Lesson Transcript

Hi everybody! Welcome back to Ask Alisha, the weekly series where you ask me questions and I answer them, maybe!
First question this week comes from Anurag Pratap Singh.
Hi Anurag!
Anurag says…
“Hi, Alisha. This is Anurag from India.”
Hello.
“Could you please tell me the use of these types of marks: (?!) and so on, used in combination together? Could you give some examples? Take care.”
Yeah, these combinations of question marks and exclamation points are used in very casual messages like text messages or on social media or maybe in very casual emails. So, we use these together, like a question mark and an exclamation point together, when we want to express surprise and shock and a question, all at the same time. So, some mixture of those feelings.
So some examples of when you might use this could be…
“You forgot my wedding rings on my wedding day?!?I”
Or
“You crashed my car???!”
So in those kinds of situations, you want to communicate like shock or a really strong anger and you want to ask a question. So in those cases, we combine our exclamation point with a question mark. So, it doesn't matter if you use exclamation point, question mark or the reverse. You can choose the order that you like. Some people also choose, for example, to use like exclamation exclamation, exclamation, question; or maybe they do, question, question, question, exclamation. That's up to you, so they do that for emphasis. They feel I want to emphasize the question part more or I want to emphasize the shock or surprise more, so that's up to you. But just keep in mind that this is very casual. This is not something that's officially recognized in style guides. It's not something that you typically see in like a professionally edited book or in a magazine. It's used in very casual situations, but this is very common, so if you want to communicate a question and some kind of shock or surprise or other extreme feeling, you can use these two marks together. So, I hope that that helps you. Thanks very much for the question
Okay, let's move along to your next question.
Next question comes from Peter.
Hi, Peter!
Peter says…
“Hi! I have two questions. Okay, first; what's the difference between replace with and replace by? For example:
(1) People replace computers by phones.
(2) People replace computers with phones.
(3) Computers are being replaced by/with phones.”
Okay, let's stop here. Let's start with your first question then.
We use “replace with” when we're talking about getting a substitute for something that is old, for something that is broken, for something that just requires an upgrade.
“I replaced my old iPhone with a new iPhone.”
Or
“We replaced our TV with a projector screen.”
So, in each of those examples situations, something old or maybe something that needed an upgrade got replaced with something new. So we use “replaced with” or “to replace with” in these cases, when something is like old or broken.
We use “replaced by” when something is filling the role of another thing. So this is commonly used when people change their jobs or they change their position in some way in society. So when we use a pattern like person A was replaced by person B, it means person A went away and person B took person A's place.
“The president was replaced by the vice-president after the scandal.”
“Company managers have been replaced by robots.”
So in both of these examples sentences, we see one person or a group of people being replaced by something else, so that means this something else is taking the position or is taking the role of a person or people mentioned at the beginning of the sentence. So, this is the difference with “replaced with” or “replaced by.”
Your final example sentence was kind of interesting.
It was, “Computers are being replaced by/with phones.”
So it kind of depends on the nuance that you want to give here. I personally would use, “Computers are being replaced by phones” because I feel that that kind of communicates that the role of the computer can be done by a phone now. So maybe like a very old computer can do the same things that a new phone can do. So we could suggest that a phone can do those things, a phone can be in the role of an old computer, so I think I would probably use “by” in this case.
“Computers can be replaced by phones” or “Computers are being replaced by phones” as in your example sentence.
So, thanks very much for that question.
Let's go on to the second part of your question which was…
“Which is correct (or is more natural)?
For example:
People replace their computer by a phone.
People replace their computers by phones.
You should send an email through the Gmail app.
You should send emails through the Gmail app.”
Okay, good question, and the answer really depends on the goal of your communication. In general, when you're trying to decide between using the singular and the plural form in cases like these, if you're speaking generally, use the plural form. So, to go back to your example sentence, “People are replacing computers with phones” would be correct, or “send emails using the Gmail app.” So, using the sentence, “send an email with the Gmail app” would be okay if you were talking about one specific email case, like, “Hmm, you need to email your client. Why don't you send an email with the Gmail app?” like test it out, try it out, one time. If you're talking about a company rule, though, “send emails” meaning all of your emails, “Please send all of your emails with the Gmail app.” So, using the singular means one time. Using the plural form means generally speaking, “send emails.”
So, I hope that this helps you understand the differences between using the plural and the singular form in these cases. Thanks very much for the question.
Okay, let's move on to your next question.
Next question comes from Mohammed AL-Daly.
Hey, Mohammed!
Mohammed says…
“Transistors proved vital in creating the practical lasers. If I want to translate the verb proved here, would it be correct to understand it as meaning tested or are there other possibilities?”
