Words to describe facial expressions
Agonized: as if in pain or tormented
Alluring: attractive, in the sense of arousing desire
Appealing: attractive, in the sense of encouraging goodwill and/or interest
Black: angry or sad, or hostile
Blinking: surprise, or lack of concern
Blithe: carefree, lighthearted, or heedlessly indifferent
Brooding: anxious and gloomy
Bug eyed: frightened or surprised
Chagrined: humiliated or disappointed
Cheeky: cocky, insolent
Choleric: hot-tempered, irate
Darkly: with depressed or malevolent feelings
Deadpan: expressionless, to conceal emotion or heighten humor
Despondent: depressed or discouraged
Doleful: sad or afflicted
Dour: stern or obstinate
Dreamy: distracted by daydreaming or fantasizing
Ecstatic: delighted or entranced
Faint: cowardly, weak, or barely perceptible
Fixed: concentrated or immobile
Gazing: staring intently
Glancing: staring briefly as if curious but evasive
Glazed: expressionless due to fatigue or confusion
Grim: fatalistic or pessimistic
Grave: serious, expressing emotion due to loss or sadness
Haunted: frightened, worried, or guilty
Hopeless: depressed by a lack of encouragement or optimism
Hostile: aggressively angry, intimidating, or resistant
Hunted: tense as if worried about pursuit
Jeering: insulting or mocking
Languid: lazy or weak
Leering: sexually suggestive
Mischievous: annoyingly or maliciously playful
Pained: affected with discomfort or pain
Peering: with curiosity or suspicion
Pleading: seeking apology or assistance
Quizzical: questioning or confused
Radiant: bright, happy
Sanguine: bloodthirsty, confident
Vacant: blank or stupid looking
Wan: pale, sickly
Wary: cautious or cunning
Wide eyed: frightened or surprised
Wrathful: indignant or vengeful
Wry: twisted or crooked to express cleverness or a dark or ironic feeling
46K notes · View notes
For all the ✨ AMAZING WRITERS WHO AREN'T NATIVE SPEAKERS AND WRITE IN ENGLISH ✨ I bring you some amazing apps to improve it and to help you with your writings. So if you know someone who can find this post useful, tag them!
The examples are in spanish because it's my native language, but all of them have a lot of other languages to use.
◾ GOOGLE DOCS
I use this app to write. I'm sure everybody here knows it, so I'm just going to point out the autocorrect it has. Whenever you write a word, a sentence, or a verb that doesn't have sense, it will be underlined. And the autocorrect will show you the correct form to write it.
I use this app to re-edit my writings. It does the same that Google Docs but it also gives you synonyms for any words. Even so, on its web page, you can find all its functions. iPhone version and Android version.
◾ REVERSO CONTEXT
Please, don't use Google Translate!!!!! Reverso Context is really amazing. I use it for words, expressions, and sentences. It gives you a lot of options and examples, and you choose the one who fits better for what you are trying to express in your writing. iPhone version and Android version.
This app is very similar to Reverso Context but it only works with words, not sentences. I only use it to find synonyms. The good thing it has is that this app includes a forum where people ask for expressions that, for example, are very common in the USA or England and you don't know. Or expressions in your language that don't have any sense if you translate them literally, but they have a similar expression in english. iPhone version and Android version.
This one is also similar to Reverso Context and WordReference, but it's the one I less use. iPhone version and Android version.
SPREAD THE WORD! And if you know or you use another app for your writings, lemme know and I will add it to this post! ✨
238 notes · View notes
Have a lovely Valentine’s Day!
I baked a pound cake and muffins for Valentine’s Day ♥
I couldn't adjust the heart-shaped to the center 😔
114 notes · View notes
Hi guys! Our idiom of the day is ”Make no bones about something,” which means “to say clearly what you think or feel about something.”
