Eureka!

Ok, so it's not a single word, but it's what I was trying to think of: Semantic Satiation : Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

I also found a languagehat discussion on this topic.

Based on this NGram... ...I'm tempted to suggest semantic satiation is a 'failed coinage'.

Personally I think it's misleading to imply the phenomenon is restricted to the issue of semantics in the first place.

In my experience it's not so much that the word 'loses its meaning'.

It's more a matter of saying that almost any word tends to become 'unusual' if you concentrate on it too long, even while you remain perfectly well aware of what the word actually means .

So given that Leon Jakobovits James's 1962 coinage doesn't exactly seem to have taken off (many of the later usages being simply references to his anyway), I think it would be better to call it lexical fatigue (or saturation , as used in olfactory/auditory/visual contexts).

This at least has the benefit of making it clear that it's caused by form of the word itself, not the meaning (which may not even be particularly involved).

The article on semantic satiation led me to the French term jamais vu , which I think I like better for a couple reasons.

It seems to apply better to the written form as described in the original question, and also I find it more fun to say.

Based on Martha's accepted answer, I offer: Orthographic Incredulity

This is a fantastic question.

I have often experienced that feeling.

I doubt that there is a succinct word or phrase to describe it.

I suggest you coin your own word and use it all over the place until it finds its way into a dictionary.

In general, when you say or look at a word too many times /too long the word loses the affiliation it has with its meaning.

It starts to be nothing more than a group of noises coming out of your voice-box or a collection of alphabets arranged on a page.

I had someone once describe the feeling to me as word-dissolution because to him the word simply dissolved.

The brain has already understood and processed the word.

Now it knows everything there is to know about the word, and has moved on.

This is probably a self-induced form of aphasia or dysphasia.

"Orthographic cognitive dissonance" might work.

The conflicting ideas held simultaneously being that the word you're looking at is spelled correctly and that it's spelled incorrectly.

I looked at the Wikipedia link that was in @Martha's post and it happened to list many names for this phenomenon besides the most popular one, "semantic satiation": "cortical inhibition" "reactive inhibition" "verbal transformation" "refractory phase and mental fatigue" The link also describes essays and dissertations in which these terms are used.

What do you think of "lexical overexposure"?

I'm pretty sure that no such word already exists in English.

You'll probably have to coin a phrase. "

Lexical [something]" to be sure. :)

Note: <Semantic Satiation> is a different concept from what you're saying.

It's saying that you use a word simply because you are used to using it, without any other purpose and without any reference to its meaning—words like <timestamp> (thinking of "stamp"'s meaning when saying it?

likely no),

<general>, <convention>, <convene>, <registry>, <register>, <working example>, <due>, <duly>.

But what you're saying is that there are words that are written in a way that simply looks out-of-place, at least to the parsing system of the beholder.

This might be words like: <thorough> (<through> may look proper) <trial>

(<trail> may look proper) <corporeality> (<corporality> may look proper) <weird> (<wired>

may look proper) <ministerial> <heist> <naive>

(<naïve may look proper) <reincarnate> (<reïncarnate> may look proper) <adjourned> <diaeresis> <Nietzsche> <doceng> [ § ] <Lloyd> You can refer to such words as <weiosr> (which itself looks out-of-place to the untrained eye).

Re: Is there a shorthand way to describe this feeling so that people will know what I mean without the long explanation? .By

a phrase, <have a weiosr situation>: Just then, I had a weiosr situation with the word <weiosr>.

Question: Sometimes after looking at a word for a while, I become convinced that it can't possibly be spelled correctly.  Even after looking it up, sounding it out, and realizing that there's simply no other way to spell the word, it still looks wrong.     Is there a shorthand way to describe this feeling so that people will know what I mean without the long explanation?

Is there a word or phrase for the feeling you get after looking at a word for too long?

It is doubtful that there is a succinct word or phrase to describe this. However, some terms that might be applicable include "semantic satiation", "aphasia" or "orthographic cognitive dissonance".

A number of people sugges terms for this phenomenon,  including "Failed coinage" is a suggestion, means more that the word has become "unusual" if one focusses to much on it. "Orthographic incrdedulity" is another suggestion or  "Orthographic cognitive dissonance" might be an option."Lexical overexposure" is another option, but the concept is not "semantic satiation".  The words seem to look out of place. The cause is suggested to be due to medical conditions of asphasia or dysphasia. Others believe there is no succint word or phrase to describe it. The option is to coin one's own term.

Not a single word comes to mind but possibly: Semantic Satiation.   There is also a French term ' jamais vu'. Several other options include: Orthographic incredulity, aphasia  or dysphasia, "orthographic cognitive dissonance" or "lexical overexposure".

Although there may not be a succinct word or phrase for this phenomenon, this can be described as "Semantic satiation", whereby repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener. "Orthographic cognitive dissonance" or "self-induced dysphasia" are alternative suggestions.

It is doubtful that there is a shorthand way to describe this sensation. However, some terms that might be applicable include "semantic satiation", "aphasia" or "orthographic cognitive dissonance".

Failed coinage is a suggestion, but it means more that the word has become "unusual" if one focusses to much on it.

There is no succint word or phrase to describe it. The option is to coin your own term.

It could be caused by aphasia or dysphasia.

"Lexical overexposure" is an option, but the concept is not "semantic satiation".  The words seem to look out of place

Potential terms that might describe this sensation include "Semantic Satiation", "Aphasia" or "Orthographic cognitive dissonance".


In the literal sense, this refers to something becoming untied, unwrapped, unfastened, etc.

For example: Be careful with that gift.

If it comes undone, they'll be able to see what is inside.

In the figurative sense, it means that something has either not gone as planned, or has failed in some way.

E.g.

a plan can come undone meaning it hasn't worked as expected.

A person can come undone meaning that they have lost their composure or self-control.

Andy came undone when Ann left him for Steve.

In modern English, it is the counterpart of "do up", meaning to fasten (by whatever method - tie, glue, knot, zip, velcro).

It is nearly always used literally, but when it is used of a person, it normally means that their clothing has become unfastened.

In older English, it could be used in a more abstract sense, so

"I am undone" could mean something like "my life (or my wealth, or my reputation) is ruined".

Modern readers often find the phrase amusing, because its modern meaning is so closely related to clothing.

If a strap or a knot or some other kind of binding comes undone, it opens by accident and no longer binds anything.

If a plan or a scheme or a plot comes undone, it does the same thing.

This is a figurative sense that parallels the literal sense.

Reinforcing what Colin said, "undone" means ruined.

Two cites: And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.

Then said I, Woe is me!

for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.

-- Isaiah (KJV) 6:4-5 and She's come undone

She didn't know what she was headed for

And when I found what she was headed for It was too late --

The Guess

Who, "Undun", 1969

It's hard to explain in clear words, but the concept is clear, undo someone/thing, fall apart someone/thing.

To come undone is like saying something is finally fading away.

I think the concept would be something like "to unbecome", but fall apart is very clear.

Question: I've heard this phrase several times but was given several contradictory interpretations. Please provide an exact meaning of the phase.

What does "to come undone" actually mean?

There are many different ways to use the phrase "to come undone". In the literal sense, the phrase "to come undone" refers to when something becomes untied, unwrapped or unfastened. In a more figurative sense, it means that something has either not gone as planned or has failed in some way. It can also mean that someone has lost their composure or self-control.

In modern English, it is the counterpart of "do up", meaning to fasten. Also when referring to a person, it normally means that their clothing has become unfastened.   To come undone is like saying something is finally fading away. For exaple, wealth, or reputation is ruined.

Depending on the context, to come undone can mean to become unfastened, it can refer to a plan that has not worked as expected or that has failed, or tosomething that is fading away. It can also be used for someone who has lost their composure.

There are many different ways to use the phrase "to come undone". In the literal sense, the phrase "to come undone" refers to when something is no longer tied or fastened. In a more figurative sense, the phrase can be used to refer to the disappearance of something, the failure of plans or a person's loss of composure.

In the literal sense, "to come undone" is used to refer to when something has become unfastened or no longer tied up.

The phrase "to come undone" can be used to describe when something ceases to exist.

The phrase "to come undone" can be used to describe a situation where a plan has not worked as expected or planned.

The phrase "to come undone" can be used to refer to a person who has lost their composure.


They all can mean women who sleep with men for money.

Prostitute is the most technical term.

Hooker seems most commonly used in the United States, while in Britain this term is reserved for a position in rugby.

Whore sounds much more violent to me.

If one were seeking a woman to pay to sleep with him, he probably wouldn't say "I'm looking for a whore tonight," but use hooker or prostitute .

Calling someone a whore can be used to insult them, implying they sleep with many people (though for men the term would be man-whore ).

E.g., "She is such a whore."

Going back to a previous example, "I'm looking for a whore tonight" implies more to me that he is looking for someone who is easy to sleep with, not for a prostitute.

Not to say you can't use the others in an insult.

From "Baby Got Back," by Sir Mix-A-Lot, we also have the opening dialogue:

They only talk to her, because, she looks like a total prostitute , 'kay?

But in this case the lady quoted is just saying that she looks like a prostitute, not that she is one, necessarily.

If she said "She is such a prostitute ," that would mean that is her profession, not that she sleeps with a lot of men for free.

Claudiu pretty much covered it, but there's one thing more to discuss.

"Whore" has an unsavory meaning, to be sure, but it's lately been used in a milder sense, to describe someone who will do just about anything to get something he or she wants.

In this case it is coupled with another noun.

Examples: attention whore : Someone who will do anything to get attention

loot whore : in MMORPG games, someone who will do anything to get gear rep whore : on StackExchange sites, someone who will do anything to gain reputation

This is still a derogatory term, but it can also be used among friends in a somewhat affectionate sense.

