why "and then some" means considerably more?

I've googled the phrase _"and then some"_ and am told that it means _"considerably more"_. But just how to comprehend this? The phrase literally means "some more" -- how does it come to mean "much more"?


Can "doubt" sometimes mean "question"?

I often see questions on Stack Exchange sites which I presume are written by non-native English speakers who use the word "doubt" in place of the word "question". Is this a case of misunderstanding the correct meaning or are people being taught that this is correct usage?


Should I use "told you" or "have told you" in this example?

Sentence: > She obviously has a legit excuse, although she could have been more > responsible and told you in advance


What is the difference between "begin" and "start"?

> The children are eager to _start_ the novel. or > The children are eager to _begin_ the novel.


"Scare quotes" and placement of question mark--inside or outside?

Consider the following sentence: > Did you know you can donate "stuff"? "Stuff" in this case means "anything besides cash." It's the lead-in to an article informing users on a charity's website that they can gift things like stocks, bonds, vehicles, real estate, commodities, jewelry, and other non-cash assets. The APA Style Guide says to put question marks:   * Inside, if question mark or exclamation point is part of quoted material   * Outside, if question mark or exclamation point is not part of quoted material What makes me uncertain about my example sentence is that I'm not sure how to properly apply the "quoted material" test. It seems to me that the quote marks are being used here as scare quotes, to signal unusual usage, or perhaps it's nonstandard usage where a typographic change, like italicizing or bolding, would be more appropriate. In any case, the bottom line is the quotes are not being used to denote "quoted material," at least in the sense of "material that is being quoted from elsewhere." This APA rule seems to be only addressing that type of quotation mark usage. So I'm not sure whether the question marks should go inside or outside the quote marks. The simplest "solution" is to interpret "quoted material" to mean _anything_ that is in quote marks, whether or not clearly a quote of content from another author or location. **Is this an appropriate interpretation?** I'm particularly interested in references to reputable sources that address this question. Thank you!


What is the meaning of this line of Andrew Marvell's poem?

> O do not run too fast, for I will but bespeak thy grave, and die – Andrew Marvell in The Nymph Complaining for the Death of her Fawn Is the Nymph addressing the fawn here, saying "I will bear witness to your grave and die along with you"? I feel like there's a few subtleties in this line I'm missing (the "but" in there for eg.), it'd be great to have them explained.


What's the difference between maintenance, upkeep & sustenance

Question: I was translating the term               Wartung, Instandhaltung und Unterhalt      in our software. I came up with               Maintenance, Upkeep & Sustenance      And I was just thinking.   Is somebody actually capable of explaining me the difference between these 3 (English) words ? ;)


What is meant by common terms in software company names?

A set of terms occurs frequently in software company names. Some are pretty obvious like "-soft," "software," and "apps/applications." However, some are not so obvious (at least to me). What is the connotative/denotative meaning of these words when they occur in a software company name? What about a company would make it more/less likely to use one of these descriptors?   1. Designs   2. Dynamics   3. Solutions   4. Systems


Meaning of " He still wandered on, out of the little high valley, over its edge, and down the slopes beyond"

What does this phrase: > "He still wandered on, out of the little high valley, over its edge, and > down the slopes beyond" mean exactly? The doubt is about the path defined. It's clear that he was walking without a defined destination, then:   * he passed the little valley? He avoided the little high valley?   * climbed to its edge?


The use of "actually" and "whatsoever"

The word, `actually` means to "emphasize a fact or a comment, or that something is really true." So why is `whatsoever` used in this sentence > You have no right whatsoever to read what is written inside. Can I use the word "actually" to replace the word "whatsoever"?


Word for one character explaining to another character some important points for benefit of the audience

This is not apostrophe (no, not that kind of apostrophe) or anagnorisis; this is when a character communicates a exposition on some aspect of the story's background or context (e.g. how FTL travel works; why the families are at war) ostensibly to another character (often a foreigner or recluse) but actually in place of simple omniscient narration. I'm not criticizing the practice; I just want a word for it. Thanks in advance


What does the meaning of "down to a level"?

I see this in here : http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fa469462-1a32-11e3-93e8-00144feab7de.html#axzz2eXhIUa4M > “It’s very much the next frontier,” said Renée James, Intel’s president. “It > takes us down to a level we haven’t been at before.” After reacting late to > the touchscreen mobile device markets, “we are very committed to not missing > the next one,” she added. And I want to know what' the meaning. Thank you.


What is the opposite word to “straight man” in comedy?

The New York times (February 10) article titled, “Panic in the locker room!” written by co-ed columnist Frank Bruni begins with the following sentence: > “A news flash for every **straight man** out there: You’ve been naked in > front of a gay man. In fact you’ve been naked, over the course of your life, > in front of many gay men, at least if you have more than a few years on you. > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/opinion/bruni-panic-in-the-locker- > room.html?hp&rref=opinion To be honest, I didn’t know "straight man" has another meaning related with sexual orientation until I was told by members now. But let’s forget about that usage. According to CED, the straight man is the more serious of the two men in a comedy act, who is often made to look stupid by his partner. Merriam-Webster English Dictionary defines “straight man” a member of a comedy team who says things that allow a partner to make jokes." We have a Japanese word, “ぼけ役- boke-yaku” meaning “bonehead’s role” for “straight man,” and “突っ込み役- tsukkomi-yaku” meaning “offence role” for the partner who gives a spicy joke / repartee in turn in popular popular “Manzai” – two-man comedy, or sometimes even in daily conversation. What is the English word for the counter role of “straight man” as an English translation of “突っ込み-tsukkomi-yaku”?


Comma or no comma before "only"?

Sample phrase: > Use the item for those purposes, only. vs. > Use the item for those purposes only.


How do you fix the passive voice in this sentence

I wrote this sentence: Because of his low weight, Gabe **was still being nurtured** instead of being named. And Word underlined the bold part saying I was using passive voice and I don't know how to fix it. Passive voice is not part of the assignment, but I need two prepositional phrases.


Word for going to ground floor

In a multi-story building when we go to ground floor from an upper floor, what word is used? Downstairs? Any other word? For example, when I go to the ground floor by elevator, should I say, "I am going downstairs?"


Correct naming form (with or without "of")

I have a system (software) that do topolygical analysis. How would be more correct to name it:   1. "System of topological analysis" or   2. "Topological analysis system" ? And what rules should I know to correctly speak in such situations? When better to use each form?


What's the etymology of "humdinger"?

A **_humdinger_** is a remarkable or outstanding person or thing. The OED has it as originally US dating (as _hum-dinger_ ) from 1905, but says the origin is unknown. Where does the word _humdinger_ come from? Was it used before 1905?


Free word list of English words of interest to children?

I'm developing a software application for children and it would be useful to have an English dictionary with terms/words sorted by their "interestingness" to children aged 4-8. Terms like "unicorn", "bunny", "cat", "dog" would be on top and terms like "differential equations" and "econometrics" would be at the bottom (or not present). Any ideas on where to find such a list? Are there any open source / free children's encyclopedia's or books available from which such a list could be generated?


What's the difference between "suasive" and "persuasive"?

