Ok. I had the idea earlier that duly = doubly
but anyway, As you said duly = properly / punctually …its ok now.
I have seen also the use ‘duly signed’ …so this means then properly signed.
Also your phrase “duly noted” = properly ( / punctually ? ) noted.
Also, as for example, if I say , I have sent you a letter and you have duly noted … that will mean then you have properly noted my letter …is that the correct presentation now ?
Duly comes from the root word due, related words include duty, dutiful and so on. Duly in both the above contexts could be replaced with dutifully, that is something like “as is good and proper”, or “as it should be” or “as it should have been”.
May I just say that this is one of the more fascinating threads I’ve read here in a while.
It is a testament to the English language, which can be very precise, as well as abstract, and completely dumbfounding to non-native speakers.
I would love to see a similar thread on punctuation as I’m sure my previous sentence is driving some people to vapors.
I also applaud the questions as well as the responses. Nonetheless, it is a great job by all.
No, not quite. Maybe this will help. What the author means is this: “…examination of black bears that were found dead in the forest during the deer hunting season…”
The key here is to seperate out what each word in the phrase refers to. Think through this for a moment:
Question: What is the phrase about?
Answer: It’s about an examination.
Question: What is being examined?
Answer: *Black bears * are being examined.
Question: Which black bears are being examined?
Answer: The ones found dead are being examined.
Question: Where are the black bears found dead?
Answer: The bears are found dead in the forest.
Question: When are the bears found?
Answer: The bears are found during the deer hunting season.
More to the point, it’s common to drop “that is/are/was/were” from many constructions. It’s not necessary to drop it, but it’s often considered preferable. For example all these sentence pairs mean the same thing:
“I replaced the lightbulb that was in the lamp.”
“I replaced the lightbulb in the lamp.”
“I ate the rice that was in your refrigerator.”
“I ate the rice in your refrigerator.”
“He hit the car that was in the driveway.”
“He hit the car in the driveway.”
very much informative and helpful.
Thanks for your time.
Aha! I see your error – there is a word that means something like doubly, that sounds the same. However, it’s spelled differently.
Dually = something done or existing in pairs (the root word is “dual”)
Duly = something done in a proper or orderly way (the root word is “due”)
May I ask what your native language is? What I find interesting is that many of the things you’re having trouble with are, in my opinion, poorly worded or poorly argued sentences to begin with. The exceptions are either vocabulary or idiom, which is not surprising.
Please look at this English text …
Many breakfast cereals are fortified with vitamin supplements. Some of these cereals provide 100 percent of the recommended daily requirement of vitamins.Nevertheless, a well-balanced breakfast, including a variety of foods, is a better source of those vitamins than are such fortified breakfast cereals alone.
Please look at this English text …
Many breakfast cereals are fortified with vitamin supplements. Some of these cereals provide 100 percent of the recommended daily requirement of vitamins.Nevertheless, a well-balanced breakfast, including a variety of foods, is a better source of those vitamins than are such fortified breakfast cereals alone.In many foods, the natural combination of vitamins with other nutrients makes those vitamins more usable by the body than are vitamins added in vitamin supplements.
>>>In many foods, the natural combination of vitamins with other nutrients makes those vitamins more usable by the body than are vitamins added in vitamin supplements.
with other nutrients …wondering what could be the other nutrients here ?
are vitamins added in vitamin supplements. …vitamins added in vitamin supplements ??? garrrr …is not vitamin supplements are a vitamin itself !!!
what is an an example of vitamin supplement then ? Can I say B12 is a vitamin or vitamin supplement ?
I’m confusing vitamin vs vitamin supplement in this context . Could you please let me know the difference in this case ? an example would be just great.
I believe they are comparing vitamins that are naturally occurring in the foods with others that are added from outside sources. For example, calcium is naturally occurring in milk. Vitamin D is added as a vitamin supplement to milk sold in the US.
“With other nutrients” can mean non-vitamin stuff that’s often supplemented like calcium, or things like fatty acids, protein, fat, fiber, and all that other stuff that’s in food.
Vitamins can be added to the diet in many ways.
Foods contain vitamins, but very few, if any, foods contain all the vitamins, and none contain sufficient quantities of all the vitamins in normal portions.
Vitamins can be added to foods, just as sugar is added to food. These foods are called “fortified” or “supplemented.”
You can also purchase individual pills containing a vitamin, or many vitamins, or vitamins and other nutrients, like minerals. These pills are also, in the U.S., called vitamin supplements.
A supplement, therefore, is any nutrient which is not part of the natural food but added afterward, in any form.
The evidence about which vitamins work as supplements and which need to be eaten as food is mixed. Even defining “work” is difficult. Preventing a vitamin deficiency disease is easy, but usually when people take vitamins they do so either to feel healthier generally or to attack a specific problem. This is much harder to know.