But the meaning can vary depending on how it is said: "Jill is such an attention whore"

can mean you think she's obnoxious or funny,

depending on how much you like Jill.

If you're after the politically correct term, it's "Sex worker".

The reason "hooker" is in common use in America (and not elsewhere), is because it is named after a U.S. Civil War general, Joseph Hooker (who let such women follow his troops around, contributing to lax discipline that led to defeat in battle).

Interesting discussion with excellent answers.

There is at least one more dimension: the "Latinization" of English.

Online Etymological Dictionary (emphasis modified) whore (n.) 1530s

spelling alteration (see wh-) of Middle English hore, from Old English hore "prostitute, harlot," from Proto-Germanic *horaz (fem.

*horon-)

"one who desires" (cognates: Old Norse hora "adulteress," Danish hore, Swedish hora, Dutch hoer, Old High German huora

"whore;" in Gothic only in the masc.

hors "adulterer, fornicator," also as a verb, horinon "commit adultery"), from PIE *ka- "to like, desire," a base that has produced words in other languages for "lover" ( cognates:

Latin carus "dear;" Old Irish cara "friend;" Old Persian kama "desire;" Sanskrit Kama, name of the Hindu god of love, kamah "love, desire," the first element in Kama Sutra).

Compare with prostitute (v.) 1520s, "to offer to indiscriminate sexual intercourse (usually in exchange for money)," from Latin prostitutus, past participle of prostituere "to expose to prostitution, expose publicly," from pro- "before" (see pro-) +

statuere "cause to stand, establish," from PIE root *

sta- "to stand."

The development of the two words are unusually dissimilar considering the similarities of their modern English meanings.

English is technically a Germanic language , but modern English contains many more words from Latin and Romance languages than from Germanic or Anglo-Saxon sources.

One pie chart on Wikipedia claims that 58% of the English lexicon is Latin or Romance and only 26% is Germanic.

Many things have contributed to Latin's strong influence in modern English.

Some of the best analysis of Latin's influence comes from writers who are fiercely opposed to the Latinization.

When looking at the modern usage of "whore" and "prostitute", the general rule that most people feel that Latin words are more formal, proper, or acceptable in "polite society.

The other answers support this idea: whore is much more insulting than prostitute.

The full etymological entries are packed with interesting facts about both words, so if you find this interesting, I recommend clicking the above links.

Conclusion: both words exist in English because of the Latinization of English and people's need for a word that is not so crude that it is unacceptable in some situations.

Prostitute : The long technical term a person who has sex for money.

Hooker :

A slang term for a prostitute.

Whore :

A Derogative term for a prostitute or loose woman.

Question: "Hooker", "whore", and "prostitute" all mean  whore ; what are the differences between them?

"Hooker", "whore", "prostitute", when to use which?

All of these terms refer to a woman who sleeps with men in exchange for money, though "Prostitute" is the most technical term. "Hooker" is more prevalent in the USA than the UK and the term "Whore" is considered unsavoury or insulting.

They all mean women who sleep with men for monetary gain. A "prostitute" is the more technical term, with "hooker" a preferred term in the USA. "whore" is a more violent term, and the word is also used as an insult.

They all can mean women who sleep with men for money.  None of them are actually the current politically correct term, which is "Sex worker". Prostitute  is the most technical term.  Hooker  seems most commonly used in the United States, while in Britain this term is reserved for a position in rugby.   "Whore" has an unsavory meaning, to be sure, but it's lately been used in a milder sense, to describe someone who will do just about anything to get something he or she wants, but calling someone a  whore  can be used to insult them, implying they sleep with many people. Whore is much more insulting than prostitute.

They all can mean women who sleep with men for money.  "Prostitute" is the most technical term for a person who has sex for money.  "Whore" is a more violent, insulting term. However, it has become more  used in a milder sense, to describe someone who will do just about anything to get something he or she wants. "Hooker" seems most commonly used in the United States, while in Britain this term refers to a position in rugby.

The other answers support this idea: whore is much more insulting than prostitute.

All of these terms refer to "a woman who sleeps with men in exchange for money".

Prostitute is considered to be the most technical term.

Whore is considered to be more insulting and unsavoury.

Hooker is more prevalent in the USA than the UK.


I disagree with other answers that this is simply regional variation, with no difference in meaning.

While I'm sure there are regional variations, and certainly the core meaning is the same, to me (native southern UK)

the meanings are definitely slightly different: The phrase "making a decision" is the more common phrase.

It can refer to the actual moment where a course of action is chosen (and just that moment), but also sometimes to the whole process leading up to it (where one might undertake research, have discussions, think and so on, in order to prepare oneself for the decision itself): "

The committee took several months to make a decision."

The phrase "taking a decision", by contrast, only refers to the decisive moment itself, and not to the process leading up to it.

It has more formal connotation, and an implication that the decision will have serious consequences, and that the person deciding will be responsible for them; it has a sense of finality about it.

Some examples may help clarify: I haven't made a decision about where to go on holiday.

(Informal, consequences not serious, nobody's going to hold me to account.)

The president took the decision to invade Elbonia.

Bob was fired because he took the decision to outsource the call centre to Mars.

The decision-making process took a number of weeks: the engineers did the research and made recommendations, but it was the manager who took the final decision.

In support of this position it is worth using Google to search for "take a decision" and "make a decision" on the BBC News website.

The former are (at time of writing) all about formal decisions (by governments, official bodies, international committees etc); the latter - once quotes from US politicians are filtered out - mostly about personal or informal decisions, and about the decision process rather than any decision being taken: "The Arab leaders should take a decision to stop negotiating..." "

But, as a public consultation into UK future energy needs begins, he said it was time to take a decision on nuclear.

"I usually sleep on it, relax and then make a decision which is usually the correct decision.

"It's not to say that if you've got to make a decision you should make it in a fraction of a second - that is daft.

"When we make a decision, we are supposed to consciously analyse the alternatives and carefully weigh the pros and cons."

Make decision is the common form used in English.

I want to think about it a bit longer before I make a decision.

But take decision is used in British English.

It means "making an important or formal decision".

I fully accept the decision taken by the committee.

Per se, there appears to be no difference in meaning.

Even so, "taking a decision" is common in British parlance, whereas "making a decision" is more common in the US.

Refer BetterWritingSkills for more information.

Actually, I think the difference between the two is the final action.

Making a decision implies something you have decided in your mind.

The action to implement that decision may or may not have happened.

Taking a decision implies that the action to implement the decision has happened.

That's my two cents worth.

For US English only: Make a decision.

Take a position.

A decision is something that is formed through a process.

It is put together, or made.

A position is something that is finished.

The world "position" itself suggests a specific, stable place to which one has moved, or taken.

One makes a decision to take a position.

Question: What is the difference between  make decision  and  take decision ? When to use the one and when the other?

What is the difference between 'make decision' and 'take decision'?

There is no agreement as to whether there is a difference or not between these two phrases, though it apears that "take a decision" may be more common in the UK than the US. One possible distinction could be that "make a decision" implies that the decision has been made whilst "take a decision" implies that the consequential actions of the decision have taken place.

This is simply a regional variation with no difference in meaning. The core meaning is the same.There is a slight difference, as "making a decision" is more common. Using Google search will show the difference."Taking a decision" is more common in UK English, whereas "making a decision" is more US English.There is a difference; making a decision means you have decided on the course of action, whereas "taking a decision" means the action you have chosen to implement the decision has happened.

Per se, there appears to be no difference in meaning. Take a decision is used in British English and "taking a decision" only refers to the decisive moment itself, and not to the process leading up to it. Making a decision implies something you have decided in your mind. Make a decision is perhaps the most common form used.

Both forms are used and they generally mean the same, although some believe that "taking a decision" is common in British parlance, whereas "making a decision" is more common in the US.  Some claim that making a decision implies something you have decided in your mind, and that taking a decision implies that the action to implement the decision has happened.

Make a decision is perhaps the mosst common form used.

Some people would claim that "make a decision" is the common form used in English.

There may be a regional variation, with "take a decision" being more prevalent in the UK.

Some people would argue that there is no difference in meaning.

Making a decision implies that you have decided.

Taking a decision may imply that the action required to implement your decision has taken place.


I would define "human brain capacity" differently than "human brain's capacity".

It's partly emphasis — the former emphasizes human , while the latter puts the stress on brain —; but it's also that brain capacity is a quantity, while brain's capacity is a capability.

Thus, it makes sense to talk about The human brain's capacity to do something , but not really about The human brain capacity to do something .

The human brain's capacity to do something is amazing.

The capacity belongs to the brain, so we use the possessive form, which is brain's .

Note that the two examples you give are sentence fragments, since they do not have a finite verb.

You can say this several ways.

The capacity of the human brain — in other words, human brain capacity — is something to behold.

A human's brain capacity is something to behold.

The human brain's capacity for knowledge and adaptation is seemingly limitless.

All are correct.

To enlarge on Martha's answer, I think the quality/quantity distinction is the key to the answer, when you realise that "capacity" as a quality always belongs to somebody or something - "my capacity to ...", "the government's capacity ... ", "the capacity of the average citizen to ... ".

The quantity does not need to belong to something grammatically, (even though it will actually be the capacity of something): "The capacity is 400ml" is fine, whereas "The capacity to eat" is odd (not impossible; but the possessor of the capacity must have been established first).

Hence "the human brain's capacity" is possessed, and therefore can mean the quality or the quantity, whereas "human brain capacity" is not explicitly possessed

- it is just a kind of capacity - and so can usually mean only the quantity.

The human brain's capacity is 600 billion neurons.

Question: What is the correct version please?    The human brain capacity to do something.  The human brain's capacity to do something.

"human brain capacity" or "human brain's capacity"

It is generally agreed that the correct term is "human brain's capacity". The capacity belongs to the brain, so we use the possessive form, which is brain's.