What's the difference in usage between _suasive_ and _persuasive_? I just read the former used, here on this StackExchange, where the latter would have worked perfectly, IMO. Is there a subtle distinction between the two words? Can anyone give me an example where using _suasive_ would be compellingly better than using _persuasive_? And finally, as I'd never seen the word _suasive_ before today, does that mean _suasive_ is archaic, or just used in a particular context?


Alternative to "separately from"?

I want to say something like: > The system stores the crazygonuts data separately from the data feed. I think this is wrong (maybe I am wrong in that), but I'm not sure exactly why. One alternative I thought of: > The system stores the crazygonuts data separate from the data feed. I checked some dictionaries online, and I did not find separate listed as an adverb, so this also seems incorrect. I want to keep the verb (stores) in there. Is there any way I can keep this same sentence structure without sounding silly? If possible, I would like to use the word separate (or something sufficiently close, like distinctly); or is this formation doomed from the start?


One's or ones possesive noun or not?

It is my first question on any stackoverflow site, so sorry if I have not researched the current available questions and answers enough (I tried), but I have thoroughly searched both the internet and the english stackoverflow site as well as I could (I was not sure as to what tag I should have searched to get the correct answer to my question). That aside I am stuck as to whether I am using a possessive noun or a non possessive noun. The question is pretty simple which sentence is correct. `Many other online IQ tests rely on knowledge orientated questions to test ones IQ.` _Or_ `Many other online IQ tests rely on knowledge orientated questions to test one's IQ.` I understand one is correct and one is not, but it would be most helpful if someone could explain what is the true difference between the two and when I should use one and not the other. I am no English language expert, and I am sure this has been answered many times on this site but I could not find it, I am sure as I continue to use the stackoverflow websites I will become more efficient at finding answers to my questions. If anyone has any tips on how to do this I would be most grateful, maybe a little FAQ on how to search?


How can I reword "cross-gender" so it doesn't sound like I'm talking about transgenders?

> This research has been focused on cross-national and cross-gender > applications of such theories. The use of "cross-gender" means across genders, in the same way that "cross- national" means across nations. However, my concern is that readers will think I mean "transgender." How can I revise this sentence to avoid such confusion?


How is "per se" used?

**per se** These are the meanings I have found for _per se_ ; by itself, by himself, by herself, basically ... Does that mean the following sentences are correct? >   1. _you should not have let him go per se (by himself)_. >   2. _per se (basically) the color of it is blue._ >   3. _you will have to submit that tomorrow per se (itself)_ >


"Certificate of residence" vs. "certificate of residency"

_Certificate of residence_ vs. _certificate of residency_ — which one to use, when and why? Please quote a reputable source.


Is there any dictionary that decomposes an English word into prefix, root, and suffix?

Is there any dictionary that shows the decomposition of each word into these three parts, if application at all? For instance, "incapable" is divided into prefix "in", root "cap", and suffix "able". Thanks in advance.


What does the phrase "take tea" mean?

I've come across the phrase "take tea" in some sentences, and reckoned it is used as an idiom and not meant literally. For instance, "Children to compete for chance to take tea with the Mad Hatter." That sounds like an interesting pun. What does it mean, and what are its origins?


Why no article with "service" and "access"

Simple question, which I'd like a simple (simple enough to explain to an ESL student) answer to.* > Is there **_a_** conference room? > > Is there **_a_** non-smoking room? Okay, so I have no problems with these. But then: > Is there Internet access? > > Is there room service? Why don't we use the indefinite article with these words ( _access_ and _service_ )? I've boiled it down to "they're both kinda nebulous things you can't count", but that doesn't help me much. Is it just that they are uncountable? Because I have a feeling I'm going to have a conversation like this: > **Student:** Why is "room service" not countable? > > **Teacher:** Well, there are many services offered - food, laundry, > cleaning. The word "service" covers many individual services. > > **Student:** So why not call it "room services"? > > **Teacher:** Ah, well, you see, that's because of - Goodness me, look out > the window! Is that a tree?! Similarly, why do we say: > Is there air conditioning? I understand that some things are countable and some aren't, but in this case I'm having a hard time figuring out how to explain it to the student in a way that's vaguely logical. I don't want to have to say that it's just the way it is (like spellings and irregular verbs) unless I absolutely have to. * * * *I'm aware it almost never works this way, but I have my fingers crossed, so you never know.


Why is it "rough-looking" instead of "roughly looking"?

I’ve noticed recently that certain constructions with present active participles (meaning, _-ing_ forms acting adjectivally) prefer to be modified by adjectives rather than by adverbs. For example, it sounds better to say:   * a rough-looking neighborhood  than it does to say:   * a *roughly looking neighborhood even though _rough_ , an adjective, is clearly modifying _looking_ , another adjectival word. Is there any rule that explains this? Or is this just a strange corner case of English?


Negative and ironic alternative to "unbelievable."

I want to use a word similar to _unbelievable_ , but with a completely negative and ironic sense. What word could I use and how would I use it? Example: > The fact that you do that is _unbelievable_ for me. I feel that unbelievable sometimes carries a good and interesting image—similar to _crazy_ and _awesome_. Is it just a matter of expression and accent?


a word that would mean "a marriage where either of the spouse is of a higher rank or caste"

I was writing an essay when I used the word morganatic and I realized I don't quite know the word for a marriage between people of unequal ranks that society holds as unfair or against the norms. it can be related to a marriage or relation and mean similar to what I described.


Why "should be doing" and not just "should do" in the following sentences?

What is the difference between "should X" and "should be Xing" in the following contexts? Or are they interchangeable? >   * 10 Things you **should do** to improve the health of your hair. >   * 10 Things You **Should Be Doing** to Boost Your Immunity. > (From Google searches.) Is there any slight difference between using _should do_ and _should be doing_ there? Likewise, > I believe in making the world safe for our children, but not our children's > children, because I don't think children **should be having** sex.   >  — Jack Handey Would "I don't think children should have sex" be possible here?


A better word for invigilator, a person overseeing an exam

I'm issuing a written final exam to a student in Nepal. In setting this up I need to communicate to a non native speaking person in the abroad administration, in a clear and precise manner, that a person overseeing the examination procedure needs to be available for the duration of the exam. I (we) have previously used invigilator. I find myself very uncomfortable with this word. TFD suggests that this is a word only used in the commonwealth. Proctor (US/TFD) also seems to me rather uncommon or unclear. What would be an easy to understand phrase or word to describe this need?


What is the English word for "street along a river bank"?

A regular city street that happens to be situated along a river. (For the record, the Russian word is _набережная_ , and I can't seem to find the appropriate translation.)