Great question! Yeah, the verb “to prove” means “to show evidence for (something)” or “to show evidence that something is true.” So another way to say this part of the sentence this, “transistors proved vital” would be, “transistors were shown to be vital” or like, “we learned that transistors were vital.” So, “vital” means very important and transistors refers to a part of a machine, so that's not so important for understanding the focus of this question, the verb “proved.”
So “prove” doesn't really mean “test.” No, to answer your question. Although, it is used in “test situations.” So in testing situations or like in experiment situations or when you're trying something new, you need to test things and ultimately in the end, you want to prove something, to show evidence for something. So if you're doing an experiment, you want to explain the results of your experiment, so what did you learn. You can use the verb “proved” in cases like these.
For example…
“The new software proved useful for our project.”
“Our new lessons proved popular among students.”
So, in these sentences, “proved” means “was shown to be” or “were shown to be.” So in the first example sentence, “The new software proved useful for our project” means the new software was shown to be useful or we learned that the new software was useful for our project.
In the second example sentence about classes proving popular among students, “proved” there again means “shown to be,” so our new classes were shown to be popular among students or we learned that our new classes were popular among students.
So this is what “proved” is used to do. Keep in mind though that this use of “proved” tends to sound a little bit more formal. We don't use this so much in everyday speech. You may hear it from time to time, but using “proved” in this way makes your speech sound a little more businesslike.
So, I hope that this helps you with your understanding of the verb “proved.” Thanks very much for the question.
Okay, let's move on to your next question.
Next question comes from Daniil.
Hello again, Daniil!
Daniil says…
“Hi, Alisha. What's the difference between to get yourself killed and to kill yourself.”
Oh man, this is a great question. It’s a little bit on the dark side.
Let's start with “get yourself killed.” To get yourself killed refers to dying because you put yourself in a situation with a high risk of death. So the death comes from outside you, something else kills you in this situation. Another person or maybe a natural disaster, something from outside you kills you. That's very bad. So, “to get yourself killed” means you put yourself in a situation where there was a high risk of death occurring.
Some examples…
“Don't take the boat out in this storm! You're gonna get yourself killed!”
Or if you're a character in an action movie…
“Don't go alone! You'll get yourself killed.”
So in this situation, “get yourself killed” means something from outside your body is going to kill you. In the first example situation, it's a storm, and the advice is, “Don't take the boat out in the storm! You'll get yourself killed!” Meaning, the bad weather may cause you to die. It's a high-risk situation. In the second example sentence from something like an action movie, “Don't go alone! You'll get yourself killed!” means if you go by yourself, there's a high risk of death. You may die.
So let's compare this then to the expression, “kill oneself” or in your example, “to kill yourself.” To kill yourself means to take your own life, so that means to use something in order to end your own life. So, this is a very dark expression, yes. This is commonly referred to as “suicide.” So, this verb is used reflexively or rather this expression is used reflexively. This means that the subject and the object of the verb are the same. For example, “He kills himself.” So, “he” is the subject and “himself” is the object, “kill” is the verb. That means he is causing himself to die, so this verb is reflexively used here.
This is kind of a dark one to make some example sentences about, but let's take a look at a couple.
“If you're having thoughts about killing yourself, please reach out for help.”
And
“He killed himself due to high stress in his life.”
So, in sum, this is the difference between “to get yourself killed and “to kill yourself.” “To get yourself killed” refers to being in a situation that has a high risk of death and “to kill oneself” refers to taking one's own life. So, I hope that this helps you understand this. Thanks very much for the question.
Okay let's move on to your next question.
Next question comes from Anurag.
Hi again, Anurag!
Oh, I have two questions from you in this one, okay.
Anurag says…
“Hi, Alisha. Could you please tell me the difference between suppose to and supposed to and their pronunciation while speaking? Do we have to use the ED sound while saying supposed to in sentences?”
Yeah, good question, and the difference between “suppose to” and “supposed to” is that “suppose to” does not exist. We don't say, “I'm suppose to…” We always say “supposed to.” So, the pronunciation here, maybe the issue here, is that “supposed” which ends with a D is connecting to the /t/ sound in “to.” So, “supposed to,” slowly, but in fast speech, we connect the T and the D sounds together to make “supposed to.”
“I'm supposed to go to the store today.”
“I'm supposed to go to the bank later.”
“I'm supposed to meet with my friend.”
So, it doesn't sound like “supposed to.” We do not make those sounds clearly and distinctly. We connect them, actually. So, when you are speaking as well, you can do the same thing, “supposed to,” supposed to, so don't worry about saying “supposed to.” We don't say that. Use “supposed to,” supposed to. So I hope that this helps you. Thanks very much for the question.
Okay that is everything that I have for this week. Thank you, as always, for sending your questions. Remember, you can send them to me at EnglishClass101.com/ask-alisha. Thanks very much for watching this week's episode of Ask Alisha and I will see you again next week. Bye-bye!

Comments

Hide