Some people think there is a difference in the wording and that the first definition emphasises the human where the later emphasises the brain. Some people think the sentence simply means the brain's great ability, that is why the possesive form is used.

Different meanings. 'Brain capacity' is quantity and 'brain's capacity' is capability

It makes sense to talk about  the human brain's capacity to do something, but not really about  the human brain capacity to do something . The capacity belongs to the brain, so we use the possessive form, which is  brain's .

In this context "human brain's capacity" makes more sense than "human brain capacity".

I would define "human brain capacity" differently than "human brain's capacity" stresses the ability of the brain.

It's partly emphasis — the former emphasizes human , while the latter puts the stress on brain —; but it's also that brain capacity is a quantity, while brain's capacity is a capability.

Thus, it makes sense to talk about The human brain's capacity to do something , but not really about The human brain capacity to do something .

The human brain's capacity to do something is amazing.

There is difference between them. "Human brain capacity" emphasises the human, whereas "human's brain capacity"

It means the great ability of the brain to do things.

I would define "human brain capacity" differently than "human brain's capacity".


Steroids have a negative connotation with respect to sportsmanship precisely because they make you stronger or faster.

X on steroids" comparisons are taking the sense of improvement into an arena where the sportsmanship aspect is irrelevant, so the negative connotation gets left behind.

"X on steroids" has no negative connotations, unless X is a negative to begin with.

("Leona was like the devil on steroids.")

The construction is an intensifier, and just means that something is so good it has an unfair advantage.

It is bigger, better, faster, stronger ... whatever qualities one would expect in X's domain, but with an additional multiplier.

Compare it to the use of "uber":

Ron is an uber-programmer at my company.

It's just one more way of hyping a thing.

First, steroids aren't "that" bad, in popular opinion.

Medically, steroids are used to treatment ailments like arthritis.

Chemically, steroids are very common, e.g. choloesterol (though that isn't an anabolic steroid).

Possession or sale of anabolic steroids without a presecription in the U.S. is illegal, but a lot of people don't really care.

Probably the most unpopular use of steroids is in sports.

The topic is a light enough one to be the subject of jokes.

Second, steroids are effective , or at least perceived so.

If I'm thinking about purchasing product X, but someone tells me, "Y is X on steroids", their telling me how effective it is.

Usually, legality/ethics doesn't really even relate to whatever the product is.

I don't know of any illegal/unethical lawnmowers.

So it's an apt analogy and not outside the bounds of good taste.

Steroids in a certain context do improve performance or theoretically make someone bigger/more masculine, so the use of "X on steroids" is meant to convey the positive meaning you indicate.

However, it seems to me to retain something of a negative connotation in that it's an over-exaggerated or artificial improvement.

So if something is described as "X on steroids" it may be improved a bit too much or made a bit too large.

As other answers point out, it's the 'beefing up' aspect of steroids that's being alluded to.

The negative connotations for competitive sport and long-term health are irrelevant to this usage, and it's perhaps a bit 'anal' to even think of them in what is after all just an idiomatic coinage.

Even if there are no meaningfully positive connotations, you can get this kind of coinage.

Mostly we think the expression Fuck

Off is entirely negative (well, mostly it is ).

But to those familiar with the usage, a fuck-off car is in fact highly desirable.

Question: As someone who follows tech, I have heard over and over that a product is "X on steroids." Now, outside of a few ailments and allergies that are treated with steroids, it is pretty well accepted that steroids have a negative connotation. Why the dichotomy?

Why is "X on steroids" good?

"X on steriods" is considered good because it means that something is so good it has an unfair advantage. It has a negative connotation in sport precisely because steroids make you stronger or faster.

Steroids have a negative connotation in relation to athletes and the sentence is using the sportsman analogy to convey that a product is better "as if it was on steroids". Some people believe that steroids in general are not considered negative, as they are used to treat many conditions. However, possession without a prescription is illegal.

Steroids are seen as making something stronger or faster and can imply a sense of improvement.

The construction is an intensifier, and just means that something is so good it has an unfair advantage. "On steroids" is made to convey a notion of bigger, stronger or faster.

This construction is an intensifier and it is used because steriods are known to improve performance. In reality, steroids don't actually have that bad of an image.

X on steroids" comparisons are taking the sense of improvement into an arena where the sportsmanship aspect is irrelevant, so the negative connotation gets left behind.

First, steroids aren't "that" bad, in F20:F27popular opinion.

Steroids have a negative connotation with respect to sportsmanship precisely because they make you stronger or faster.

It is bigger, better, faster, stronger ... whatever qualities one would expect in X's domain, but with an additional multiplier.

It's just one more way of hyping a thing.

If I'm thinking about purchasing product X, but someone tells me, "Y is X on steroids", their telling me how effective it is.

Medically, steroids are used to treatment ailments like arthritis.

Chemically, steroids are very common, e.g. choloesterol (though that isn't an anabolic steroid).

Possession or sale of anabolic steroids without a presecription in the U.S. is illegal, but a lot of people don't really care.

Probably the most unpopular use of steroids is in sports.

The topic is a light enough one to be the subject of jokes.

Second, steroids are effective , or at least perceived so.

Usually, legality/ethics doesn't really even relate to whatever the product is.

Steroids have a negative connotation in relation to athletes.

The sentence is using the sportsman analogy

It is suggesting that something is really better and stronger.

Steroids are not "that" bad in popular opinion. They have postive medicinal uses.

They are used to treat many conditions.  Possessing them without a prescription is illegal.

Steroids are seen as making something stronger or faster.

"X" on steroids" refers to a sense of improvement.

Steriods don't actually have a negative image.

Steriods are known to improve sporting performance.


Gotcha actually has several meanings.

All of them can be derived from the phrase of which this is a phonetic spelling, namely "[I have] got you".

Literally, from the sense of got =

"caught, obtained", it means "I've caught you".

As in, you were falling, and I caught you, or you were running, and I grabbed you.

It's a short step from the benign type of caught to the red-handed type of caught .

Thus, gotcha is often used when you witness someone doing something naughty.

Again, it's a short step from I

-caught-you-doing-something-you-

oughtn't to Surprise!

I tricked you!

This sense of gotcha is used when someone falls for a practical joke, for example.

A somewhat-natural progression from the

"I tricked you" meaning is gotcha used as a noun: this is a feature of a system (e.g. a programming language) which trips you up or catches you off-guard.

And finally, from the figurative sense of got =

"understood", gotcha can be used to mean "Aha, I see now" or "I understand".

Following from Jasper Loy's statement.

It is short for

"Got you!" , itself having the subject implied

"I have got you." .

It regularly means, at least in the UK, "I understand [what you mean]" .

A:

You turn left, then right, gostraight on and it is on your left.

B: Gotcha! and A

: They'll never know who did it... <manic laughter>

B: Gotcha!

You little tyke!

It is short for got you .

We use it when we have caught somebody doing something or when we have tricked somebody.

In fact, there was a comedy show called Gotcha!

Gotcha 'Got you' like caught you doing something you should be doing.

In programming a variable of step not considered that causes an error.

It can also mean literally "I have got you.

" If I catch someone before they fall, I could say "Gotcha!"

Question: What does 'gotcha' mean? When would you use it?

What does 'gotcha' mean?

The word "Gotcha" has several meanings and all of them can be derived from the phonetic spelling of "Got you". In the UK, it is used to say "I understand". It also used when catching or tricking somebody.

Gotcha has several meanings and is a shortened form of "I have got you".otcha" has several meanings and is a shortened form of "I have got you".It can mean "tricked" someone or "found someone out". In programming it is  a variable of step not considered that causes an error.  If you catch someone before they fall, you can "Gotcha!". You caught them before the fall.

"Gotcha" means "Got you" or  "Caught you out".

"Gotcha" is short for "got you" or "I have got you". It can be used when you have caught somebody doing something, when you have tricked somebody, or if you catch someone before they fall.

"Gotcha" is short for "got you" and has several meanings. It is often used when catching someone physically, such as when they fall, or catching someone figuratively, when doing something that they should be.

All of them can be derived from the phrase of which this is a phonetic spelling, namely "[I have] got you".

It regularly means, at least in the UK, "I understand [what you mean]" .

We use it when we have caught somebody doing something or when we have tricked somebody.

In fact, there was a comedy show called Gotcha!

Gotcha 'Got you' like caught you doing something you should be doing.

In programming a variable of step not considered that causes an error.

It can also mean literally "I have got you.

" If I catch someone before they fall, I could say "Gotcha!"

"Gotcha" has several meanings and is a shortened form of "I have got you".

"Gotcha" means "Got you".
"Gotcha" can mean "Caught you out".

"Gotcha" is often used when catching somebody when they fall or catching somebody doing something that they shouldn't be.


They're pretty much equivalent.

That said, omitting the article has a slight feeling of playing with a group or orchestra, wherein the instrument is a synecdoche referring to the position the person occupied within the group.

I used to play the flute.

I used to play flute in the Civic Orchestra.

Omitting the article also can carry the feeling of playing an instrument in the general sense.

I play woodwinds.

In this case it would sound strange to use the article because you are speaking of a class of instruments.

I remember when I first moved from the UK to the US, I was quite taken aback by the “I play piano” usage, without the article.

So I’m pretty sure that this usage is very uncommon in the UK (at least among classical music circles).

In US usage, Robusto’s answer, that the article-less usage is more common in reference to playing with a particular group, fits my experience (classical groups, north-east US) pretty well.

Articles are creatures more of usage and discourse than of grammar.

The human speech communities involved (UK vs US; musicians, cooks, scientists, etc.) have certain patterns and expectations for use in the domains they control.

The surrounding text (conversation or writing) also guides usage.

As an American, I accept using or omitting the article before an instrument; they are nearly interchangeable for me.