Something between leverage and balance

If I'm not mistaken balancing means to distribute something (resources) equally among several options. So let's say I have options a, b and c, and 9 coins, I balance my coins and assign: a:3, b:3, c:3. Leverage means to use a little amount of resources to obtain a greater amount of those resources. Let's say I have 9 coins again and the expected profit of a, b and c is a:10/1, b:10/3, c:5/1. In this case I'll choose to put my 9 coins on a, because I can leverage up to 90 (it would be 30 for b and 45 for c). So far so good. Now there are two alternative explanations for what I'm searching for:   1. Now let's say that a, b and c have some admittance or a maximum number of coins that can be assigned before becoming ineffective. These numbers can be a:2, b:8, c:4. In this case we will obviously make the following assignment: a:2, b:3, c:4. This is not so clear when there is not a hard number where assignments become ineffective but slopes that can be more or less steep. Therefore this would require an assignment of the resources that doesn't balance among the options and does not leverage, since the multiplier factor was lost.   2. Alternatively let's say a, b and c have different risks, more profitability means a higher risk. So we want to balance profitability with exposure to risk, and we don't want to leverage or balance our investment but to do something different (that's the word I'm looking for), let's say that considering the risks (which I don't state, imagine we are making the decision right according to some rules) we assign: a:2, b:6, c:1. In this case we are not balancing and I would say we are not leveraging, but assigning the coins to resources a, b and c in a different way. I'm searching for such a word. I hope it exists. Sorry if I'm not clear, it's a quite specific concept that arises in a fairly specific context, please ask if there is something that needs clarification. Thank you very much.


Diaconate vs. Deacon

A plurality of deacons is called a diaconate. What is the reason for this vowel change ("e" to "i") for these words? Are there any other words that illustrate this?


Is there any difference between 'often' and 'frequently'?

Do both mean exactly the same or do they have slightly different meanings?


Why and when did "breast" become gender-specific?

In the past, "breast" used to be applicable to both male and female chests, but is generally only gender neutral nowadays when used in certain contexts, such as "breast meat" or "breastplate". Why and when did this change of meaning occur?


A controversial GRE question

The profits that the corporation earns from the exclusive-supplier agreements with the universities are_ ** ___ _**, because the terms of agreements that they are inclined to protect the universities’ interests are generally_ ** ___ __**.   1. explicable……..flouted   2. unclear……….publicized   3. predictable……….scrutinized   4. declining…….ignored   5. surprising…..enforced Many people prefer "predictable ... scrutinized", but I feel "surprising ... enforced" is more appropriate. What's your opinion?


Alternative to "impactful" when referring to work with meaningful effect on peoples' lives

I had a little bit of space left on my CV and so decided to add a very brief overview of my background and what I'm looking for. One of the sentences mentions something like, "... interesting, impactful part-time work." Now, I don't like the word "impactful" as it's too vague. I'm looking for 1 or 2 words to describe work that has a meaningful, almost measurable positive effect on the organization. Any tips or advice?


'Suffer' word etymology from Arabic صفر doubt?

'Suffer' word etymology from Arabic صفر (safar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safar) which is the name of a month of suffering has any relation?


What's the status of voiceless "t" in AmE?

The theory has it that in the US people tend to voice intervocalic "T" like in _writer_ sounding more or less like _rider_. My question is - how do Americans perceive voiceless pronunciation? (Not only in the word I used as an example) Does it sound how? Careful? British? Snobby? Regional?


Distinctive features of English diphthongs

I am looking for a table of distinctive features for English dipthongs along the lines of that available for other vowels here. I don't trust my purely book learned linguistic skills to produce an accurate feature matrix. A tool I wrote uses a distinctive feature table based on a very old theory and I would like to update it.


Is a comma necessary before "above"/"below" when these words are used as sentence terminating adverbs?

Is a comma necessary before “above”/“below” when these words are used as sentence-terminating adverbs? Examples with the comma: > Place the item as indicated, above. > > A correct example will be presented, below. Is the comma necessary, optional, or should it be omitted?


Etymology of "typeface Weight"

My boss stated that he noticed the word "weight" is used to refer to the boldness of a character, and stated that he felt this was a new occurrence. My gut feeling is that this is an old term, derived from the typesetting industry and made popular with the advent of personal computers, desktop and web publishing. I also suspect that the term had something to do with the physical weight of typeset letters, but this is just a supposition. While Google's n-gram viewer shows a massive increase in "font weight" usage starting around 1985 (which corresponds to the usage spike of the term "desktop publishing"), there were smaller spikes around 1830 and 1932. A search for the etymology of the use of weight in regards to the darkness of the typeface revealed nothing. Does anyone know the source of this phrase?


Do you "watch" a movie or "see" a movie?

Which of the following verbs is most commonly used with _movie_? Or are they both used, but the connotations are different? > I **watched** a good movie yesterday. > > I **saw** a good movie yesterday.


In the sentence "Go for a kayak" is "kayak" a verb or a noun?

I thought it would be a verb considering it is being used in place of "ride in a kayak". However if 'a' is a indefinite article, doesn't it have to refer to a noun? Would that make the word 'kayak' a noun or a verb in that sentence?


Colon for 'because' omission?

Colon or semicolon when _because_ is omitted from a sentence e.g., > I am sorry I disturbed you (;) (:) _(because)_ it looked like you were > having a lot of fun there. _Because_ explains and clarifies a preceding clause so would it be correct to use a colon preceding the explanatory clause if _because_ is omitted? Alternatively, _because_ can be replaced by _for_ , which is a coordinating conjunction and would correctly be punctuated with a semicolon. > I am sorry I disturbed you, for it looked like you were having a lot of fun > there. > > I am sorry I disturbed you; it looked like you were having a lot of fun > there. _For_ is of course reasonably archaic but is useful sometimes for grammatical clarity. And if anyone wants to comment on the _that_ omission and comma replacement, I'd be very happy. I am sorry _(that)_ (,) I disturbed you because it looked like you were having a lot of fun there.


Can you exhume anything other than a body?

Synonyms for exhume include unearth and disentomb. The definition says "Dig out (something buried, esp. a corpse) from the ground". I've only ever heard it in context of a body, is it possible to apply this to other contexts. For example, would it make sense to exhume a treasure buried at sea?


which book on english grammar is easy to comprehend and loved all over the world?

which book on english grammar is easy to comprehend and loved by masses ? I know one book by Thomson and Martinet.


Singular or plural usage for ellipsis in direct object

Suppose I have the following sentences:               There should be an X and a Y chromosome.     There should be an X and a Y chromosomes.      Is the second grammatically correct? If the last word had to be plural for the same meaning of the sentence and an ellipsis, would the following be correct?               There should be X and Y chromosomes.


**How to Construct an Unambiguous Joint Possessive that Follows a Verb?** I've read that when writing about multiple possessors who jointly posses a thing, the common practice is to add a Saxon-genitive ('s) to the last noun in the series. (E.g., _John and Mary's cats_ refers to cats owned by both John and Mary.) Whereas, when writing about multiple possessors who individually possess separate things, the common practice is to add a Saxon-genitive to all the nouns in the series. (E.g., _John's and Mary's cats_ refers to two sets of cats: John owns one of the sets, and Mary owns the other set.) However, joint possessives can be ambiguous when they are placed immediately after a verb. For instance, _I sang to John and Mary's daughter_ , could mean 'I sang to a guy named John and I sang to this girl who said she was the daughter of a woman named Mary', or 'I sang to a female who calls her father John, and calls her mother Mary'. Is there a solution to this problem that's recommended by grammarians or linguists? Thank you _Please don't answer with a recommendation that the construction be avoided. Whether in life or in language, I don't believe that it's helpful to tell a person that they will not be faced with a problem if they stop trying to solve it. Solving a problem (especially a novel one) does more than solve the problem at hand: Solving a problem helps the problem-solver become better at solving problems._


Meaning of "full of it"

This week's obituary in The Economist is devoted to Deate S. Gordon, a bilingual lady that helped to write the Japanese Constitution after the war. She produced Article 24, about equality of the sexes, and managed to keep that article against stern opposition, a feat only revealed by her when she wrote a memoir in 1995. And then The Economist goes: > "After that, she was full of it." I guessed that they mean she was (rightly) proud of it, but just to be sure I checked out several dictionaries. To my surprise, "full of it" means "full of shit" or "full of crap", i.e. "completely wrong, false, or worthless" (Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms). No mention of being proud of something. I'm sure The Economist didn't mean "she was full of crap". Now I'm puzzled.