The expression comes from fifteenth century England. If someone wanted to show that they were dissatisfied with something, they would find bones in it - a reference to finding bones in soup, which was not a pleasant discovery! Therefore, finding bones was bad, and no bones was good. If you found no bones, you were able to enjoy the meal with no objections!
You need example sentences with pronunciation? Try our app for learning English idioms - click the link onelink.to/zhdnr2
Special offer! Get 40% off our idiom dictionary and other dictionaries! Coupon code: 40OFF (use at checkout) - https://learzing.com/idioms
22 notes · View notes
Visit https://www.learnenglishwithkatie.co.uk/blog/modal-verbs-may for more information and more examples. You can also find the other modal verbs in the series so far!
13 notes · View notes
summer study! 2/?
wow, I didn't give up at the very beginning! I'm speechless
I studied two english modal verbs
I finished reading " the picture of Dorian Gray"
I practised reading out loud story in german, wrote down new words and tried to learn them by heart.
okk, thats lots of work. still need your little precious feedback! 🫂
(what do you think about my photos? am i too pathetic doing them?)
(DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSS DORIAN GREY?? BECAUSE I DO WANT!)
i just love listening Louis these days. He makes everything warmer, idk. just vibing :^)
see you soon!!
20 notes · View notes
9 notes · View notes
Idiomatic Phrase - To Be as Useful as a Chocolate Teapot
To be completely useless.
Chocolate melts at about 30ºC. Depending on what sort of tea you drink, tea needs to be brewed between 75 and 100ºC. Therefore, a chocolate teapot would just melt, and your tea would go all over the floor. So a chocolate teapot isn't very useful at all!
The career guidance session ended up being as useful as a chocolate teapot.
I’m sorry, I don’t have another steak knife, just a butter knife, but that’s going to be about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
158 notes · View notes
'A speech or narration is a compilation of words or sentences uttered by the speaker. It is simply the manifestation of thoughts in the form of spoken words.'
10 notes · View notes
Words to Describe the Moon
Ablaze: Very brightly coloured or lighted.
Aesthetic: Pleasing in appearance.
Ageless: Timeless, eternal.
Angelic: Beautiful and pure.
Astrophysical: Related to space.
Brilliant: Glittering, very bright.
Celestial: Belonging or relating to heaven.
Ethereal: Unworldly, heavenly.
Evanescent: Ephemeral and transitory.
Gloomy: Dismally and depressingly dark
Heavenly: Beatific, delightful.
Luminous: Clear, enlightening.
Mysterious: Mystical, deep and obscur.
Ominous: Sinister and menacing.
2K notes · View notes
Grimm’s Law and Verner’s Law: part 1 - Indo-European background
OR: how ‘cannabis’ and ‘hemp’ are actually cognates
tldr: sound change is cool and this great series of videos can explain it better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aal9VSPkf5s. this is going to be the first of a few posts on sound change in German and English. I originally wanted to explain the second sound shift, but quickly realised that it doesn’t make sense without any of the historical context, so please bear with me
What makes a language Germanic? Imagine for a moment that you’re an alien a la Matt Haig, newly arrived to Earth and presented with a sample of the world’s languages - or specifically, part of Eurasia’s. Some languages look very similar to each other; some very different. How would you go about building a hypothesis about which languages were related to each other, and which weren’t? How would you then test this hypothesis? And how, presented finally with data that shows your languages are related, would you explain how these changes came to happen in the first place?
Before we go on to Germanic, though, let’s talk about Indo-European today. You guys probably all know that IE is a large language family that stretches from Icelandic to Hindi; Germanic is one of the sub-groupings of this wider IE family. Within the sub-family itself, there are divisions: German is more closely related to Dutch, Norwegian to Swedish, Icelandic to Faroese and so on. This seems all fairly obvious to us now.