I like the idea above that the article-less usage stresses playing with a group and the article usage stresses the position within the group.

As an ESL teacher, I have generally taught that omitting the article highlights the action or activity, almost as if practicing-violin were a single intransitive concept, like swimming.

Using the article gives a subtle shift in focus to the instrument.

The following is a sentence I would be likely to produce; I would accept any version of this (article-wise) that I might

hear:"When

he was little he played violin, but he switched to the cello when he got to middle school."

I heard somewhere that if the instrument is big and can hardly or even can't be carried (like cello, piano, drum set, harp, grand-piano, organ, etc.)

the definite article is needed.

I am not sure if that's correct, though.

I play piano??

This is I understand an American usage and is unacceptable in British or Australian English.

I play strings

I play drums

This is the usual option to omit the (indefinite) article - it means you play instruments in this category but doesn't mean you play all stringed instruments (or whatever), but that you play some (and the implication is a few).

The drums is a bit of a special case plural representing a singular set of drums or a number of different percussion instruments.

If you play a number of different percussion instruments in an orchestra you would normally play drums and other percussion instruments and refer to percussion.

The drum set in a band (which also includes non-drum percussion components - big hat, cymbals, etc.)

is actually a stand in for the whole percussion section in a full orchestra, so the "role" usage I suggest below prevails.

I play percussion

I play woodwind

I play brass

These are actually an adjective with an implicit "instruments" omitted, so it looks like a mass noun and doesn't have plural -s, but otherwise acts like the "strings" case above.

I'm intrigued by the @brilliant idea that it has to do with being portable.

I think the indefinite usage has more to do with playing a particular role in an ensemble or orchestra where there are multiple instruments playing the X part

(implicitly plural even if singular in form), rather than a unique role (so definite singular).

Thus it is appropriate to say I play X (meaning the role and the part as well as the instrument).

These is confirmed by it being easier to omit the article when the "in the orchestra" or similar is explicitly or implicitly present.

I can say

I play cello

I play trombone

I play guitar

I play banjo

I can't say I play piano??

I play mandolin??

I play harp??

The mandolin is portable.

But there are not often multiple of any of these in a typical modern band, ensemble or orchestra.

Piano and harp fit both theories.

english.stackexchange.com/users/39262/David M W Powers

I actually play the mandolin in a group and it is a small light instrument that can be very easily carried in a small case, more easily than a guitar so this argument is not good enough.

I agree that "I play mandolin" seems to be a modern way of saying "I play the part devoted to the mandolin in this group".

"I play the mandolin" is the best way to specify which instrument I play and the normal classical English usage.

"I shoulde'v learned to play the guitar, I shoulde'v learned to play them drums" - Dire Straits.

I would definitely go for " the piano ".

In fact the first sentence sounds strange.

Difficult to give basic rules.

One idiomatic use with the definite article is

I'm learning to play the piano.

Longman DCE.

Question: What is the rule for omitting/including the definite article in the following sentences:   I used to play piano.   I used to play  the  piano.   I would pick the first sentence, but I've heard people say the second sentence even when they are not referring to a specific piano.Which one is correct?

Omission of definite article with musical instruments

It is hard to give basic rules but it is generally agreed that the two forms are equivalent. Having said this, omitting the article may refer more to playing with a group or orchestra. It is also possible that there is a difference between UK and US English, with UK English preferring to use the article.

There is not much difference though the consensus is the removing the article suggests playing in a group, whilst the article creates a focus on the instrument  played. Nevertheless , choices may differ between English speakers as well as within groups of people working in a particular domain, such as musicians.It is surprising for US speakers not to hear "a".The grammatical overtones of the article might add focus to the instrument. Individuals within certain groups may have specific speech patterns they use related to their domain.

Although they are both used, some feel that the definite article is required.

Although widely interchangeable, some people perceive a slight difference between these phrases. Using the article gives a subtle shift in focus to the instrument. Omitting the article also can carry the feeling of playing an instrument in the general sense, or with am orchestra, for example.

These two constructions might be interchangeable and it is difficult to describe any basic rules. However, it is possible that omitting the article is more common when referring to playing as part of a group. Similarly, omitting the article may place more emphasis on the activity rather than the instrument.

There is not much different. Removing the article might suggest having played with an orchestra.

It simply means you play the instrument in this category or at least some of them. "Drums"as a plural presents a special case.

They mean the same thing.
The definite article is needed.

It is possible that omitting the article is used when referencing playing an instrument as part of a group.

Omitting the article could place more emphasis on the activity rather than the instrument.

These two constructions might be interchangeable.


Something like: dingbat, thingamabob or thingy .

From 1925 E. FRASER & J. GIBBONS Soldier & Sailor Words 215 Oojah (also Ooja-ka-pivi), a substitute expression for anything the name of which a speaker cannot momentarily think of , e.g. ‘Pass me that h-m, h-m, oojah-ka-pivi, will you?’

1931 J. VAN DRUTEN London Wall II.

ii.

There's a whole lot in the Oojah Capivvy now.

Sunday Times 4 Feb. 31/6

This was the catch-phrase in a music-hall song in use during the first world war...

I remember the line and the tune: ‘You cannot eat it, or see it, or hear it, you just ask for Ujah-ka-piv.’

‘L. LANE’ ABZ of Scouse 78

Whur's ther ojah-capiff?

, where is the hammer, spanner or whatever it might be?

Hobart Mercury

8 Aug., There are several of Ms Bosanky's turns of phrase that are pure Downunder.

For instance, ‘hoojah-kapippy’..or a ‘whatsitsname’ euphemism.

World Wide Words discusses this briefly

: they suggest that ooja , oojah capivvy and variants originated in British Army argot around the time of WWI: ‘Pass the oojah.’

says the one-armed man who is playing billiards.

What is the oojah?

The oojah is any object in Heaven or earth; it is the thing which has no name or the name of which you have temporarily forgotten. — Washington Post, Oct 1917 [ Edit: the OED confirms this quotation as their oldest citation for the usage, and suggests an etymology: “Perhaps [from] Urdu and Indo-Persian † ḥujjat kāfī fīhi , lit.

‘the argument is sufficient’, there’s no more to be said about it.”]

A form more familiar to some readers (it certainly was to me) may be oojah-cum-spiff , which is used rather differently: it’s an adjective meaning roughly “all right”, “in good order”, similar to e.g. tickety-boo .

This turns up several times in P.G. Wodehouse’s books (the Jeeves novels, and iirc the Blandings ones too):

“Yes, I think we may say everything’s more or less oojah-cum-spiff.

With one exception, Jeeves…” [ Edit: OED suggests that the spelling of this version is influenced by the then-popular use of the Latin pronoun cum .]

When I lived in Leeds Yorkshire UK, 'Oojah--kapivvy' was definitely part of our family vernacular and was particularly used by my Father.

Dad was a WW2 Vet, so he may or may not have picked up the expression during his years in the army.

It is synonymous with Thingamajig, Whatchamacallit etc.

Sometimes, though it was shortened to Oojah.

Here in New York no one has ever understood this wonderful expressive term.

To me it has such a lovely flow.

It would appear to be quite country wide rather than Local as both my wife , from London, England, and myself from Lancashire both remember our parents using oojacappivvy & oohjahmaflip.

they were all born about 1904-1916

so the grandparents probably adopted the saying in WW1.

But having been used by 3 generations I have never heard our children or grandchildren use either term.

I wonder if they just use an asterisk when texting & cant remember the name of something!

oojamaflip, OED Like thingamabob or whatchamacallit, oojamaflip (also spelled whojamaflip, hoojamaflip, etc.)

is a word used to refer to something a person doesn’t know the name of, or doesn’t wish to specify precisely.

The earliest evidence OED‘s researchers have found for the word so far is from 1969, in a pair of advertisements for a product whose precise nature is (appropriately) unclear Oxford Dictionaries , origin of oojah says: "Early 20th century, of unknown origin"

I'm from Sydney, Australia, and part of a many-generations-of-Aussies family.

My grandfather, also a proud Aussie, used to call a toffee apple a 'hoojah-kapivvy-on-a-stick'.

I never heard him use the term 'oojah' or 'hoojah' for anything else, but it seems the meaning was similar from the context - something like 'that thingamabob on a stick'.

The pronounced 'h' was clear when he said it.

I can't recall him writing it down

so my spelling is how I interpreted how he voiced the expression.

A previous answer said that a WW2 vet may have picked up the expression in the army; my grandfather was in the Australian forces in WW2 so may have picked up the expression there as well.

In any case, it may be more than local or countrywide in the British Isles; it definitely infiltrated some of the Commonwealth at least.

I'm in my forties now and can't find many Aussies familiar with the expression; those who are, are generally older than myself.

I have a feeling it may have originated from a corruption of Indian words brought over by the troops when they returned to uk.

In the same way doolalay ( meaning daft) came over.

Or a cup of char for tea.

Question: A lot of people in my family use this word, not regularly, but enough for me to ask what it means.  I know it’s not a “real word”, but how come people from different sides of my family use it? It must mean something.  The way the word is used is for a word that doesn’t mean anything, like  gobbeldygook .

“Oojakapiv”: what does this word mean?

The word "Oojakapiv" means "dingbat", "thingamabob" or "thingy".

It's similar to other strange letter and combination letter words that don't have much sense like "thingamabob"or "oujah-cum-spiff" which is an adjective meaning "all in good order"There are some local expressions that are similar in North Yorshire for example, synonymous to "Whatchamacallit" and similar words. The earliest evidence OED‘s researchers have found for the word dates to 1969, in a pair of advertisements for a product whose precise  nature is (appropriately) unclear.  Oxford Dictionaries , origin of oojah says: "Early 20th century, of unknown origin".  I have a feeling it may have originated from a corruption of Indian words brought over by the troops when they returned to uk.