Where can I find a list of colloquial abbreviations for cities?

I'm seeking a list of commonly used abbreviations for US cities (and also European cities, but let's start with the US). When I say abbreviations, that could be anything from 2 letters or more that is colloquially used to represent the city, so I would include say "LA" as an abbreviation for "Los Angeles", "NYC" for "New York City", "VEGAS" for "LAS VEGAS"...etc. It doesn't have to be restricted to 3 letters like an airport code. Explanation: In the iPhone application that I'm building, I'm wanting to create some precomposed tweet templates which the user may choose from to start with, so that they may tweet about a certain thing that has just happened in the app. I want to combine a word representing the main subject of the app or what they've just done (e.g. "fitness") with an abbreviation for the city they're in or their nearest city, and possibly have this term as a twitter hashtag. So, for example, if they're in New York, the precomposed tweet template might contain the hashtag #nycfitness, or #fitnessnyc .... and I need to come up with the "nyc" part for whichever city they're in. Thus far, Google has found me lots of state abbreviations, and even city airport codes...but I don't think airport codes are commonly used to represent the city in many cases, e.g. people don't use LAX to mean Los Angeles...LAX is the airport and LA is the city. I'm not from the US, so while I can come up with a few of the big ones (LA, NYC, DC, VEGAS), I don't have enough local knowledge to compile the list myself. Any ideas? **Edit (provided here as edit rather than reply to reply because of letter count):** Ok, I understand perfectly the need to maintain the credibility of individual stackexchange forums as a source of truth on their particular subject. And whilst I provided some context for my question by explaining to you the _reason_ for my requirement, this explanation was more for folks to get a sense of what sort of suggestions might be appropriate in response; it certainly isn't your place to use that context as reasoning for your condemnation - it's kind of none of your business _what_ I do with the information I glean from this answer, and I've only given you that information because I thought it might get me more appropriate responses. An example of an intelligent and helpful responder who took the information provided in the question and suggested an idea I hadn't thought of (the very _purpose_ of these forums, one might think) was that provided by @J.R. regarding colloquialisms. If folks are likely to use the hashtag #beantownfitness, then clearly ( _because I've told you why I need this information_ ) I'm as interested in colloquialisms as I am in abbreviations. Striking the discussion off on the basis that "This is a question about standard abbreviations..." is being a bit lazy, in my opinion.


Indefinite article and people's names

Sometimes, on the internet, particularly in online games, I see people using the indefinite article before someone's name: "I see a Joey" or "I hug a Polly". I know some of these people and I'm positive that they are from English-speaking countries, which means it is not a mistake, they do it intentionally. I was always taught that articles are not used in front of people's names. Maybe it is some sort of slang? What does it mean, when the indefinite article is put in front of someone's name? Edit: There is a group of people standing somewhere. And somebody, named Joey, appears. They all know Joey. And someone in this group says "I see a Joey". So it is used when someone sees his or her friend. But I don't understand why they use the indefinite article here.


Does "you're" also qualify as a valid contraction for "you were"?

If not, is there a way to write "you were" in a short form?


Is it correct to say "I kindly request you to..."?

Isn't kindness already implied when you say "I request you to..."? When I say "I humbly request you to...", the word _humbly_ helps me to label the state of my behavior during the request. On the other hand, what value does the word _kindly_ add to the request?


login and payoff are nouns. But can they be used as verbs?

I know that words like _login_ and _payoff_ are properly nouns but I increasingly notice many (not at all uneducated) people use them as verbs: > Will you payoff your credit card this month? and > Please check this when you login. To me (a non-native English user), that seems incorrect because separating the core noun from a preposition is what I was taught: _Please check this when you **log in**._ (My emphasis) Is this use proper or not?


Logical Argument

Is the conclusion true here? Either Peter did not know it or Sarah did know it. But Peter did know it. Therefore, Sarah did know it.


A word that means "to become one's name"

I'm looking for a word which indicates that a person has adopted a quality suggested by their name, e.g. a person named Grace who is indeed graceful, or perhaps someone named Shepherd who has become a shepherd. I have a strong notion that I once learned such a word, but I have forgotten it and have never re-discovered it.


What is the equivalent of "dead tree copy" for CDs?

The expression "dead tree copy" is a slightly pejorative way of referring to a (physical) printed book, as opposed to an ebook. I was wondering if there is a similar expression that could be applied to CDs, DVDs, Blu-ray discs and other physical media for music, movies or games.


Does 'which' refer to the noun immediately preceding it?

Is the 'which' in > Proposition 25 suggests a better definition of m-reducibility than given in > Definition 23, which is also the one typically given in texts ambiguous? It is a line from an article I've written, and the anonymous referee claims that > the reader has to guess to which of the two definitions the "which" at the > beginning of the line refers. It seems to me, however, that the which should refer to the definition immediately preceding it, since if I'd wanted it to refer to the other, I'd have written something like > Proposition 25 suggests a better definition of m-reducibility, which is also > the one typically given in texts, than given in Definition 23. As the title indicates, this is essentially a question about whether 'which' by default refers to the noun closest to it.


"Serenity" vs. "sereneness"

Are these interchangeable, or is there a semantic difference between them? When should I use _serenity_ vs. _sereneness?_


Em dash or colon in formal writing

In formal writing, should I use an **em dash** > The Earth consists of three layers -- crust, mantle, and core. or a **colon** > The Earth consists of three layers: crust, mantle, and core. ?


Word for a phase of a project after the implementation

I am working on an assessment plan for a project. The project is divided into three phases, and each is to be assessed separately. The first two phases are called **pilot** and **implementation.** The third phase is called **continuation** , but I feel there is a better word for this. I want to capture in a single word the essence of this phase - that we will reassess and refine the project periodically after implementation and that this phase is entirely in the future. I have not liked any of the thesaurus suggestions for continuous, continuation, or future.


What are the implicit rules for creating new portmanteaux in English?

Wikipedia defines a _portmanteau_ 1 as: > “Portmanteau word” is used to describe a linguistic blend, namely “a word > formed by blending sounds from two or more distinct words and combining > their meanings.” Wikepedia further provides a list of common English portmanteaux, such _gaydar, guyliner, liger, tigon, turducken, queef, Oxbridge, Spanglish,_ and even _Wikipedia_ itself. There seem of to be some sort of implicit rules operative here which are quite regular in some ineffable way, but I cannot quite work out what those are, because I think I see several different, potentially conflicting patterns at work. My question is:   * What is the internalized rule or rules that native English speakers seem to automatically use to create these?  For extra credit, albeit perhaps pertaining more to the Linguistics SE:   * Are these implicit rules unique to English, or are they fairly constant across other languages in which such blends occur? * * *   1. Which the French would call a _mot-valise_ and the Germans a _Kofferwort_.