Way back when many centuries ago (not that many centuries, and certainly long after the Bible began), the idea of a language family spanning English to Russian to Farsi was a little less obvious. For much of the 17th century, people (esp a bishop dude called John Wilkins) sought to prove that English was related to Hebrew - this was an important endeavour at the time, because it would lend the language religious authority, especially in its translation of the Bible. Fast forwarding to the 18th century, a man named Sir Williams Jones who lived in Bengal realised - on account of his classical education and extensive contact with Indian languages - that there were much greater similarities between Latin, Greek and Sanskrit than anybody had previously realised. He wasn’t the first to think it, but he was one of the first to make such a definitive statement. The following quote is probably one of the most famous in historical linguistics, so I apologise for quoting it in full:
‘The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have spring from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists: there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothick and the Celtick, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit, and the old Persian might be added to this family.’
He was wrong in a lot of ways - he excluded some languages that do belong in this family and erroneously included others. He also wasn’t the first to come up with this idea. This quote, more than anything, marks the beginning of people’s interest in the ‘common source’: how could such a thing ever be proven, if we didn’t have access to the language itself?
Part of the building ground for Indo-European historical linguistics was the desire to prove that linguistics was an empirical science much like any other, with laws that held universally and hypotheses that could be tested and demonstrably falsified. This rested on two principles both promoted by the Junggramatiker, or Neogrammarians, a Leipzig based group of scholars. Firstly, that sound change - the process by which sounds change, arise and disappear - was a highly regular process that held universally and obeyed certain rules. Secondly, that languages that exist today are structurally and in principle no different from languages that existed thousands of years ago - that is, we have no reason to assume that processes existed in the past that don’t exist today. This is called the uniformitarian principle.
If both of these things are true, that means that it would be possible to not only determine how exactly these languages were related, but also reconstruct an earlier version of the language once spoken by all Indo-Europeans!! (I hope you agree that this is immensely cool.)
Reconstructing these rules is important, because it allows us to better understand structural similarities between languages. There are some similarities which are surface deep: it’s easy to compare English cold and German kalt or warm and - well - warm, and say that they look alike. Pfad and path is a little harder, but when you compared Pfeffer and pepper it’s clear, ok, there’s a <pf> / <p> alteration going on there. Leaving the Germanic family behind, though, things get a little more tricky.
How exactly is venue cognate with come? What about English quick and Latin vīvus? And how can sister and Hindi bahan possibly be cognates??
Some of the most meaningful observations are structural; they are not surface deep, and they’re not immediately available for study. This is because, quite simply, the time depth since Indo-European was spoken is vast; there have been extensive sound changes in all of the languages concerned.
And that’s exactly what Grimm’s Law is. It’s a sound change that happened specifically in the Germanic branch of Indo-European, so it’s common to all Germanic languages, and nothing else. It’s one of those diagnostic criteria that an alien would use to determine that Norwegian and Dutch were related: it’s present, apart from where further sound change has obscured it, in every Germanic language - and it’s not present, apart from in borrowed words, in any non-Germanic language. That’s what we mean by diagnostic.
Let’s have a look at some examples! We’ll explain it in more detail next time, but this might whet your appetite. Don’t worry if you can’t read the phonetic description; it’s the consonants that are important at the moment (don’t, please, ask me about vowels. just please don’t).
(nb: where I use an asterisk *, this means that this form is reconstructed, not actually attested: we don't have any records of IE. > just means ‘goes to’ or ‘becomes’ in the various daughter languages. Also <these> brackets are talking about spelling, and /these/ brackets are talking about phonemes, or actual sounds. Also, the little ‘ means aspiration - we’ll talk more about what that means next time)
*p > f (no later shift in German, though /f/ is sometimes spelled v):
Engl. brother, Germ. Bruder (cf. Lat. frāter, Skt. bhrā́tā)
Engl. full, Germ. voll (cf. Lat. plēnus, Skt. pūrṇás)
*t > *þ (Engl. th) > Germ. d
Engl. three, Germ. drei (cf. Lat. trēs, Gk. /trê:s/, Skt. tráyas)
Engl. thin, Germ. dünn (cf. Lat. tenuis, Skt. tanús)
*ḱ, *k > h (no later shift in German):
Engl. hundred, Germ. hundert (cf. Lat. centum, Gk. /he-katón/, Skt.