A substitute expression for anything the name of which a speaker cannot momentarily think of , e.g. ‘Pass me that... oojah-ka-pivi, will you?’

It is synonymous with Thingamajig, Whatchamacallit, Dingbat, Thingy, etc.  However, some maintain that it may have originated from a corruption of Indian words brought over by the troops when they returned to UK.

"Oojakapiv" is synonymous with words like "thingamajig" and "whatchamacallit". It might have originated from an Indian word that entered British vocabulary.

It's similar to combination letter words

There are some local expressions that are similar.

It has been used as a family term  in North Yorshire. It is synonymous to "Whatchamacallit" and similar words, but sometimes shoretened to Oojah

The earliest evidence OED‘s researchers have found for the word so far  is from 1969, in a pair of advertisements for a product whose precise  nature is (appropriately) unclear   Oxford Dictionaries , origin of oojah says: "Early 20th century, of unknown origin"

This word is synonymous with words like "thingamajig" or "whatchamacallit".

This word might be a possible corruption of an Indian word that has entered British vocabulary.


I am not quite sure as to the need for highlighting the fact that she has been looking for job for 6 months.

How about :- Macy's responded to her online job application inviting her for an interview.

However, if you do need to highlight the 6 month search, then one option i can think of might be :- Her 6 month job search has culminated in Macy's inviting her for an interview in response to her online application

I suggest you drop 'from a job application' as it is pretty much implied.

After six months of looking for a job, she finally got a reply from Macy's asking her to come for an interview.

You can start by using the correct article "an" when referring to "interview."

You would be better to use "through" than "from" here: After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply through a job application

she posted online from Macy's asking her to come to a interview.

Better still: After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's (through an application she had posted online) asking her to come to a interview.

I'd try to simplify: An online job application finally got her an interview at Macy's after six long months of looking.

This places the fact of the application being online front and center.

If the time period is to be emphasized:

She looked for six long months before an online job application finally got her an interview at Macy's.

After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's regarding a job application she had posted online, asking her to come to a interview.

After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's to an online job application asking her to come in for an interview.

Question: After six months of looking for jobs,  she got a reply from a job application  she posted online from Macy's asking  her to come to a interview.   The sentence does not sound right to me, what would be the correct way to say this?

How would I say this sentence correctly?

There is no clear "correct" way of phrasing this sentence and the answer will be highly subjective. However, there are number of changes that might be worthwhile. Firstly, it is questionable as to whether the fact that she has been looking for a job for 6 months needs to be highlighted. It is also possible to drop "job application" since it is implied, and the word interview will need the correct article "an".

There are several possible options to rephrase the sentence. Some suggested highlighting certain elements, some suggested replacing words such as "from" with "through". A grammatical error was identified in " a interview". There are numerous ways to rephrase the sentence to make it clearer with suggestions provided such as " After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's regarding a job application she had posted online, asking her to come to a interview"

After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's to an online job application, asking her to come in for an interview.

Suggested alternatives include "After six months of looking for a job, she finally got a reply from Macy's asking her to come for an interview" and "Macy's responded to her online job application inviting her for an interview".

There are many different ways to re-write this sentence and the answer will be highly subjective. One suggestion could be "Macy's responded to her online job application inviting her for an interview".

This places the fact of the application being online front and center.

She looked for six long months before an online job application finally got her an interview at Macy's.

I am not quite sure as to the need for highlighting the fact that she has been looking for job for 6 months.

How about :- Macy's responded to her online job application inviting her for an interview.

However, if you do need to highlight the 6 month search, then one option i can think of might be :- Her 6 month job search has culminated in Macy's inviting her for an interview in response to her online application

I suggest you drop 'from a job application' as it is pretty much implied.

After six months of looking for a job, she finally got a reply from Macy's asking her to come for an interview.

You can start by using the correct article "an" when referring to "interview."

You would be better to use "through" than "from" here: After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply through a job application

she posted online from Macy's asking her to come to a interview.

Better still: After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's (through an application she had posted online) asking her to come to a interview.

I'd try to simplify: An online job application finally got her an interview at Macy's after six long months of looking.

After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's regarding a job application she had posted online, asking her to come to a interview.

After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's to an online job application asking her to come in for an interview.

Make sure you use "an" before "interview"

Simplify the sentence. Focus on the application being online, emphasise the duration of months.


A name is different than a label.

Name: a word by which a person or thing is known Label: an identifying or descriptive marker that is attached to an object

So a label might have your name on it, but often it has something else on it, such as a warning, or description, or classification.

A rule of thumb is that names are unique(ish) and labels are not.

In the example question, it looks like the word you want is "name".

Consider this website: the question's name is the question headline itself: "Is the usage of 'labeled' preferred to the usage of 'named'?".

The question's labels are its tags: "usage".

Edit: I just noticed your edit to this question.

The third and fourth sentences carry the same meaning as "named".

You are "called" by your name, usually.

I'd use "named" or go with the fourth option, which just names the method.

There are lots of synonyms for "name" but, importantly, "label" isn't really one of them.

Edit 2:

Google's built-in dictionary defines label as a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or thing, especially one that is inaccurate or restrictive.

This strengthens the notion that while labels are related to names, names are not a subset of labels (though labels might be said to be a subset of names).

english.stackexchange.com/users/380/Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Named is preferred in your example, since you are formally giving a name to your method.

Labelling (beyond the literal) generally infers that someone else has suggested an alternative name for something.

Microsoft named their browser 'Internet Explorer', but it's often labelled as 'Internet Exploder'!

Edit :Labelling is something you do when you categorise something informally; that is, you are attaching a virtual label to it, some meta-data, if you will.

For example, Critics have labelled Project X a disaster from start to finish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labelling

Name is a better choice than label if you are giving a name to something new.

The latter is used when you want to describe or give information about something instead.

For example, we say name the baby but not label the baby , don't label me as stupid but not don't name me as stupid , and label the medication with this sticker but not name the medication with this sticker .

Pardon the brevity of this answer, but I would say "named" is preferred within the context of your example.

Thus: In this paper, we will describe our new method named "KICK".

Better still, you can omit "named" or "labeled" altogether for succinctness:

In this paper, we will describe our new method, "KICK".

The comma before "KICK" is sometimes treated as a matter of preference.

You should actually use neither.

The implication is obvious: Here we discuss our new method "Fantastic Method".

To draw a parallel: Here we discuss our child named Thomas.

Or: Here we discuss our child labeled Thomas.

Question: Considering the description of a method in a research paper, which is the most natural way to express how we refer to the method? Is there a rule about when to use named vs labeled?   In this paper, we will describe our new method  named  "KICK".  In this paper, we will describe our new method  labeled  "KICK".  In this paper, we will describe our new method  called  "KICK".  In this paper, we will describe our new method, "KICK".

Is the usage of "labeled" preferred to the usage of "named"?

A name is different to a label. A name is a word by which a person or thing is known, whilst a label is an identifying marker that is attached to an object. In the example question, the correct term would be "name".

The preference here is for name and not label. There is a distinction between what we name and label. Name identifies the person or object, whereas label is a descriptor. "Name" is also considered the best option here if you are giving a name to something. Google defines "label" as something more restrictive. "Labelling" can also be a form of categorisation. Some suggest using neither "name" nor "label" in this sentence as your intentions are clear.

Not the same. A name refers to a word by which something is known. A label identifies or decribes something.

In the example question, the word you want is "name", since you are formally giving a name to  your  method.  Name: a word by which a person or thing is known.  Label: an identifying or descriptive marker that is attached to an object.

In this example, "name" would be the preferred word to use. A name is the word that something is known by, whereas a label is a description attributed to something. Therefore, a label implies that there might be an alternative. In any case, it may be that you shouldn't use either word in this context.

The comma before "KICK" is sometimes treated as a matter of preference.

Edit :Labelling is something you do when you categorise something informally; that is, you are attaching a virtual label to it, some meta-data, if you will.

Name: a word by which a person or thing is known Label: an identifying or descriptive marker that is attached to an object

So a label might have your name on it, but often it has something else on it, such as a warning, or description, or classification.

A rule of thumb is that names are unique(ish) and labels are not.

In the example question, it looks like the word you want is "name".

Consider this website: the question's name is the question headline itself: "Is the usage of 'labeled' preferred to the usage of 'named'?".

The question's labels are its tags: "usage".

The third and fourth sentences carry the same meaning as "named".

The latter is used when you want to describe or give information about something instead.

Name is a better choice than label if you are giving a name to something new.

For example, we say name the baby but not label the baby , don't label me as stupid but not don't name me as stupid , and label the medication with this sticker but not name the medication with this sticker .

Pardon the brevity of this answer, but I would say "named" is preferred within the context of your example.

Google's built-in dictionary defines label as a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or thing, especially one that is inaccurate or restrictive.

This strengthens the notion that while labels are related to names, names are not a subset of labels (though labels might be said to be a subset of names).

Named is preferred in your example, since you are formally giving a name to your method.

Labelling (beyond the literal) generally infers that someone else has suggested an alternative name for something.

Microsoft named their browser 'Internet Explorer', but it's often labelled as 'Internet Exploder'!

For example, Critics have labelled Project X a disaster from start to finish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labelling

Thus: In this paper, we will describe our new method named "KICK".

Better still, you can omit "named" or "labeled" altogether for succinctness:

In this paper, we will describe our new method, "KICK".

The implication is obvious: Here we discuss our new method "Fantastic Method".

The question's labels are its tags: "usage".

In this paper, we will describe our new method, "KICK".

A name is different to a label. "Name" is used for people whereas "label" is for things. Names are unique, lables are not. The answer is name.