Strange usage of dependent clauses

Before asking my question, I would like to point out that English is not my mother tongue, and that consequently, my choice of terminology might be inappropriate. I have noticed that in many cases, there is a very strange combination of dependent (sub?) clauses in the English language.To be more specific, consider the following quote from wikipedia's artcile on Barack Obama: > Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and > Harvard Law School, where he was president of the Harvard Law Review. What does, apart from any weak and uncited statistical correlation there might be, the fact that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu have to with the fact that he is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard? To me this is a very bizarre way of writing a sentence, and it makes just as much sense as saying "Born in Honolulu, Obama ate an apple on the 4th of july 1990" (no idea if he actually _did_ ). Has anybody else noticed this absurdity? Does anybody have an explanation for it? Is it merely a failed attempt at giving the text a good "flow"?


"Back then" or "back there"

When referring to someone from a different geographical area and a different time, what is the proper phrase to refer to them? "Back then" or "back there"? Does it depend on if your intended meaning is to highlight the time difference, or if you are highlighting a geographical difference? **Example:** referring to first century Roman attire > "Back then, men wore togas" vs "Back there, men wore togas" **Example:** referring to 19th century British fashion > "Back then, men sported long side-whiskers" vs "Back there, men sported long > side-whiskers"


AmE Phonetics: < I don't n-> /aʊn/

Cut to the chase: While listening to the record _2.0 Boys_ by Slaughterhouse I've noticed that Joell Ortiz and Joe Budden pronounce such sequence of sounds — namely "I don't know" around 1:55 and "I don't need" in 3:21, respectively — as indicated. Could somebody clarify the issue technically, in phonetic terms? You can hear the song here.


Meaning of "garnish"

What's the meaning of _garnish_ in this context? > What's the point of a bank account when you're constantly behind on every > bill you owe? > > Creditors can't garnish what's not on paper. From Thefreedictionary.com: > _Law_ > > a. to serve with notice of proceedings; warn > > b. _Obsolete_ to summon to proceedings already in progress > > c. to attach (a debt) > > _Slang_ > > a. to extort money from Which definition is more appropriate?


Etymology of "come up with"

Does anyone know the exact origin and date of use of the English tri-part phrasal verb, "come up with"? It was started to be used around the early 1900s in the States, but what is the origin of its current use; that is, "to think up," "produce," "invent," etc.?


What word would be a good replacement for the use of "licensee"

A lot of my clients do not natively speak English. Because of this, confusion has arisen over what is meant by the term _licensee_. Each product requires its own unique license key and the licensee's name entered. The non-natively English speaking clients tend to enter another license key which they purchased from us — which means the product cannot be activated. I need a different word to refer to the name of the license holder (the licensee's name) to avoid the confusion that arises.


What is the origin of the phrase "Crazier than a sh*thouse rat!"?

I can't seem to find an origin to this particular phrase. Can anyone shed some light on what makes sh*thouse rats particularly crazy? I also wonder about the origin of the similar *Bat-shit crazy". My suspicion is that someone coined them both because they sounded funny, but I was wondering if there was a better explanation?


Where would the commas go in a sentence like this?

That was especially detrimental to me, who desiring to become a professional athlete, always avoided eating those types of foods. When I try to look at what the main sentence is, it seems like it would be "That was especially detrimental to me." since you couldn't say "That was especially detrimental to me always avoided eating those types of foods." If that's the case, then the second comma would need to be removed. But the sentence just sounds awkward to we without the second comma. I'm kind of making the sentence up, so I changed it a bit, and let's say the person is referring to a quota he was given of having to eat at Mc Donalds every day.


Feel confused about to-infinitive in a sentence

In order to understand the English grammar, I have to read the Grammar Section in OALD. I don't understand the grammar constituents of to-infinitives in these sentences. How can I understand them? OALD said   1. > **Eat** and **to eat** are both the infinitive form of the verb. **Eat** is called a BARE INFINITIVE and **to eat** is called a TO-INFINITIVE. Most verbs that take an infinitive are used with the to-infinitive.      * _the goldfish need **to be fed**._     * _she never learned **to read**._   2. > Some verbs can be used with both a noun phrase and a to-infinitive. The noun can be the object of the main verb.     * _Can you persuade **Sheila** to chair the meeting?_ > or the noun phrase and infinitive phrase together can be the object.     * _I expected **her to pass** the driving test first time._     * _We'd love **you to come** and visit us._ **My question is that** in 1, can I think of the to-infinitive ( _to be fed_ and _to read_ ) is the object of _need_ and _learn_ , respectively？ And in 2, why can **_her to pass_** or **_you to come_** be bound together to be the object of _expect_ or _love_? At the same time, why I can't think of **_Sheila to chair_** in this way? I love our language, but can't understand its grammar :-( * * * _Edit: What role is the to-infinitive playing in these sentences?_


Why is poker a "sport" and not just a "game?"

So, first off, as tempting as it might be to do so, this is not an invitation to wax poetic on poker. I actually don't play it, but I know how it works. The question really is one of etymology. Poker is often referred to as a sport nowadays. A quick google search will reveal over 87 million hits to the query "poker as a sport". It is covered on ESPN, and in the last few days I have heard both NPR and seen USA Today refer to it as such. Full disclosure, I work for Gannett, the parent company of USA Today. What I would like to know is, "Why?" To be clear, I find the claim dubious, but if it is being referred to as a sport, there should be some rationality behind it. If not, then is it merely an idiom in the making? I understand what a game is - it is a test of skill in some fashion. I understand what a sport is, at least in the abstract. Football is a sport and has games. Monopoly is a game, but rarely a sport. Hiking is a sport, though, one rarely hears of "hiking games." So, while clearly there is an overlap between the two, there is also a set of attributes that differentiates the two. So, ultimately, what are those factors that adhere to the words "Sport" and "Game," that are common to both and those that differentiate the two. Ideally, I'd love a Venn Diagram of sorts that defines the relationship of these words. But most importantly, I'd like to understand the reasons for putting poker in the "Sports" circle.


Why does this sound wrong: "This is my car that is broken."?

I know that you can say "This is the one that is broken," or "This is my car, which is broken," but as written it seems odd. Is it wrong? My theory is that a restrictive clause cannot be used in combination with a possessive adjective unless you're referring to a person (E.g., "This is my nephew who is sick," would be okay.)


Pluralizing "personnel"?

I came accross the following sentence: > There will be 110 personnel in the store on launch. Is it better to phrase it like so: > There will be 110 persons in the store on launch. Which of the two is correct?


Is the expression 'half a percent' acceptable in formal English?