Engl. horn, Germ. Horn (cf. Lat. cornū)
*kw > *hw (Engl. wh) > Germ. w:
Engl. what, Germ. was (cf. Lat. adjective & relative quod, Skt. kád)
*d > *t (Engl. t) > Germ. z:
Engl. two, Germ. zwei (cf. Lat. duo, Gk. /dúo/, Skt. dvā́)
BRUH. ISN’T THIS COOL!! AND THERE ARE MORE!
You can see here already by looking at the German and English that both have sometimes subsequently undergone sound changes, like English */hw/ to /wh/ and then finally to /w/, which becomes German <w> or /v/ - these sometimes obscure things. And if you really want to find out why German is different to English, well, we’ve got quite a few sound changes to get through before we get there!
Melissa, you might be saying, I know for a fact there’s something yucky and not-worky about Grimm’s Law. What about cases where it doesn’t seem to apply? What’s that? Also, I swear some Danish dude had the idea first but just didn’t publish...
Well. You’re not wrong. But this post is long enough already. Next time, we’ll go over what exactly it is, where exactly it manifests itself, and how it didn’t seem to work 100% of the time...and I suppose I still haven’t answered how ‘hemp’ and ‘cannabis’ are cognates...you’ll just have to stay tuned!
Bis zum nächsten Mal!
99 notes · View notes
This means that your voice goes down at the end when you ask a wh- question but it goes up at the end when you ask a yes/no question.
If you want to learn all about about how to ask questions in English, check out my e-book at bit.ly/questions-ebook (or click the link in the bio).
10 notes · View notes
Hi there! Our slang word of the day is ”Ankle-biter”, which means “child.”⠀This phrase has a contemporary feel, but it was first recorded in the mid-19th century. Harper's Magazine, September 1850, has:⠀
"And how are you, John? and how's Molly, and all the little ankle-biters?"⠀
The phrase then seems to disappear from sight for over 100 years. It isn't clear whether the Harper's citation was a one-off usage and the phrase originated later independently. It's possible that it stayed alive as un-recorded slang but, even if it did stay in the language from 1850 onward, printed citations appear to be in limbo until Iona and Peter Opie's "The lore and language of schoolchildren", 1959:⠀
"A chap who has got duck's disease is most often labelled "Tich" in a friendly manner, or "squirt" or "little squirt" in a less friendly manner. Alternatively: ankle biter, dolly mixture [etc.]"⠀
It is included in several lists of phrases as being of Australian origin but, whilst it certainly sounds Australian, the early references to the phrase in print don't support such an origin.
You need example sentences with pronunciation? Try our app for learning English slang - click the link onelink.to/ewf6kr
Special offer! Get 40% off our slang dictionary and other dictionaries! Coupon code: 40OFF (use at checkout) - https://learzing.com/slang
13 notes · View notes
Learn 20+ collocations with "AND" here
9 notes · View notes
When his niece asked if he thought BTS would reply to her tweet, Henry told her, “That would be amazing, but don’t hold your breath.”
Website | Twitter | Instagram | Medium | Pinterest | Ko-fi | eBook
21 notes · View notes
I know I am shy (even when I'm making this post). But, this is not gonna help me to improve my English. So, I will post my progress in learning English to see how much I improve. Although I'm not ready, I have to!
7 notes · View notes
What you can say to describe the Sun
Bright and gorgeous
Universal and resplendent
Incredibly strange and wonderful
Fiery and pitiless
Hot and powerful
Imperial and royal
Fiery and eternal
Dim and ancient
High and unforgiving
Strange and mystical
511 notes · View notes