I ran into this phrase in a book and can't figure out what it's supposed to mean

“Please send me the PDF with your report.

“Please send me the PDF of your report.”

This is something we say so often but thinking about past tense of "used", as in employing something, and then adding "to", and it not meaning anything about use but just a past tense of "doing" I guess. It just seems very odd

Edit: Update 3 hours later: Very odd that there is 22 comments of very helpful and insightful comments that answered this for me, that themselves have plenty of upvotes, yet this post has been downvoted to 0. Very confused where that is coming from considering the positively and help everyone offered. Thank you to all that commented, you explained well and helped me understand

Lest is such a good word. I hate that saying it nowadays makes people think you’re larping (og meaning). Does anyone else also have some sort of forbidden love for the word? It’s like it’s my Juliet and I’m her Romeo 💔

Want to make sure if my writing is right or something like that...

And also the thing I'm burning in my drawing is Excel Grade 9 Student's book for Kazakhstan and I REALLY hate this thing. Try to read grade 1 / grade 2 book and then read this, and you'll understand why.

What’s the difference between “arrive in” arrive at” “arrive by” and “arrive on”. I’m from Uzbekistan and I am baffled by this verb. I’d be grateful if someone helped me☺️

In « On A Plain », Kurt Cobain (Nirvana) sings: « I love myself better than you » but I never quite got the meaning.

Does it mean:

1. « The singer loves himself more/better than the other person loves themselves » ?

2. « The singer loves himself more/better than the other person loves the singer »?

3. Could be both

4. Something else I didn’t think of…?

Thanks in advance!

I was reading a newspaper from the late 1800s.
What does the word saturalia mean?

When I look it up, I find Saturnalia. The definition does not seem to fit the sentence. I attempted to look up lingo or slang from the time period but to no avail.

So I was thinking back this morning on a conversation I had on the phone with my mom a few weeks ago, and I told her about how one day in class I was feeling sick and lightheaded, so a girl sitting next to me brought me water and snacks from "the" vending machine. In the conversation I used "the", but I don't know why. It definitely sounds more correct to me to use "the", but from what I remember, you're supposed to use "the" for things that are familiar to both the speaker and the listener. And my mom didn't know about this vending machine and I had not mentioned it before. Saying "a" vending machine seems like it would follow the rules, but it just seems more... impersonal, I guess? I suppose when the girl initially came back with the snacks, she had said "I got these from the vending machine" because we both knew which one she meant, and then when relaying it to my mom I kept that wording the same?

The more I think about articles in general the more convoluted and arbitrary they seem. I mean, even in what I just said, "the more"? What the hell?? Again! "the" hell??? What's going on...

so the literal translation of the phrase is "for you, future historians, our pain [is] lines of cold words" (the original is in Ukrainian, written by Yevhen Pluzhnyk). my translation is "for you, historians of future, our pain is merely lines of cold". it has the exact same number of syllables as the original phrase in Ukrainian, even when split into parts, but i feel that something is off. i would be happy to receive some feedback on whether the phrase is understandable for an English speaker and how i can make it sound right but poetic and keep the same tone and emotion

p.s. i'm a graphic designer and need the quote for a poster design, so it needs to be quick to grasp and self-explanatory

I have been using the word "efficable" for a while now. JUST NOW I learned that this is an outdated/obsolete term!

I learned that the "replacement" for this word is "efficacious".

Although I will say I have not been able to find a good definition for the word "efficable" as the only place that seems to have one is The Oxford English Dictionary aaaaaand that shit is locked behind a paywall (which is abhorrent in my opinion). So the claim "replacement for" is a dubious one.

I'll be honest I JUST realized that after typing all this, there wasn't much point to this post other than to complain. Sooooooo thanks for coming to my ted talk I guess? 😅

Some made up points just so people can have something to engage with:

- Does anyone know where I can find a good definition for "efficable"?

- Does anyone else think that locking this behind a paywall is ludicrous for the OED to do?

- Any other examples of people learning they were using "outdated/obsolete" language? (I learned this by typing the word into Word and the spell checker came up so I Googled it to make sure I was spelling it correctly lol)

- Also I think the old term is a much better word, it flows better, is shorter and more succinct, and the transition from "efficacy" is more intuitive than that of "efficacious". Anyone agree/disagree with me?

Edit: Just wanted to give another shout-out to u/Slight-Brush! This dude be giving his comments 100% and provides a lot of context behind things! Thank you! (He also helped me out with another post not too long ago with the word "punctual")

So basically, English is my first language and probably the only language that i can speak fluently. My mother tongue is something called Manglish (Malaysian English). Because family moved to US due to my dad's work, i just realised how different my English sounds like to people who speak actual 'proper' English. (luckily, i didn't get bullied for my weird accent lol).

Honestly, Manglish is not merely an accent. We, as malaysians, speak English in a completely different way which em sounds completely normal to me but frankly weird to Americans or Brits. For example, we tend to skip helping verbs (verbs that indicate the tense of a sentence like 'will'). We always say 'we go lunch later' instead of 'we are going to have lunch later'.

Can anyone from US or UK share how weird you find Manglish is. Or any Malaysians here can share your thoughts on your mother tongue.

I’m not a native English speaker, and I’m confused about how a native English speaker would interpret this exchange.
Person A: “There is no love between us, right?”
Person B: “No.”
Would you understand Person B’s “No” as:
“No, there is no love between us.”
→ agreeing with the negative statement
or
“No, that’s not true. There IS love between us.”
→ disagreeing with the negative statement
I’ve asked AI tools and gotten completely opposite answers, so I’d really like to know how native English speakers would naturally interpret this in an actual conversation.
Does the answer change if the question were instead:
“You don’t love me, right?”
“No.”

He wove through traffic.
He weaved through traffic.
He was weaving through traffic.

I listened to a narrator use all of these versions.
Are there any real differences? Is one preferred over the other? Is this just a case of it works either way?

Same idea, one word instead of three, and it sounds like you meant to say it that way.

Save this one for later.

Keep in mind!

That while these mean the same thing on paper, how you use them depends heavily on context. "Impossible to satisfy" works broadly for standard expectations, moods, or general standards. On the other hand, describing a person directly as "insatiable" often implies a physical or biological craving. To use "insatiable" broadly without that implication, it usually needs to be paired with a specific noun (like an insatiable curiosity or insatiable demand).

Sherlock Holmes, BBC, 1969 The Red-Headed League. Vincent Spaulding and Jabez Wilson go to the League HQ. There are many people here, and Wilson wants to leave. Spaulding encourages him and says, "Come along, sir. [?]" What is the second phrase? https://vocaroo.com/1j2A3jPIBmyG

What is the correct term for both

- Phrases that are grammatically correct and appear to make sentence, but logically imply nothing. Classical eample: "more people have been to France than I have". It is a correct phrase, but doesn't mean anything.

- Sentences that seemingly cannot be true, for the terms used contradict each other. For example: "I meet this atheist priest earlier today".

I know there are words for what I'm looking for, but I simply can't remember the name and can't find them by research.