When central banks raise or lower interest rates the radio announcer will say for example: > an increase of one half of one percent Informally people use _half a percent_ instead, which is less wordy, but is it also incorrect? Ngrams analysis shows publishers favour the longer version, although the short form seems to be gaining some traction. Thinking about it, I'd never offer someone _one half of one pizza_ ; that sounds weird. However, I believe _of_ is necessary here, in combination with an article, quantifier or pronoun. Is this correct?


Is a text is composed of the following elements?: header, body, footer, insert

I'm creating software where users can build a textfile by inserting small snippets of text into one file. the user interface currently contains the following four buttons: Add a header Add a footer Add a body add an insert I'm worried about the use of the word "body". What do you think of the alternative "Add a main part"? In general, **how do you call the portion of a text that is NOT a header,footer or attachment**? I'm finding that the word body translates very poorly to dutch, as we only use the word body in the literal sense of "the body of an organism", not the abstract meaning of "content of a text" My second issue is with "insert". In our software we already use the word attachment, as in an e-mail attachment, so we needed to use a word that kind of means the same but sounds really distinct from the word "attachment". Are there better alternatives? Perhaps an addendum or appendix?


Mashing parts together to form Philanthropomath

I've always been unskilled with prefixes, suffixes, roots, etc. I was wondering if I combined philanthrope(ic) and philomath to form Philanthropomath Does this turn into nonsense? Or through the structures and formulas does it come to mean something similar to a combination of the two original words? Essentially what would be the literal translation of this word using phil, anthrop, and omath Another option is Philomathrope - but this is more focused on recreating the sounds than using the proper latin pieces, thus I assume this is even more nonsensical. To be clear, I don't have an intended meaning, but am curious what someone with linguistics knowledge might get out of it, if anything but nonsense. The short story is that in a certain system the title of _Philanthrope_ and _Philomath_ were taken, **Philanthropomath** reads and sounds like a real word, so could it be? In the way that I might read a code block in a function of a program and interpret it's possible outcomes, how would you interpret the meaning of this word based on the parts and rules of our language.


Word to describe pets that can be uncomfortable to live with?

I cannot figure out how to word this. I'm creating a rental system and have a question with regard to pets contained within a residence. But there are different types of pets. For example, a dog who eats everything and 'litters' the backyard is very different from a turtle in a glass box. Is there a way to differentiate between the two? I can only think of _Uncaged pets_ but it's not really the right way to explain it.


Can I switch from "man's" to "yours" in this paragraph?

> Locke thinks that property right is naturally attached to man's labor. That > is, the products of your interaction with the natural world naturally > belongs to you.(self-made) In the first sentence I use "man's", in the second I switch to "your" and "you", I doubt that "you" may make the sentence a particular statement pointing to one particular subject, thus making the whole paragraph sound like not a theoritical writing, but a cathartic expression.


AAC submits report to VC

"Academic Audit Committee submits report to the Vice Chancellor" - What does it convey? Does it mean the committee has submitted its report or will submit its report?


a / the balcony

> -How did you spend your last summer?   >  -We rented a house in Finland. I went out a lot but my parents spent half > of the time on **a/the balcony** sunbathing. If the house has got 2 balconies, then I use a balcony If the house has got 1 balcony, then I use the balcony is that right?


"to further assist [you]" -- Split infinitive or fixed VP?

From a descriptive standpoint (and the problem that English has at least two words in an infinitive), I understand why the split infinitive is becoming more acceptable, but is there any other excuse for this phrasing used by phone CSRs?   * "I'd be happy to direct you to the bank to further assist you."   * "I'd like to transfer you to the sales department to further assist   you."   * "I have Diana on the line, and she'll be happy to further assist you." Is it simply the case that Star Trek syntax triumphs again, or does it somehow sound funny to say "to assist you further?" (I would not consider "further to assist you" an acceptable solution.) To clarify, is there a fixed syntagm of a VP "to further assist" versus an issue of split infinitive? Is "further" bound in the domain of "to assist?"


What does the word "no" mean before a noun-adjective word?

I see some examples : **\- No cheese** **\- No errors** **\- No good** I understand how to use " **any** ", but " **no** " before a noun is weird (especially **"no"** before an adjective). Can anyone explain them?


When discussing non sequiturs, is a non sequitur made by a participant considered as a non sequitur?

Let's take this conversation: > Alice: What is a non sequitur? > > Bob: A non sequitur is something said that, because of its apparent lack of > meaning relative to what preceded it, seems absurd to the point of being > humorous or confusing1. In Latin, it means "does not follow". > > Alice: Oh, I get it, so if I said "It is lovely weather we are having." in a > discussion about the thermodynamic properties of iron, that would count as a > non sequitur, right? > > Bob: Yes, because cake is very tasty. Is the last sentence a non sequitur? After all, this is a discussion about non sequiturs, it _does_ "follow" that someone will probably make one -- which makes it not really a non sequitur. Or is it a matter of point of view? (To Alice, it is a non sequitur, but to me, a spectator, it isn't) 1 Copied from the Wikipedia page since I'm too lazy to write my own dialogue


"Orthotopic" or "orthotopal"

An _n-orthotope_ is a fancy name for an n-dimensional cube. I'd like to describe an object that has this quality. Which is the correct adjective: _orthotopic_ or _orthotopal_?


Talking in a "football voice"

English is not my native language, but normally when I listen to the radio I have no problem understanding what's being said. That's different when I listen to sports commentary, I really have to concentrate then. I just watched an episode of The IT Crowd where Maurice Moss talks in a "football voice"(1:10). Where does that way of speaking originate? Why do you usually hear it in sports commentary?


Usage of "the more you squeeze, the more sand disappears between your fingers"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Could you help me to do a syntax analysis of this sentence? When would one use the expression _the more you squeeze, the more sand trickles through your fingers_? I just heard it on Washington Journal used to describe a political strategy, but I would like to know if it can be used for more day-to-day situations.


What is the origin of "right as rain"?

I looked this up, and came up with:. > It makes no more sense than the variants it has usurped and is clearly just > a play on words (though perhaps there’s a lurking idea that rain often comes > straight down, in a right line, to use the old sense). The author here doesn't seem to know very clearly what its origin is. He is speculating it's just a play on words. Does anyone have any definitive answer or evidence?


Past participle equivalent of "absurd"

Is there a past participle equivalent of _absurd_? More specifically, is there a verb meaning _to make absurd_ that has a past participle form ( _made absurd_ )? This is similar to how the word _inverted_ operates in the phrase _the inverted world_ : covering not just the description of the world as currently being inverted, but also the implication that in the past the world was not inverted, but was made to be at some point.


Is the term "antagonym" widely used to describe a word that is its own antonym?

There are several words which have contradictory meanings. They may have one meaning now, and have had a different meaning in the past. For example, the current definition of _peruse_ is: > to look over or through in a casual or cursory manner However, the older definition (which is still included in the Merriam Webster entry) is: > to examine or consider with attention and in detail Is there a name for these pairs of words which have contradictory meanings? One site names them antagonyms, but is this widely known and used? Or is there another term?


How to refer to "earlier" letters in the alphabet?

Concerning the order of letters in the alphabet, how does one refer to "earlier" letters? For example, "Names starting with "earlier" letters come first in lists." Would that be "earlier," "higher," "greater," or what? Adding a tad bit more context, I am actually looking for the most proper way to write the sentence I used as an example. If I'm being confusing, I'll try to better explain myself after some sleep.


