone out in some way, for example, a teacher picks a student to answer a question.

But this is rather rare and use for a phone conversation would be unusual and possibly confusing.

"Hearer" implies that the person is listening only and not speaking.

The word might be used for someone in a crowd listening to a speech, or someone who overhears a conversation between others.

It is not used for someone who participates in a two-way conversation.

All that said, there is no one word in English to refer to someone participating in a telephone conversation.

We normally use a short phrase, like, "the person I called" or "the person who called me".

Other words to refer to a person may be used, like "the man who called", "that jerk who called", etc.

You can call the person who called, "the caller".

You might think that by analogy to other words you could refer to the person receiving the call as "the callee", but no fluent speaker says that.

If you weren't trying to reach a specific person, like if you called a company, you can say "there person who answered" (or "the woman who answered", etc)

Once the context of a phone call is clear, we usually simply call the person by the same sort of shorthand we use for people in general: "him", "that lady", etc.

If we know who which side made the call, then " answerer " or " caller " can be applicable.

Otherwise, there are some other answers here.

I will go ahead and submit another one for consideration:

The " phone ".

In some cases, this won't work well.

However, in some situations, referring to the phone is a way that people may describe the conversation.

"What I learned from the phone is..."

He got mad and was screaming at the phone."

The phone told him...

The phone is making her angry

In these cases, people will know that you're actually referring to the person on the other side of the phone.

Actually, a more clear term is something like "the person she is talking to", like noted in Lambie's comment to Tᴚoɯɐuo's answer .

There is one common advantage to trying to use " caller ", " answerer ", or referring to the " phone " like as if the phone itself is what is listening or speaking.

That advantage is simply shortness.

You can say any of those faster than " the person on the other side of the phone call ".

If you are looking for a shorter phrase, these terms will sometimes accomplish that goal.

Question: What is a proper word for a person who you have telephone talk with?I found the words  interlocutor, interviewer, addressee  and  hearer . What is the best to choose, especially for using in a formal way?

What do we call our conversation partner on the telephone?

A telephone conversation partner may be referred to as an interlocutor, a caller/call recipient, or the person on the other end.

Interlocutor' is a good formal word to refer to a participant in any conversation (not just on the telephione). 'Caller' and 'call recipient' are the formal terms, and 'caller' is commonly used in general language. "The person on the other end" is a more informal way of saying the same thing. 'Interviewer', 'addressee' and 'hearer' are not normally used to refer to callers or speakers in this context.


Oxford lists three primary meanings for the word grow .

The first two reflect what we often immediately think of when we think about growing:

grow ( v. ) to undergo natural development by increasing in size and changing physically grow ( v. ) to become larger or greater over a period of time; to increase It’s the third meaning, though, that provides the key to your apparent oxymoron: grow ( v. ) to become, gradually or increasingly : sharing our experiences we grew braver

So, if the number of fish are gradually becoming diminished, then a headline might say: Tasty Fish Grow Smaller in Warming Ocean More likely, though, is probably referring to the size of the fish, if the gradually-warming ocean is causing the fish to become smaller over time (or, perhaps more accurately, "causing the average size of adult fish to become smaller over time").

Grow and smaller aren't linked the way you are interpreting it.

The sentence is saying that fish that used to reach a certain size in adulthood aren't growing that big in a warmer ocean, they are smaller than their predecessors.

As well as the common usage of grow to increase in size it can also be used to indicate a gradual or progressive change of state for example As night fell it began to grow colder.

Having said that using the phrase 'grow' smaller is probably best avoided as it is a bit ambiguous as it is not clear whether it means they actually shrink or they just grow more slowly, reach a smaller maximum size or indicating a trend in in the population as a whole over time.

Although this is often the case with headlines and often the ambiguity is deliberate in order to make a story sound more interesting or sensational than it really is.

I don’t see any conflict in it.

Yes, “to grow” means get bigger

and they are!

but consider that they grow less than expected.

Tasty Fish Grow Smaller [than it is expected] in Warming Ocean.

I think you can use 'grow', since there is an increase of 'smallness' compared to a previous state.

A different argument is: 'grow smaller' does not mean a big fish turns small.