The third and fourth sentences have the meaning of "names"

There are  lots of synonyms for "name" but it is not "label"

Google defines "label" as classifying phrase or name applied to people or things. This determines that labels are related to names, but names are not a subset of labels.

"Name" is perferred here. You are giving your method a name.

Labelling can also be categorising something as in critics have "labelled Projext X a disaster"

Name is the preferred option, but an alternative would be to omit both.

Use neither, it is understood what you are discusing.

A name is a word by which something is known, where as a label is a description attributed to something.

It might be the case that you should use neither "name" nor "label".

Using "label" implies that there is an alternative name.


Some books & journals use American English, while some use British English.

In the American style of writing, a comma is inserted before and after i.e.

However, in the British style of writing, a comma is inserted before but not after i.e.

It seems that the use of comma is found more often in American English, and even there, it is not always required .

Nevertheless, even though I prefer the comma and have sources to back me up, they almost all use hedge words like “usually” and “preferred.

” I've also been told that the commas are used less frequently in Britain, and the only style guide I found that advised against commas was Fowler's Modern English Usage, which has its roots in British English.

The bottom line is that in American English, I recommend using a comma after i.e. and e.g. You could probably make an argument for leaving it out in some cases, but do so at your own risk.

Personally, my UK-centric view is that I would put a comma after 'that is'; that is, if I were to use the long-hand, so to speak.

But I would not put a comma after 'id est';

i.e. although it may seem 'correct', I feel it impedes understanding, rather than aiding it.

As indicated in The Elements of Style , abbreviations are "parenthetic and should be punctuated accordingly".

It also says "never omit one comma and leave the other".

For me, this means if you put a comma before "i.e.", there has to be another comma after it.

I don't think every rule in The Elements of Style is critical or mandatory to proper writing, but it is safe and trouble-free to follow most of them.

I have been doing technical writing for over 30 years and have always separated the substitution with a comma.

For some years, printers dropped the comma to save ink and space.

I refuse to accept cost as a reason to override logic and clarity.

American English here.

I read somewhere, but unfortunately I cannot find the source, that it might also be acceptable to write it as "i.e,".

That's how I usually write it, as it appears to look less cluttered to me.

I'm very sorry to provide no sources for this.

Example:

It is acceptable to write the phrase as above, i.e, replacing the last period with a comma.

Question: If I remember correctly from English class, then one should put a comma after "i.e.", i.e., the Latin abbreviation for id est.  But lately I've seen the comma after "i.e." dropped in books. So what is the rule or consensus here if any?

Should there be a comma after "i.e."?

The question of whether to add a comma after i.e. will vary depending on the variant of English. In American English, a comma is inserted before and after i.e. but in British English a comma is only inserted before. There is no consensus as to what is "correct".

The choice regarding putting a comma after i.e. may vary depend on whether using UK or US writing styles. In UK English, generally a comma is inserted before the i.e. However,  the use of the comma is more prevalent in US writing. Fowler's Modern  English Usage, which has its roots in  British English, advised against its use in this fashion. However, the Style Guide suggests its use as abbreviations are parentheses. This is understood by some to mean placing a comma before and after the abbreviation. Printers also may not use them to save ink and space. There is potentially an option of using i.e, but no source can be provided for this choice.

Difference between American and British English. The comma is more prevalent in US English.

The use of commas with i.e. and e.g. is recommended. However, some say that in American usage, there should be a comma before and after them  and in British English, there should only be a comma before them.

The use of commas in this context may be more common in American English and less common in British English. It is also possibly acceptable to write "i.e," with the final full stop replaced by a comma.

That's how I usually write it, as it appears to look less cluttered to me.

I refuse to accept cost as a reason to override logic and clarity.

Some books & journals use American English, while some use British English.

In the American style of writing, a comma is inserted before and after i.e.

However, in the British style of writing, a comma is inserted before but not after i.e.

It seems that the use of comma is found more often in American English, and even there, it is not always required .

Nevertheless, even though I prefer the comma and have sources to back me up, they almost all use hedge words like “usually” and “preferred.

” I've also been told that the commas are used less frequently in Britain, and the only style guide I found that advised against commas was Fowler's Modern English Usage, which has its roots in British English.

The bottom line is that in American English, I recommend using a comma after i.e. and e.g. You could probably make an argument for leaving it out in some cases, but do so at your own risk.

Personally, my UK-centric view is that I would put a comma after 'that is'; that is, if I were to use the long-hand, so to speak.

But I would not put a comma after 'id est';

i.e. although it may seem 'correct', I feel it impedes understanding, rather than aiding it.

As indicated in The Elements of Style , abbreviations are "parenthetic and should be punctuated accordingly".

It also says "never omit one comma and leave the other".

For me, this means if you put a comma before "i.e.", there has to be another comma after it.

I don't think every rule in The Elements of Style is critical or mandatory to proper writing, but it is safe and trouble-free to follow most of them.

I have been doing technical writing for over 30 years and have always separated the substitution with a comma.

For some years, printers dropped the comma to save ink and space.

I read somewhere, but unfortunately I cannot find the source, that it might also be acceptable to write it as "i.e,".

I'm very sorry to provide no sources for this.

It can depend whether it is UK English or US English.  In UK English a comma is inserted before the i.e.

It is more common in US English and recommended.

From a UK perspective, the comma would be added although it impedes rather than assists clarity.

The Elements of Style suggestions abbreviations are parenthetical and should be punctuated accordingly. This would mean putting a comma on both sides of the abbreviation.The style guide rules may not be critical to correct writing.

The removal of the comma has often been used by printers to save ink and space. Some people disagree with this approach.

There is a suggestion that it could be written as i.e,.

In this case, a comma is used more frequently in American English.

Use of commas when using "i.e." or "e.g." may be more common in American English.

Commas are less common in this context in British English.

The correct answer may be to write "i.e," with the comma replacing the final full stop.


I'm attracted by the argument made here , that it's to do with trams, given that both "off his trolley" and "off his rocker" appear in print around the same time.

I also feel the fact that all the early citations are about "going off your rocker" or "being driven off your rocker" - rather than falling/running/getting - suggests it's the same as "going off the rails".

That said, rocker

at the time could refer to: chairs cradles rocking horses ore agitators rocker arms part of a coach or car Trevelyan's rocker a technical term in

numerous patents

Both words have continued to be overloaded: growing up, I associated "off your trolley" with shopping carts, and "off your rocker" with rock stars.

Etymonline says : rocker "a rocking chair," 1852, Amer.

Eng., from rock (v.); [...] Slang off (one's) rocker "crazy" first recorded 1897.

So it's someone who's off his rocking chair.

The Phrase Finder also has a thread with people speculating about a different origin, but the conclusion is: The phrase relates to rocking chairs according to "The Dictionary of Cliches" by James Rogers (Ballantine Books, New York, 1985).

This is more speculation than anything, but it's somewhat stereotypical for older people back in the day to be sitting on rocking chairs and just passing the time,

right?

What if the phrase originally didn't mean to suggest that someone merely is crazy, but also outwardly displaying it?

A crazy person might feel the urge to get out of their chair, run around and act mad, whereas a more mild mannered one would just quietly rock back and forth and not cause a scene.

The best answer I found: A more interesting topic than first meets the eye!!

The phrase first came to light around 1896, and there are 2 schools of thought as to its original reference and meaning: School one:

The "rocker" was the metal strip which held the long metal arms of electric trolleys onto their track.

I remember Halifax in the early 1960s still had them - pretty comical when the conductor had to get off in all kinds of weather to manoever the arm back onto its "rocker"!!

Here's a quotation from the first source below: "......

the first appearance in print of OFF ONE’S TROLLEY in 1896 (see quote below) was followed less than one year later in 1897 (see quote above) by OFF ONE’S ROCKER.

This, and the fact that electric trolleys were ‘off’ and running in the 1890s would seem to indicate that we might have more than just a coincidence here.

And it strikes me that falling ‘asleep’ in one’s rocking chair is a much more likely event than ‘falling off one’s rocking chair’ –

an occurrence seemingly too rare to warrant having an expression named after it – or the even rarer occurrence of somehow being ‘off the rocker’ on one’s rocking chair (whatever that might mean – it’s hard to visualize).

On the other hand, even by the 1940s when I would pass three different trolley lines on my mile or so walk to my elementary school every day (yes, kids actually walked to school in those prehistoric times), I often saw men working on a stalled trolley trying to get that overhead, spring-loaded pole, back onto the power line where it belonged – it had gone OFF ITS ROCKER.

School two (referred to above also): " Originally the phrase was specifically about what we'd now call "mood swings."

Now it means "to be crazy," but it used to connote a "normal" person who periodically, and unexpectedly, goes crazy.

Aw, he's just off his rocker--

it'll pass."

Just imagine the kind of person you'd expect to find "on a rocker.

An elderly person, the stodgy old grandma or grandpa

most every household has in residence (the expression dates from 1897, before nursing homes were so acceptable).

Most of the time they just sit and rock, hands folded, muttering quietly.

But every now and then a sudden agitation overcomes old Uncle Nancy, he jumps up and cavorts around the house.

Or runs off to the wars with his WWII [actually, WWI]

Home Guard helmet on-- "out of uniform" so to speak, like Hyacinth Bucket's old dad.

[from the hilarious British sit-come "Keeping up appearances" - still re-run on some USA tele channels!]

" - from source 2 below. Source(s): http://www.wordwizard.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18057 http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=96503 From: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100831080317AAbDNVw

'Chambers Slang Dictionary’ confirms the rocking chair origin.

It also gives this further definition of its use since the 1950s: in figurative use, acting excessively (though not necessarily madly)

The OED’s earliest citation is dated 1890.

1765 is another possible first in another vein: Mother Goose and rocker association with lulling, or casting out of being lulled, one would suppose, might likewise be a metaphor for the passage forward from baby hood...or, possibly, back into earlier babyhood...and figurative need of lulling ...

in the sense, respectively, of mental/emotional maturation or regression.

