Arw65

any but diminish would be heard- lower would probably;y be the most likely

ferretkiss

WE WILL HAVE TO..........OUR PRICES IF WE WANT TO SELL THESE NEW TVs.

1 diminish
2 decrease
3 lower
4 reduce

Agree with arw. Lower is the less formal and most colloquial choice, and reduce is the more formal choice. Decrease may be used but is somehow not quite right. Diminish - no.

gimzer

WE WILL HAVE TO..........OUR PRICES IF WE WANT TO SELL THESE NEW TVs.

1 "diminish" would be to "have less", like, "the rain has diminished", or, "my love for you has diminished". So if we diminished the prices, that could mean some of the tv's had prices and some of them didn't. And each time you diminish the prices, it could be interpreted that less of the tv's would have prices.

WE WILL HAVE TO..........OUR PRICES IF WE WANT TO SELL THESE NEW TVs.


2 "decrease" is good, if you decrease the prices, that will increase my urges to buy one

WE WILL HAVE TO..........OUR PRICES IF WE WANT TO SELL THESE NEW TVs.


3 "lower" is good too. the more you lower the prices, the lower the price will be. so "lower" becomes either a verb or an adjective.

WE WILL HAVE TO..........OUR PRICES IF WE WANT TO SELL THESE NEW TVs.


4 "reduce" is good too. "reduce" is maybe a tiny bit more formal of a word than "lower". people often say they are reducing when they are losing weight, so Baldur has been reducing. you can reduce prices, and you can reduce size too. so if something gets smaller, it is reducing in size.

Qsilv

The most likely thing I'd say is "drop" ...single syllable: I'm going to drop my prices around 10%

2nd choice = "lower": These lower prices should help move stock, I'll lower them about 10%.

And yes, "reduce" feels just a tiny bit more formal, but neither it nor "decrease" would raise any eyebrows.

Qsilv

('k, now I'm awake... more than two brain cells have kicked in...)

An ad might proclaim: We've lowered our prices! We've dropped 'em again!


"drop" is also often used for the noun-phrase, but here "reduction" works well too, but "lowering"? ..eh, not so much:

Price Reduction!

10% off is a major price-drop. It's a huge drop in profit-margin.

If that doesn't clear this model out by the end of June, we'll do a further reduction. Can we drop 'em further? Sure... just keep lowering it til they're gone, guys.


(...language is so painterly! lol)

polenta

Thanks everybody for your quick answer.
I'll take it like this:

REDUCE will be better for more formal language.
LOWER better for neutral or semi-informal language.
DROP quite informal.
Thanks again.

polenta

It's funny but it works. They always tell us that in English the more similar to LATIN(or Spanish for that matter)a word is . the more FORMAL it is. The more ANGLO-SAXON a word, the more INFORMAL it is.

Here
REDUCE (similar to "reducir" ir Spanish) FORMAL
LOWER (nothing to do with Spanish) INFORMAL

CONSEQUENCE: many times native Spanish speakers can communicate but use too formal words in English. Funny, isn't it?

Qsilv

nod... I think you've got it exactly, polenta!

And yes, when it's easier for me to think of a word like eventualmente than pronto... I've noticed that the spanish speaking people around here (surely among the sweetest, most patient, best-natured families on earth) understand me quite well even though their smiles are telling me my weird choices of multi-syllable words are a long way from appropriate vernacular! lol

polenta

I need an expression in English.
When you fly by plane from a place to another you may have a stopover at a certain airport but you CAN'T LEAVE THE AIRPORT or maybe you even have to stay in a room. How do you call such a person or passenger?
In Spanish we call it PASAJERO EN TRANSITO.
Thanks in advance.

Arw65

im not sure i have the answer you are looking for but i'd say 'restricted passenger'. Also you would refer to it as a 'layover' rather that a stopover.- there is a movie titled 'the terminal' which follows the story of a Krakozhian man trapped in an airport terminal- rather enlightening. i enjoyed it.

Normal

Intriguing. Not sure there is such a thing. You COULD presumably disappear in Dallas if your Chicago flight to San Diego stopped there. If you checked any luggage to enforce the impression you would be in SD, it would go on without you (having been inspected by the TSA, so don't think you could leave a bomb in your suitcase!) But if running from the law (or the crooks, )you could slip into Dallas. NOT without a trace, since they'd call your name on the loudspeakers and eventually go on without you. Maybe notify the police in such a situation, so you're not too far ahead. Just musing here. In normal speech, if there is a stop which is not your destination, you could easily be called a "transit passenger" just like in Spanish.

Login

polenta, when passengers are between flights and can not leave the airport, in UK we say they are 'in transit' ... very similar to Spanish.

polenta

Thanks a lot... yes, maybe TRANSIT PASSENGER or IN TRANSIT. I'm referring to foreign passengers who don't have a visa so they can't go out of the airport.
And yes, Arw, I remember that movie (with Tom Hanks?) but the case was that it was not a stop between airports or a layover but I think a destination.
Thanks to all of you. It's so easy to ask English native speakers here and you've all been very kind.

polenta

I need any native English speaker to help please.
Can I say
HE EXPOSED HIS IDEAS IN HIS SPEECH?

What I have doubts about is the verb EXPOSE. Could it be better to use PRODUCE, PUT FORWARD or CONVEY? I have to correct the word EXPOSED but must know first if it's right or wrong . Thanks

mdawrcn

Polenta, though I don't think exposed is really wrong in the sentence, I would not use it. I think put forward, conveyed, revealed, verbalized or expressed his ideas in his speech would sound better. If I had to choose, I would say he expressed his ideas in his speech.

Baldur

Your intuition is correct polenta, 'exposed' is definitely not the proper word in that sentence.

Try 'He revealed his ideas in his speech' instead.

Though it is not officially taken as such many people view the word 'exposed' as having bad or improper connotations.
Such as in the following examples:

'He exposed himself in public.' (he displayed nudity inappropriately)
'The investigation exposed corruption within the committee.'
'The exposed wiring in the house was an eyesore'
'The secret identity of the informant was exposed by the media'

Certainly there are no written rules in Engish that prevent the use of 'exposed' in the example you gave, but generally it just is not used.

Baldur

I was writing my reply as mdawrcn posted their answer.
The words expressed, verbalized and conveyed are also perfect for the example you gave us.

five

It's the tone of the word.

"Expressed" or "conveyed" are neutral in tone.
"Revealed" is not entirely neutral, as the word implies some prior secrecy or perhaps an intent to surprise.
"Exposed" implies shining a light on something that has been hidden and that was not meant to be revealed. Typically, others expose, rather than one exposing their own views, e.g. "The newspaper article exposed what the politician said in private."

Also, another way to think about the word usage: Generally, we expose facts and actions; we express thoughts and ideas.

clorophilla

I'd say "He expressed his ideas in his speech".

In Italy (esporre), and in Spanish I suppose, "expose" isn't such "unconfortable" expression. We could say "egli ha esposto le sue idee nel suo discorso", it sound ok.
Intriguing!

five

That said, if you mean to say he showed what he was really thinking, despite what he had previously or otherwise said, "exposed" could be used as you used it in your sentence. It carries a connotation of being caught.