It just means that fish now have a slower growth rate, or that they stop growing earlier at all.

Nevertheless you have the act of 'growing' from tadpole to fish.

This is what 'grow' refers to, it is not a general phenomena that happens to all fish.

So, long and thanks for all the fish :)

Question: This is the headline of  an online article :   Tasty Fish Grow Smaller in Warming Ocean.   And this is from  Google search :   Why Belgian coins grow smaller.   Growing  is all about increasing in size and getting bigger while  smaller  is just the opposite, however, English seems to permit the two words to come together.How is this possible?

Can things "grow smaller"?

Accoridng ot the Oxford dictionary, to grow can also mean to become, gradually or increasingly. It ca be used to indicate a gradual or progressive change of state. For example:    As night fell, it began to grow colder.

The verb 'grow' has several primary meanings, including change over time, e.g. grow colder, grow braver. In this sense, a coin could grow smaller over time.


A "queue" is, by definition, line-shaped, therefore it makes sense to define it by its length rather than its size .

So "a long queue".

In contrast, a "crowd" is kind of blob-shaped, so you would say "a big/large crowd".

I can't argue with the logic of previous answers, preferring 'Long'.

But, as a native English speaker, I have to say that 'a big queue' would raise no eyebrows.

Either one is fine to my British ears.

Because of the physical shape of queues, any big queue has to be long, so the words have equivalent meaning in this case.

As this NGram query shows, long is the right answer.

This doesn't tell you why or even how to remember it , but I agree with Andrew's answer that long tends to be used for one-dimensional objects and big and large for higher dimensions.

An area can be long but not big; take the country Chile as an example.

It's long, and big when compared to my backyard but rather small next to its neighbour Argentina.

Only "half-native" here but just today I used "big queue" and it certainly did not raise any eyebrows among the "full-natives" around me.

Additionally to the previous answers I'd say that "big" can be understood as a "category" containing "long" and other "shapes" of "big".

Therefore you could always use the superordinate "big" to replace any of the "subordinate" and more specific forms of "big".

Question: What's the idiomatic adjective for the noun " queue "?    I waited there in a very  long  queue.   or   I waited there in a very  big  queue.   Or maybe something else?

We're waiting in a BIG or LONG queue?

A "queue" is line-shaped, therefore it makes sense to define it by its  length  rather than its  size, so it is "a  long  queue". However, "a big queue" would not be misunderstood by english natives.

A one-dimensional line would usually be described as long, while a two- or three-dimensional shape would be described as big. However, a long line could also be described as big, and it would not be considered too unusual to call a line big.


No, that sounds kind of pretentious and just wrong, as though you looked through a thesaurus to find a synonym.

What is wrong with just using “believe”?

You wouldn’t use “cogitate” exactly this way either.

This word means “to meditate (on)”: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cogitate - you would use this to describe thinking about something deeply and intently.

Not to describe something you think or know to be true.

“Cogitating” is more of an active process, and “believing” might be the result of “cogitating”.

In any case the word “cogitate” is not very common, and does sound pretentious to me.

“Meditate on” or “ponder” are preferable and more common (but still, none of these words are appropriate in this context).

Firstly, it's pretty rare to use cogitate at all.

Using any word related to it, the most common is "cogitation", the action noun for the act of cogitating.

Second, think has two main senses in English.

Most of us native speakers don't even necessarily realise it, but

if we learn a language that has separate words for the two, like French, it kind of clicks.

In French, there is penser , the active sense of think , where we might say think about , and croire , the stative sense of think , which is closely matched in sense to believe (though clearly with some difference).

Cogitate is a close match to penser , not to croire .

It means the act of thinking, pondering, and so on.

You might, if you wished to be pretentious, say: Let me cogitate on that a minute.

You can't say what you want to say.

It doesn't make sense.

I agree with Mixolydian, "cogitate" sounds pretentious and doesn't fullfil exactly your intention.

I don't know where you have found that word but what about checking the Oxford Thesaurus ?

Let me suggest some alternatives

In conclusion, I think that success solely relies on hard work.

In conclusion, I consider that success solely relies on hard work.

In conclusion, I' m of the opinion that success solely relies on hard work.