In addition, the definition of nutrient has been greatly expanded. While there are just a few vitamins, scientists now know of hundreds of other chemicals, sometimes called “micronutrients,” that exist naturally in foods. The thinking today is that food is the better way to get nutritional benefits because it contains these hundreds of other nutrients, whose exact benefits are not known and which cannot be reproduced in pills. In addition, as your sentences claim, the interaction of nutrients and foods in the body may be different than the interaction of supplements and foods in the body.
I’m summarizing below what I understand. Hopefully, I am in the right direction …
but Vitamin D also naturally occurring in some food…is not it ?
so, that means Vitamin supplements are also vitamin . But sometimes some food does not contain all vitamins and that is the reason we sometimes push vitamin supplements to the food to make it more nutritious.
In other words , vitamin supplements are nothing but vitamin whenever they are outside source .
non-vitamin stuff ? ummmm…but they said **the natural combination of vitamins with other nutrients makes those vitamins more usable by the body
**
So I guess , other nutrients = other vitamins (NOT the non-vitamin stuff)
For example,
natural combination of vitamins = **natural **calcium (say)
**with other nutrients **= **natural **B12 (say)
this leads to breakfast with these two **natural **combination will be highly accepted by body than 100% vitamin supplemented food.
AM I wrong ?
Please look at this English text…
When a polygraph test is judged inconclusive, this is no reflection on the examinee. Rather, such a judgment means that the test has failed to show whether the examinee was truthful or untruthful. Nevertheless, employers will sometimes refuse to hire a job applicant because of an inconclusive polygraph test result.An inconclusive polygraph test result is sometimes unfairly held against the examinee.
>>>this is no reflection
reflection ? what reflection here ?
>>>sometimes unfairly held against the examinee.
unfairly held ? Is this a unfair work by the employer OR the testing was faulty and unfair/biased ?
Maybe, but maybe not. The author’s intent is a little confusing.
Nutrients are any substances in food that supply what is necessary for health and growth.
Vitamins are specific organic substances, required in small amounts.
All vitamins are nutrients, but nutrients include things that are NOT vitamins: minerals like calcium and magnesium, for example, as well as protein, fiber and other things I don’t even know.
The author says, **combination of vitamins with other nutrients **. The use of “other” is a contrast, implying that vitamins are combined with other things that are ALSO nutrients (like vitamins are), but are NOT vitamins.
What’s confusing about this is that “vitamin” is often used as shorthand for “vitamins and minerals” when talking about vitamin supplements and fortified breakfast cereal. So when I see “vitamin supplement” in your text, I assume the author means “vitamin and mineral supplement,” in which case something like calcium would be included.
BOTTOM LINE HERE: It’s unclear to me whether the author is saying natural foods contain “other nutrients” that fortified cereal does not, or whether the author is saying natural foods contain a “natural combination” (perhaps a chemical combination?) that fortified cereal does not.
Here “reflection” means something like “an indirect expression (often of discredit),” not the literal reflection in a mirror. For example:
“Bob’s good grades reflect well on him.”
“Bill’s bad grades reflect poorly on him.”
“Sally had health problems this year; her bad grades are no reflection on her.”
“Ruth isn’t very smart; her bad grades are a reflection on her.”
This construction will often be used on an aspect of a personality rather than a person. For example:
“Bill’s bad grades reflect poorly on his intelligence.”
“Bill’s bad grades reflect poorly on his work ethic.”
“Bill’s bad grades reflect poorly on his study habits.”
Unfair by the employer. The sense of the passage is this:
It may make more sense if you realize “hold against” is an idiomatic expression. If I hold an item against you, that means I consider that item as indicating something negative about you. For example, I can hold your poor grades against you, I can hold your emotional outbursts against you, I can hold the fact that you get to work late against you, or I can hold the fact that you like pie against you.
Sometimes I can unfairly hold something against you. For example, the fact that you like pie shouldn’t mean anything bad about you, but for some reason I might think it does.
So “An inconclusive polygraph test result is sometimes unfairly held against the examinee.” equals “Sometimes employers unfairly think an inconclusive polygraph test result indicates something negative about the examinee.”
point noted . Thanks
awesome explanation…very nice .
You know in this case I don’t blame the examinee …its the problem with the polygraph test & the employer. Its a bad employer if they really reject a candidate based upon a inconclusive polygraph test . Its the inability of the polygraph testing method that could not examine the candidate .
I think , CIA or MOSAD kind of detective agencies probabily run these kind of testing . I don’t know if they really reject any (CLEVER?) candiadte for inconclusive test result.
Please look at this English text
The technological conservatism of bicycle manufacturers is a reflection of the kinds of demand they are trying to meet. The only cyclists seriously interested in innovation and willing to pay for it are bicycle racers. Therefore, innovation in bicycle technology is limited by what authorities will accept as standard for purposes of competition in bicycle races.
very hard wording “technological conservatism” …what is it ?
>>>bicycle technology is limited ** by what ** authorities will accept as standard
what does ** by what ** refer here ? technology / bicycle ? this construction is sounds bad to read.