What is the meaning and structure of the following sentence?

RLIMIT_NOFILE **Specifies one greater than the maximum number of file descriptors** that a process may hold open.


What does "very approximate" mean?

An _approximate_ answer is one which is close to the correct answer. Likewise, we can talk of an approximate model, or approximate methods in mathematics. The etymology is from the Latin _ad_ , "to" and _proximus_ , "closest", see e.g. here. I don't think this can be disputed. Occasionally _proximate_ is used as a synonym, though that word has a different meaning in legal English. So if an _approximate_ answer is close, a _very approximate_ answer should be very close. In practice, "very approximate" or "very approximately" is overwhelmingly used with the opposite meaning of "roughly", indicating that an answer or estimate is not necessarily accurate. For examples, search Google. Is there any justification for this use? Is there any justification for my suggested use? Should we avoid the phrase altogether?


"Took the Russia out of Vodka" or definitive articles with country names

I'm trying to better understand the meaning of the phrase in the Skyy Vodka ad ("Vodka so filtered we even took the Russia out of it"). AFAIK the name Russia is never used with a definitive article, but I also doubt that Skyy promoters are uneducated. Can someone please explain why "the Russia"? ![Vodka so filtered we even took the Russia out of it](http://i.stack.imgur.com/MvzxH.jpg)


What is the difference when we change the position of adverbs?

Would you possibly readily elaborate the reason why you do not say > A book is there on the table. instead of > There is a book on the table. ?


Root + "-ophone" construction to describe speakers of a language

I've long used the terms anglophone and francophone to describe English and French speakers respectively, but I recently found myself about halfway through a sentence where I needed a similar term for Spanish speakers before I realized I actually had no idea what it was or how they're created. A quick search turned up the following list of "established" terms.   * anglophone (English-speaking)   * arabophone (Arab-speaking)   * francophone (French-speaking)   * germanophone or teutophone (German-speaking)   * hellenophone (Greek-speaking)   * hispanophone (Spanish-speaking)   * italophone (Italian-speaking)   * lusophone (Portugese-speaking)   * russophone (Russian-speaking)   * sinophone (Chinese-speaking) Are there additional commonly used terms? Is the construction still productive?


Which is the correct idiom – When worst comes to worst OR When worse comes to worst?

Which is the correct idiom?   1. When worst comes to worst   2. When worse comes to worst Thanks.


Does English have words to describe the lowest rank member of society?

For example, in Indonesia we have "rakyat". In English we may have citizen but the word actually has power connotation rather than powerless connotation. Another word is peasant. But that seems to mean those living in village rather than the lowest ranking people in society. Here, when I say _lowest rank_ , I mean lowest rank in political power. Most of us, for example, are just "people" no matter how rich we are. So what's the word for the lowest rank member in English?


Where does the Irish idiom "at all at all" come from?

It's a common stereotype of Irish-English speakers that they end sentences with "at all, at all" as in > You want a drink at all, at all? > > You have any money at all, at all? My question is twofold -   1. Do Irish-English speakers actually say this, or if they don't say it now, did they say it in the past?   2. Where does the idiom come from?


What is the verb form of "quilt"?

I was asked by my teacher to turn _quilt_ into a verb. I don't see the corresponding verb in the Oxford Dictionary.


Which word is technically correct in English: debrick or unbrick?

With certain electronic devices if you make a mistake you can **brick** (used as a verb) the device, so it ends up in a defunct state. So the device ends up being **bricked**. What is the correct term to recover from this bricked state? On the web one can find the terms **debrick** and **unbrick** , but which one is correct according to English language rules?


Did I use "albeit" correctly in this sentence? > Here is the essay (which is word-for-word, albeit some segments I took out).


Can you "escalate down" on an escalator?

In a recent article in _New York_ magazine, a reporter described an entourage of politicians preparing to leave a building > " . . . we headed for the exits, and as we were all _escalating down_ to the > lobby . . ." A survey of definitions for the verb _escalate_ on onelook.com all reveal meanings such as > to make or become greater or more serious Cambridge and several other dictionaries note that the verb is derived from the noun _escalator_ , (which began as a coined trademark word that has now become the generic term for moving staircase). A few dictionaries, such as this one suggest that the original meaning of _escalate_ was just that -- to ride an escalator, and list a definition > to raise, lower, rise, or descend on or as if on an escalator. All of these _ride-the-escalator_ definitions seem to be based on one listing in Random House Dictionary. Is an acceptance of the original meaning re-emerging? And if so, can one _escalate down_ , which ironically seems to fly in the face of the more common usage of escalate (up)?


Can the word “encore” be used to refer to a context outside the entertainment sector ? Is it perfectly correct to be used in academia for example?

e.g. The lecturer gave an encore presentation.


Origin of phrase "no shit"

So today I was having a conversation with one of my friends and he used the term " _no shit_ " to mean that I was stating the obvious. Now I am interested to know the origin of such a phrase. Is it particular to Australia? **Edit:** I have looked on wikipedia and urban dictionary but both sources only give the meaning/use of the word and not its genealogy.


Set of desiderata or set of desiderate?

Desideratum is a desired feature. Which form is right? Google search shows that "set of desiderata" is more common. But is it correct? e.g., a sentence In this paper, a set of desiderate for memory systems of companions will be presented, together with case studies of the memory subsystems of two existing or We formulate a set of desirable characteristics, or “desiderata” for a generic IDR.


Is the expression 'too much, too young' grammatically acceptable?

I'm happy to see that grammar is being seen as important enough to be taught in English schools ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22403731 ) again. I think. At least it might improve some people's dating prospects, according to the article. In the above article appears: > The Idler magazine's Bad Grammar Awards recently named and shamed a letter > by academics for saying that the national curriculum demanded "too much, too > young" - thus confusing an adjective and an adverb. There is a reasonable amount of evidence online that the expression is acceptable, however, and one could argue that "too much, too young" could be considered a shortened (and punchier) form of "[they are (being) expected to do] too much [(-/,) while they are still] too young". 'They married young' is quite widely used and sounds acceptable to me - of course, this expression can fairly be analysed as 'link-like verb + adjective' without having to consider _young_ as a flat adverb. When expressions achieve idiomatic status, of course, traditional grammar is no longer a controlling factor - _by and large_ coordinates a preposition and an adjective. Is the _Idler_ 's criticism justified here?


the position of "of which"

**The car, the wheel of which was broken, crashed into a tree. The car of which the wheel broken crashed into a street The bungalows of which the roofs are leaking ought to... The bungalows the roofs of which are leaking ought to..** = The bungalows ought to be sold, the roofs of which are leaking. = The bungalows, the roofs of which are leaking, ought to be sold Are these the same? are my sentences correct? And, would you please give me a more simpler pattern, as to how to use the following? of which Finally, when whose and when of which? I am very confused. Would you tell me more simple? I am learning English I am wondering the reason why the position of ****of which**** has been changed. enter link description here Considering your explanations, what about these? I think both of these are correct, aren't they? The car, the wheel of which was broken, crashed into a tree. correct The car, of which the wheel was broken, crashed into a tree. wrong


Is "regardless of whether or not" proper grammar?