As Mixolydian states, cogitate is more about meditation or consideration of something.

However, you could use it by rearranging your sentence a bit: After some cogitation, I conclude that success solely relies on hard work.

This implies that the conclusion was reached after the cogitation.

If you're looking to be the opposite of pretentious, you could say I reckon that success solely relies on hard work.

I think you are trying to suggest that your conclusion is based on some careful consideration.

So you might try:In conclusion, I determine (or have determined) that success solely relies on hard work.

From the OED.

Verb Ascertain or establish exactly by research or calculation.

‘the

inquest is entrusted with the task of determining the cause of death’with clause ‘

the point of our study was to determine what is true, not what is practicable’

In my native French language, the verb "cogiter" has specific meaning.

It is used when one experiences deep, chronical thoughts about a subject.

It often refers to an unpleasant feeling, an obsessive thinking, which sticks to you for a relatively long period.

So when I read In conclusion, I cogitate that success solely relies on hard work.

I get a weird feeling about your sentence's time consistency.

In English, the word "Cogitate" is used almost exclusively for humorous or comic effect.

I've been cogitating whether to go for a perambulation, but I fear it may precipitate.

Means

I've been thinking about going for a walk,

but I think it's going to rain.

It's not that they aren't proper words, it's that they are ten shilling words used in a ha'penny sentence.

The word "cogitate" means to ponder on think about intently.

A deliberate thought process whereas "believe" is relative to a matter of faith or speculation.

Perhaps the phase "I speculate that" might be more appropriate.

Question: I have been thinking about other ways to say "I believe" in an essay and I came across "cogitate". Do you think it would be appropriate to use this word in an essay's conclusion?  For instance, does this sound all right?        In conclusion, I cogitate that success solely relies on hard work.

Is "cogitate" used appropriately in "I cogitate that success relies on hard work"?

The word “cogitate” is not very common, and does sound pretentious. Cogitating” is more of an active process, and “believing” might be the result of “cogitating”. Perhaps the phase "I speculate that" might be more appropriate.

The word "cogitate" would rarely be used in the English language and would never be used to replace "believe" as it has a different meaning.

Cogitate would not be used in this context. "Cogitate" means "to ponder" and not "to believe". The word "cogitate" is rarely used in English.


The first word that jumped to my mind is the adjective belligerent .

Some published definitions include: inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.

Aggressively hostile, eager to fight; acting violently towards others.

hostile and aggressive: a bull-necked, belligerent old man .

Such a person is a hothead or a bruiser , or has a chip on his/her shoulder .

According to Vocabulary.com, A hothead is someone who's suddenly and easily angered or agitated.

It's usually a hothead who starts a riot or turns a peaceful protest violent.

Source: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hothead

According to CollinsDictionary.com, A bruiser is someone who is tough, strong, and aggressive, and enjoys a fight or argument.

Source: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bruiser

Pugnacious fits: Eager or quick to argue, quarrel, or fight.

Oxford Dictionaries You can also check its synonyms.

Merriam Webster has a good comparison of them.

The adjective quarrelsome is a good word to describe someone who likes to argue with other people.

Many times, they do that just for the heck of it.

A quarrel is a fight, but not one that's physical.

The following is the definition of quarrelsome as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary: A quarrelsome person repeatedly argues with other people.

Another possible answer, though more general, is " instigator ."

Definition: "a person who brings about or initiates something."

(Google)

You will still have to use the word "fight" (or a synonym of it):

He really likes instigating fights.

I still think belligerent is a better answer, but using "instigator" specifically focuses on the fact that the person in question likes to initiate the fights, as opposed to someone who has a high temper and reacts to instigations violently.

You may want to use the word troublemaker .

A person who consciously or unconsciously causes trouble (merriam-webster).

It's flexible enough to be used for physical or verbal situations.

The word is also free from profanities and is often used in professional settings.

Consider the words below: Scrapper (informal) - a fighter or aggressive competitor, especially one always ready or eager for a fight, argument, orcontest ( source ).

Fighter - a person who physically fights another person

(note that the word is often used to talk about professional boxers and just strong people who don't give up easily, but in the right context the word may be what you are looking for).