If only the cited authors in above-cited instances of rocking-chair/rocker association with mental disturbance were alive to be asked (if they based their allusion on familiarity with the rhyme, Rockaby Baby (in the treetops...when the bough breaks down will come baby, [rocking] cradle and all), their answers might come closer to definitively answering the whence and wherefore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-a-bye_Baby

It is a term of the industrial revolution.

A rocker arm is (was) used in internal combustion engines and in industrial looms.

It is a fragile part of the machine.

When the machine went "off its rocker" the machine had to be stopped immediately (not within seconds, that would be too long) or it would destroy itself and possibly those working around it.

Question: The expression "off his rocker" is used to mean someone is mad (as in, bonkers mad, not angry mad). Does anyone know what a rocker is, and how being off one came to mean this?

Why "off his rocker"?

It is not fully clear where the expression "off his rocker" came from, but a likely explanation is that it relates to someone falling off their rocking chair, with a rocking chair being also known as a 'rocker'. This is also confirmed by the Chambers Slang Dictionary.

The word may relate to trams or trolleys which appeared at the time it was first heard.  There is a suggestion that the word orginated from "rocking chair" and its first known slang use was in 1897.  In modern times, it means someone who is crazy but the term is suggested to originate from the name of a part of a combustion engine called a rocker which as a fragile part of the machine had to stopped immediately or it would destroy itself.

There is a suggestion that this originates in trams and railways, and means "going off the rails" or going mad.

"Rocker" in this phrase refers to "rocking chair".

It is generally agreed that a "rocker" refers to a rocking chair.

It may be related to "trams" as its usage appeared when "trams" or "trolleys" first appeareed.

The connotation of the word has grown in time.

Some sources suggest the word comes from a "rocker" or "rocking chair"

The term originally may mot have denoted madness.

It is a term from the industrial revolution relating to the a part of a combustion engine.


"In the cloud" - You can use this phrase to say that a resource is part of the cloud.

For example: "machine 1234 is in the cloud" or "the application was deployed in the cloud".

On the cloud" - You can use this phrase to say that you're writing about a specific cloud.

For example: "my post on the Amazon cloud" Google Results 560K for "deployed in the cloud" 249K for "deployed to the cloud" 236K for "deployed on the cloud" 10K for "deployed into the cloud" 1.1M for "machine in the cloud" 347K for "machine on the cloud" 2.5M for "application in the cloud" 1.3M for "application on the cloud" 3.3M for "running on the cloud" 3.2M for "running in the cloud"

I suspect the phrase originated in the habit of drawing the internet as a cloud shape on network diagrams.

Diagramming products such as Visio provide cloud shapes in their network diagram templates.

Since servers are then drawn inside the cloud shape, the phrase in the cloud is a better reflection of the diagrammatic usage.

Anyway, clouds are insubstantial things unable to bear the weight of a cluster of big-iron servers attempting to perch perilously on top.

Much better to nestle your servers in the warm fuzzy nurturing embrace of the cloud whose opaqueness hides them from nasty predators.

Images from Wikipedia

In this case, it would be “in the cloud”.

"On" the cloud - could be taken to mean that you are on the cloud of cloud computing taken in context of "I am on cloud nine" "

In" the cloud - seems to convey that you are right in the midst of all the latest happenings in the cloud computing space.

I don't think that there is a specific right or wrong here.

It depends on the general direction / viewpoint that your blog is trying to convey.

Considering the morass that usually surrounds a term like "Cloud Computing", "Demystifying the Cloud" might also not be a bad option!!

"In the cloud" is where your data is stored, or where your processing takes place, in the cloud computing paradigm.

On the cloud" might however be a nice blog title.

It means you are writing "on the cloud", where "on" means "regarding".

You are writing on "the cloud" as a concept, so there is no need to pluralise, even though you will doubtless write about a number of different "clouds".

See Stephen King's "On Writing", Carl Rogers' "On Becoming A Person", John Scanlan's "On Garbage".

@Bruno - I thought we say 'the application was deployed to the cloud' instead of 'in the cloud' Edit: Added answer

- I think it best to use 'on' or 'in' or 'to' depending on the context.

If you are going to say '...

is running on the machine' , ' ...

is running on the cloud' , '... is deployed to the machine' , ' ... is deployed to the cloud' ,

Considering that in the body of the question you have not started the phrases with a capital letter, is it to be presumed that the phrase is only a part of the blog title?

In that case, a lot can depend on the full blog title.

However, a short 'On the Cloud' would be nice, both grammatically as well as technically.

(note the capitalization again, the Cloud : as in cloud computing environment)

Question: I would use this title for a blog about cloud computing. Which is correct — " on  the cloud" or " in  the cloud"?

"On the cloud" or "in the cloud"?

It is not clear that there is a correct answer here and the answer may in fact be subjective. Both "in the cloud" and "on the cloud" are found to be used extensively.

The general consensus is that "in the cloud" is the correct form. "On the cloud" could be a good blog title and could mean "relating to the cloud" as well as being on it.  "On the cloud" seems to relate to a specific cloud, and some suggest that context will dictate whether to use "on" "in" or "to".

"In the cloud" seems to be the accepted usage.

This depends on the general meaning that you want to convey. "On the cloud" refers to a specific cloud". "In the cloud" means to say that a resource is part of the cloud, or that you are  in the midst of all the latest happenings in the cloud computing space.  "In the cloud" is where your data is stored, or where your processing takes place, in the cloud computing paradigm.

There is no specific right or wrong answer to this question since the answer will depend on what you are trying to convey, and there are many different options.

"On the cloud" can be used if writing about a specific cloud.

Google offers various results for variations of "on, in" the cloud.

The term "cloud" may have orginated from representing the internet as a cloud shape and so "in the cloud" made more sense.

"On the cloud" is a nice blog title, where "on" would mean "relating to".

There is an understanding the we say the "application" was deployed "on the cloud". But "on" or "in" or "to" will depend on context

It will depend on the blog title. But "on the cloud" is a good option both gramatically and technically.

The answer to this question will depend on what you are trying to convey, and there are many different options.

There is no specific right or wrong answer to this question.


Consider the following widely-accepted plural forms of popular Apple products whose names consist of two nouns: Macbook Pros iPod Shuffles iPhone 4s Mac Minis Macbook Airs Just as one wouldn't say Macbooks Pro , so also one shouldn't say iPods Touch .

I would always go with iPod Touches .

If that sounds awkward to you, then your better bet would be iPod Touch devices or, best, iPods .

Most of the iPods being sold these days are of the Touch variety, anyway.

More often than not, one will hear iPod Classic when the distinction wants to be made.

Thus, an iPod will usually be an iPod Touch.

Also consider Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 .

One hears Xbox 360s (not Xboxes 360 ) and Playstation 3s/PS3s (not Playstations 3 ).

Many technical writers use the words units and devices , or find other means to avoid these potentially sticky "plural" situations altogether.

According to this Apple support document , they refer to iPod Touches Removing all your MobileMe Sync Data will remove the data from MobileMe Calendar, MobileMe Contacts, and from any iPhones or iPod touches you are synchronizing via MobileMe over-the-air syncing.

iPod Touches, which matches the plural of the computer mouse, "mouses."

There's the RIGHT answer, and the right answer.

In English, the rule is generally (adjective) (noun), as in blue car, hot soup, and beautiful sunset.

Occasionally, this rule is subverted, as in this case, wherein the noun is IPod and the adjective is Touch.

In English, when you pluralize you pluralize the noun, so the correct answer is "Ipods Touch".

Having said that, you'll sound like a pretentious ass.

One wouldn't go to Burger King and order two Whoppers Junior .

So the accepted plural is IPod Touches, even though you're pluralizing the adjective.

I think "iPod Touch devices" or "Touch iPods" sounds a bit better.

Question: What is the plural of  iPod Touch ? Should it be  iPods Touch  or  iPod Touches ?

Plural of "iPod Touch"

The correct answer here is probably "iPod Touches", in line with other accepted plural forms of Apple products. This also appears in Applie's supporting documents.

Many popular electronic devices pluralise the second part of their name such as MacBook Airs.  The solution would be iPod Touches. The issue could be avoided by just using the word "devices". Grammatically, in English the adjective is before noun, but iPod Touch subverts this concept. Therefore, grammatically it is iPods Touch. However, this sounds pretentious and the solution would be iPod Touches. Apple itself refers them as iPod Touches.

The official Apple format would appear to be "iPod Touches". However, another suggestion would be "iPod touch devices".

iPod Touches would be the correct plural form.

Apple uses the plural form "iPod Touches" and this is generally accepted to be correct.

One wouldn't go to Burger King and order two Whoppers Junior .

So the accepted plural is IPod Touches, even though you're pluralizing the adjective.

Having said that, you'll sound like a pretentious ass.

Consider the following widely-accepted plural forms of popular Apple products whose names consist of two nouns: Macbook Pros iPod Shuffles iPhone 4s Mac Minis Macbook Airs Just as one wouldn't say Macbooks Pro , so also one shouldn't say iPods Touch .

If that sounds awkward to you, then your better bet would be iPod Touch devices or, best, iPods .

Most of the iPods being sold these days are of the Touch variety, anyway.

More often than not, one will hear iPod Classic when the distinction wants to be made.

Thus, an iPod will usually be an iPod Touch.

Many technical writers use the words units and devices , or find other means to avoid these potentially sticky "plural" situations altogether.

According to this Apple support document , they refer to iPod Touches Removing all your MobileMe Sync Data will remove the data from MobileMe Calendar, MobileMe Contacts, and from any iPhones or iPod touches you are synchronizing via MobileMe over-the-air syncing.

iPod Touches, which matches the plural of the computer mouse, "mouses."