By the way, a shit stirrer is a person who takes pleasure in causing trouble or discord.

It's not specifically someone who loves picking fights.

They may like that too, though.

belligerent , contentious , aggressive , truculent , combative , pugnacious , etc.

depending on the exact context.

I agree with Laurel that M-W has good guides for choosing the right word - you can see one such guide here under “choose the right synonym”.

Instead of saying He's a shit-stirrer .

You can say

He's a fire-eater .

(synonym of belligerent in this case) From the American Heritage Dictionary: fire-eater : A belligerent person or a militant partisan.

Other synonyms: bellicose , pugnacious , combative , belligerent .

These adjectives mean having or showing an eagerness to fight.

More referring to willingness/tending to get into an argument:

antagonistic , contentious , quarrelsome ,

argumentative ...

Regarding idioms, you can simply say He's always looking to pick a fight / quarrel .

(in itself an idiom, for both arguments and physical fights)

He's always asking for a fight / trouble .

He's always crusing for a bruising .

(slang)

He's always spoiling for a fight .

He's always arguing for the sake of arguing / the argument .

Slightly more specific, but appliable to general cases:

He's always arguing the toss .

(chiefly British, arguing over something already decided) He has a chip on his shoulder .

(showing resentfulness)

He always ends up cutting up rough .

(chiefly British, suddenly becomes angry and violent)

If you're talking about a non-physical fight, "rabble-rouser" is a clean alternative to "shit-stirrer".

Another option which no one else seems to have mentioned: Combative, defined as : ready or eager to fight; pugnacious

I like fractious — it originally referred one inclined to make “fraction” (discord), now it means “irritable;

argumentative; quarrelsome”.

“...in his present fractious mood, she dared whisper no observations, nor ask of him any information.” — Charlotte Brontë, Jane Eyre

If it's someone who picks fights they know they'll win, they're a bully .

This still works when the fights are purely verbal.

Someone who simply likes to fight, and may not necessarily bear any ill will towards their opponent, is a brawler .

This only applies to physical violence.

If they're prone to picking verbal fights, you might describe them as argumentative (adjective).

Someone who is prone to sudden and unpredictable violence may colloquially be described as a psycho , nutter , or variations on the theme of mental instability.

Question: What do you call someone who's always looking for a fight? The only adjective I'm familiar with is "shit-stirrer" (I apologize for the inappropriate language).  Are there any other terms I could use that would be less slangy?

What do you call someone who likes to pick fights?

Alternative terms include: belligerent,  inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive, a  hothead  or a  bruiser, antagonistic ,  contentious ,  quarrelsome ,psycho or nutter.

Someone who likes to pick a fight would be described as "belligerent", "hostile" "aggressive", a hothead, a bruiser, having a chip on his/her shoulder, quarrelsome, an instigator, a troublemaker, a scrapper, a fighter, a shit stirrer, contentious, truculent, combative, pugnacious, a fire-eater, bellicose, antagonistic, looking to pick a fight, asking for a fight/trouble, cruising for a bruising, spoiling for a fight, always arguing for a bruising, always arguing the toss, always cutting up rough, a rabble-rouser, fractious, argumentative, a bully, a psycho or a nutter.


Obfuscation where the result (intended or otherwise) is to make the meaning unclear. Pretentious if the intention is to unnecessarily create an impression that the writer is more intelligent than the reader.

Normally you'd say something like "that's an unnecessarily elaborate word".

Except for verbose, none of the following are common, but I've marked the very rare: rococo (adj)

having elaborate ornamentation wiktionary (rare) baroque (adj) very elaborate wiktionary elegant variation describes using synonyms to avoid reusing a word wikipedia

the lure of the abstract describes the use abstract words instead of concrete ones Plain Words (rare) circumlocution (noun) is a speaking around the topic and being very indirect (rare) pleonasm (noun) covers the case of using too many words wikipedia (academic, rare) sesquipedalian (adj)

is the use of long words instead of short, only ever seen humourously wiktionary (academic, rare) logorrhea (noun, rare) is using too many words, also verbosity and prolix high falutin' (adj) is a pejorative phrase for "over-educated": "You and your high-falutin' words, just trying to confuse us!"

(US, very informal)

You can call this flowery language .

According to Cambridge : flowery ( adj. ):

disapproving

If a speech or writing style is flowery, it uses too many complicated or unusual words or phrases.

Collins says: flowery ( adj. ):

full of figurative and ornate expressions and fine words (said of language, style, etc.)

One writing coach advises: Avoid “flowery” language at all costs!

If necessary, throw out your Thesaurus!

Readers are more impressed by the quality of your ideas than your use of multi-syllabic terms.

You can say that they are using big words .

The idea behind the expression big words is that instead of using much simpler and more understandable to the average person words, some people intentionally choose to use words that sound more sophisticated, too intellectual or just clever.

Oftentimes, the use of such words is unjustified.

The main reason people do that is that they probably want to make themselves sound smarter than they really are.

Here's how the Merriam-Webster Dictionary describes this expression: a difficult word used to try to impress someone

And it also alongside the definition provides the following example sentence: You don't need to use big words to make your point.

The word pedantic would fit, in the sense of an ostentatious display of knowledge.

Edit: Apparently this sense of pedantic is not very well known so to back the sense I mentioned: pedantic , Merriam Webster

(sense 2): "narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned" pedantry , Collins : "(British English) the habit or an instance of being a pedant, esp in the display of useless knowledge or minute observance of petty rules or details" pedantic , Free dictionary (citing the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language):

"Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for academic knowledge and formal rules"

Such a choice is a matter of tone and style.

I'm not sure that I would ever agree that it could be "not justified" as there is always at least a subtle difference in rhythm and flow, and often in meaning.

Intentionally choosing or avoiding words with latinate roots, for instance, can be valid style choices.

Intentionally choosing a less well-known term can affect style, possibly giving an academic air, or a more everyday feel to a piece of prose.

Also, a word's history, via its etymology, can influence how it will affect knowledgeable readers.

So I might describe such a choice as "using a more intricate style" or "a more complex style".

Style should suit purpose, of course.

If the intended audience will not be likely to get a nuance, and may well misunderstand a word, that was a stylistically poor choice.

If the intended effect will not be enhanced by a particular choice, that is also poor style.

sesquipedalian

To use long words, usually to sound clever, confuse someone or obfuscate a point.

The word bombastic seems to exactly describe what you're looking for, because it implies the use of complicated words.

Cambridge's definition:- using long and difficult words, usually to make people think you know more than you do:

An answer has already been accepted, but I think a reasonable alternative that comes to mind is jargon , which usually implies unnecessarily complex language, usually specific to a certain field.

Using the more complex word outside of that field is almost always unjustified.

To add a few more useful words: Grandiloquent : Pompous or extravagant in language, style, or manner, especially in a way that is intended to impress.

Magniloquent : Using high-flown or bombastic language.

Definitons are from Oxford English.

(These definitions also indicate pompous, extravagant, high-flown & bombastic as useful words.)

I appreciate the irony that these words are themselves grandiloquent :)

Most of the answers above involve such uncommon words as to be self-referential.

A more common idiom only mentioned in @Canadian_Yankee's comment would be any of [ using a ] twenty-five cent word five-dollar word ten-dollar word [There's been a bit of inflation over the years.

My dialect still uses the middle one.]

They all have the same sense: A long and uncommon word used in place of a shorter and simpler one with the intent to appear sophisticated

Question: Is there a word that describes the unjustified use of a more complex word?  For example, using "didactic" instead of using the simpler "instructive" when the use of "didactic" is not justified in the context, as it could have been swapped with "instructive" without changing the meaning at all. There are some cases where it might be justified, but in our fictional example it is not.  How would you describe such writing or such a literary choice?

Is there a word that describes the unjustified use of a more complex word?

suggestions include: Grandiloquent : Pompous or extravagant in language, style, or manner, especially in a way that is intended to impress.   According to  Cambridge :   flowery  ( adj. ): though one writing coach  advises:    Avoid “flowery” language at all costs!

The following are possibilities: obfuscation, verbose, elaborate word, rococo, , magniloquent, grandiloquent, jargon, flowery, disapproving, big words, pedantic, sesquipedalian and bombastic.