In English, the rule is generally (adjective) (noun), as in blue car, hot soup, and beautiful sunset.

Occasionally, this rule is subverted, as in this case, wherein the noun is IPod and the adjective is Touch.

In English, when you pluralize you pluralize the noun, so the correct answer is "Ipods Touch".

I think "iPod Touch devices" or "Touch iPods" sounds a bit better.

It could be avoided by just using the word "devices"

The English grammatical rule is subverted but obeying the rule would sound pretentious.

Grammatically, in English is adjective before noun, but iPod Touch subverts this concept. Therefore, it is iPods Touch. However, this sounds pretentious and the solution would be iPod Touches.

iPod touches would appear to be the correct form.

An alternative would be "iPod touch devices".

It is generally accepted that the correct plural form is "iPod Touches".

Apple uses the "iPod Touches" plural form.


Whether the following is an "English game" is up to you, but I remembered something from my childhood.

Back in primary school (in India), we kids sometimes used to play in our free time a game called "Name, Place, Animal, Thing".

This was a game we played on our own, i.e. it was part of the children's subculture, not something taught by teachers.

The game was for at least 2 players (typically 4 to 8: you could make groups if you decide to do this in your class), and went something like this.

Each player makes four five columns on a page, labelled "Name", "Place", "Animal", "Thing", and "Score".

A random letter of the alphabet is picked.

(E.g., one player recites in the alphabet in her head, and another says "Stop" at some point; the first player announces the letter she was on.)

Each player then writes down a "name" (proper noun), a "place" (geographical), an "animal" (may include birds, etc.), and a "thing" that starts with that letter .

You can't use words that have already been used in the game (i.e., when the same letter came up earlier).

After everyone is done (more fun if there's a time limit; typically the player who finishes first counts slowly to ten), each player is asked to read out his "name".

Repeat with "place", "animal" and "thing".

Score :

If a player has picked a name that no one else has, she gets 10 points.

If two players have picked the same name they get only 5 points each.

(Or 10/(number of players) if you wish.)

Repeat for "place", "animal", and "thing".

So each player can get up to 40 points for that turn.

Obviously the strategy — beyond knowing at least some word with that letter — is to pick unusual enough words that no one else is likely to pick.

More details on the game here.

Unrelated aside: Apparently some American kids are taught to categorise all nouns as "person", "place" or "thing".

Here's an article: The Noun Game –

A Simple Grammar Lesson Leads to a Clash of Civilizations .

In a Pickle .

For up to six players, though I don't see any reason why it couldn't be played with more people.

Can a giraffe fit in a phone booth?

Does a sofa fit in a shopping cart?

It all depends on how you size it up in this game of creative thinking and outrageous scenarios.

Try to win a set of cards by fitting smaller things into bigger things — there's some juice in a pickle, in a supermarket, in a parking lot.

Play the fourth word card to claim the set, unless one of your opponents can trump with a larger word.

The player with the most sets at the end is the big winner!

Includes 300 cards and instructions.

I can tell from personal experience that the game is quite fun, for native and non-native speakers alike.

It encourages thinking outside the box, re-interpreting words and defending your interpretation.

Someone puts a president in a jam, but then someone else puts that jam in a glass.

Or someone plays the card with the word "universe", thinking that no one can beat that, but then the next person plays the card with the word "dictionary" and wins the set (after all, "universe" is a word in a dictionary).

Mad Libs are fun and could be instructive regarding parts of speech.

You could add complexity using descriptions like "past participle" or "first person plural verb in future perfect tense".

The following page has a number of games: Games for English language learning and teaching

I always recommend Taboo!

(doesn't have to be the official version) as a language learning tool.

The game is about communicating a word without using certain related words, so the skills it develops in thinking of ways to communicate it are useful when you're in a conversation and your vocabulary comes up short of something you want to describe.

Dictionary is a fun game -- you can buy it, or just play it with paper, pens, and a dictionary.

You need at least 3 or 4 people, up to as many as you wish.

One person picks a word out of the dictionary that no-one else knows.

Each person writes down the word on their paper.

The person who has the dictionary writes down the meaning, everyone else makes up a definition.

All had their papers to the person who picked the word.

That person shuffles the papers and reads each definition out loud.

Each person chooses what they think is the correct definition.

When all have made their choice, the person who picked the word gives the correct definition.

He or she gets 1 point for everyone who did not select the correct definition.

Anyone else who had a definition that was selected as correct gets a point for each person who chose it.

And everyone who selected the correct definition gets a point.

Then the dictionary is passed to the next person, and another round is started.

The game is over when all have had a chance to pick a word (because you tend to get more points when you pick the word).

The person with the most points wins.

This encourages trying to make up definitions that sound real, or making definitions that are funny (no points, but lots of laughs).

Question: I'll be hosting an English activity this week. Could you share some interesting English games which impressed you the most?

Simple yet interesting English game for class?

There are a wide range of English games that you could use in a class. Some examples include "Name, Place, Animal, Thing", "In A Pickle", "MadLibs" or "Taboo".

There are several games that can be used to teach English. Some sample games are "Name, Place, Animal, or Thing," or "In a Pickle", Pictionary, Taboo. They test various different elements of the English language. Some can be bought or simply devised using pen and paper.

Various games were suggested, including "Name, Place, Animal, Thing", "In a Pickle", "Taboo!" and "Dictionary".

Suggestions include Mad Libs, Taboo and Dictionary.

There are a wide range of English games that you might like to choose from, but some suggestions include "Mad Libs", "Taboo" or "Dictionary".

There are several games that can be used to teach English. One was called "Name, Place, Animal or Thing".

It is a type of guessing game where the players earn points.

Mad Libs is another game that tests knowledge of verbs.

It involves communcating the word without using related words.

Dictionary is another fun game, which can be bought or devised oneself.

S0: Dictionary is a fun game -- you can buy it, or just play it with paper, pens, and a dictionary.


I don't think there is a difference in meaning, only in usage.

This blog post details it:

“In contrast” and “by contrast” mean the same thing: the act of comparing in order to show differences.

The difference lies in the way the words are used.

“In contrast” is usually followed by “to” or “with” and requires a noun to follow it.

“By contrast” is usually followed or preceded by the subject of the sentence.

Examples:

In contrast to the diligent bee, the butterfly flies hither and yon with no apparent purpose.

In contrast with the chorus of birdsongs in my backyard, my front yard is serenaded by the sound of rumbling buses flying down the street.

By contrast, the Picasso is more vibrant and full of life.

The cats will often sleep the day away.

The dogs, by contrast, never settle down.

There is no difference in meaning.

But usually:

In contrast + to/with + noun By Contrast + subject of the sentence Note:

According to Longman Dictionary you can use "in contrast" + "(with/to)" Example For " in contrast ": The stock lost 60 cents a share, in contrast to last year , when it gained 21 cents.

Examples

For " by contrast ": The birth rate for older women has declined, but, by contrast , births to teenage mothers have increased.

The English make a distinction: in contrast is simply unlike; by contrast is unlike by comparison.

Economist March 27th 1993, p. 92.

Both 'in contrast' and 'by contrast' are prepositional expressions.

The usage is more versatile for 'in contrast' because it can be more naturally extended to include a substantive followed by 'to', to construct a more complex prepositional phrase with specific content, allowing one to use just one sentence instead of two (1) "

In contrast to bacterial infections diseases, viral infections cannot be treated with antibiotics.

" By contrast, 'By contrast' is more used as a simple prepositional expression in the sense of a modifying adverb, typically used to maintain the logical flow at the beginning of sentences: (2) "Bacterial infections can be treated with antibiotics.

By contrast/(In contrast), viral infections do not respond to to this class of drugs".

Note that (2) requires two sentences to say the say the same thing.

In the usage (2) one sees both 'in' and 'by contrast'.

However, editors at the leading British scientific journal NATURE, always correct 'in contrast' into 'by contrast' .

As a native English speaker, translator and proof reader, I prefer "in contrast", whereas "by contrast" always jars a little with me (I just came across it in a text I'm revising right now).

I can't explain why

and I don't know if there is a hard and fast rule (I doubt it),

but that's my two cents.

When in doubt, leave it out!

Question: Can anyone explain the difference between  by contrast  and  in contrast ?

What is the difference between "by contrast" and "in contrast?"

It is not clear that there is a difference meaning between "by contrast" and "in contrast". However, in usage, "by contrast" is usually followed by the subject of the sentence.

There is no real difference in meaning.It depends on how the words are used.Personal preferences can dictate usage. There is a difference in English.They are prepositional expressions and usage can be tricky. But, if you are not sure don't use either. "In contrast", grammatically is more flexible.

Some believe there is no real difference. “In contrast” is usually followed by “to” or “with” and "By contrast" is followed by the subject of the sentence. However, "In contrast" can be seen as more natural to some readers.

“In contrast” and “by contrast” mean the same thing: the act of comparing in order to show differences.    “In contrast” is usually followed by “to” or “with” and requires a noun to follow it.  “By contrast” is usually followed or preceded by the subject of the sentence.

It is generally considered that there is no difference in meaning between the two phrases by that they are used differently. "In contrast" is usually followed by "to" or "with", whereas "by contrast" is usually followed or proceded by the subject of the sentence. It is also possible that there is a slight distinction, with "in contrast" meaning "unlike" and "by contrast" meaning "unlike by comparison".

There is no difference in meaning. Use is different.

"In contrast" grammatically is more flexible.

It is generally considered that there is no difference in meaning between "in contrast" and "by contrast".

The difference may be in the way the phrases are used.

"In contrast" is usually followed by "to" or "with".

"By contrast" is usually followed or preceded by the subject of the sentence.

The distinction is also said to be that "in contrast" is simply unlike whereas "by contrast" is unlike by comparison.