I have a sentence like this: > I will go to the store regardless of whether or not it's raining Meaning that the weather has no bearing on my intent to go to the store. The "regardless of whether or not" is awkward, and it feels like bad grammar, but I can't think of a better way to say it. What would the proper grammar be in this case?


How to use commas around the word "both"?

In the following sentence, how should I place commas around the word "both"? Should there be a comma before AND after "both", or ONLY after it? Should there be commas at all?: "This includes strengthening my knowledge in the fundamental subjects of this field, and gaining more experience in, both, robotics research, as well as the implementation of developed theory on physical robotic systems." The above sentence is trying to say that I wish to do two things: 1) strengthen my knowledge in the fundamental subjects of an aforementioned field of study (namely, robotics), 2) gain experience in two types of tasks: (a) conducting research in robotics; and (b) implementing theory (developed through research) on physical robotic systems.


Starting a quote with a number

I know you cannot start a sentence with a number written _digitally_ (how do I say this?). For example I could not write: > 2013 is almost over! Can a quotation begin with a number, though? For example, could I write > The man said, "2013 was the worst!" or would I need to spell the year out?


Origin of "on the up-and-up"

The phrase "on the up-and-up" means "legitimate" or "legal" or "reputable" or, to use another idiom, "above-board". For instance: > Although Pete didn't look like a city official, Joe assumed his offer to > sell the Brooklyn Bridge was totally **on the up-and-up**. Where does this expression come from? Related: What does “We don’t do anything that’s not completely up and up” mean?


What does "If women were a country..." mean?

> If women were a country, the Japanese World Cup champion soccer team > wouldn’t have flown coach The Washington Post’s (August 13) article titled “The Women’s Olympic success: a flood that began as a trickle” begins with the following lines: “The phrase running around the Olympic Village on the last day of the London Games was, “If women were a country. . .” The phrase will be one of the legacies of the fortnight, more lasting than the British afterglow or the disposable-kit stadiums.” Then, “If women were a country, the Japanese World Cup champion soccer team wouldn’t have flown coach, while their far-less-successful male teammates flew first class. If women were a country, we would all understand how hard it was for Candace Parker to win a basketball gold medal with a 3-year-old on her hip.” I’m not clear with the logic of “If women were a country” – “Japanese WC champion soccer team wouldn’t have flown coach / we would all understand how hard it was for Candace Parker to win a basketball gold medal with a 3-year- old on her hip.” Did “If women were a country,” actually become the buzz word of London Olympic Games? What is the analogy of “If women were a country, Japanese women soccer team wouldn’t fly in coach / we would understand how hard for Parker to win.”? What will follow if we say “If men were the country,” as a counterpart thesis to “If women were a country”? I can’t establish the link of logic.


"Checking" vs. "chequing" vs. "chequeing" with regards to types of bank accounts

I came across this little dilemma when looking up the incorrectly spelled word "chequing" in my web browser's dictionary (Opera). According to the different dictionaries you can select in Opera: EN US is "Checking" (Which I knew) EN GB and EN ZA is "Chequeing" (Which looks really strange to me) Here in Canada I've always seen and used "Chequing", which I actually thought was the GB version. Example of BBC using "chequeing": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3242776.stm So how many versions are there? Which is technically the right version for Canada and Great Britain?


Do we ask for check or cheque in restaurants?

I know there is a related question asked here. But its slightly different than it and seeking more information. I live in India, I have been to America couple of times. In my first trip it was surprising to see people asking for "check" instead of "bill". I have been told by my friend that here (in America) they call it "check". I assumed may be it arosed from "check-out". After some days another friend told me that it's "cheque", **not** "check" and he elaborated that just like how a banker pays money in return of cheque. After reading few answers/question and links given in the relative question, I really made a conclusion that which one is correct to use because I doubt only one has to be correct and remaining evolved by misinterpretation because "check" and "cheque" sound the same?


Duplicate auxiliary verbs in a sentence?

What is a general rule for use of auxiliary verbs in sentence? Should we duplicate it or not? For instance, > It is available for every item and ( ** _is_** ) used with . . .


Is "...written by the author it claims to be and not by someone passing themselves for them" correct?

I have a question to this sentence: > Sometimes you need to know if the book was really written by the author it > claims to be and not by someone passing themselves off as them. Is that correct? I am not sure about the usage of "passing off as them".


In my example, did I need more commas?

For example, someone who just turned 21 and is prone to hurt others, might visit bars more often which would increase his probability of getting arrested for assault. Do I need to add more commas or put brackets maybe? I hope my sentence makes sense.


What's the phrase for food burning and sticking to the pan?

When cooking neglectfully, food sometimes burns and sticks to the pan (or pot, or whatever one is cooking in). What is this phenomenon called in English? > Darn it! The spaghetti `<stuck to the pot>`! Is there an idiomatic expression?


“covered by” vs. “covered with”

I found this sentence in some book: > Imagine a young child who already knows that creatures that live in water > are fish, they have gills, and their skin is covered **by** scales. Saying “their skin is covered **by** scales” sounds so strange to me. Why isn’t it “their skin is covered **with** scales”? Which version is better, and why?


'Vulnerable' Without Negative Connotations

The word vulnerable has a negative connotation - as seemingly a weakness. I'd like suggestions for replacement word that has a positive (therefore, strength) connotation. Thank you


Is "solutioning" a correct word?

My Outlook flags the word _"solutioning"_ as a spelling mistake. According to Urban Dictionary : > _solutioning:_ A word many business people misuse to describe the process of > creating a solution. These people need a grammar lesson and should be fired > immediately. Is the word correct?


What does "I had every last one of them" mean?

I heard this quote from a Channel 4 sitcom the IT crowd > I'm gonna go, I may not come back but I want to say this. That accounts > team, I had every last one of them. It is said by Douglas Reynholm, the boss. But what does "I had every last one of them" mean in this quotation? What does he intend it to mean?


How do I refer to Congress?

When referring to Congress do I refer to it as a single body or a collective? For example, is it > Congress is stupid. or > Congress are stupid.


How "macro" in computer programming came about

The prefix _macro-_ is normally used for _large_ things like _macroeconomics_ and _macroscopic_. How did it come to be used to describe text macros in the programming world?


"But" in the beginning of a sentence

Is "But" allowed in the beginning of a sentence as synonym to "Though" or "However"? You can afford it. But think twice before buying it. Won't using "But" instead of "However" mark me as non-native speaker?


Is “he should be seventeen” correct?

Is the following sentence correct to describe a young man? > He should be seventeen. My colleague was absolutely sure it was correct. I disagreed, so we had a bit of an argument. I would agree on either > He should be seventeen before he. . . . or > He should be seventeen by now. If the original sentence (“He should be seventeen.”) is actually correct, what makes it so?


How can I say "not any time soon, but it won't take a long time either"?

I was writing an email to a client about a feature we plan to eventually release, maybe in a couple months, but they want some of the functionality now. I initially wrote: > If there's something else I can do for you, go ahead and let me know. I > don't suspect the upgrade will be any time soon. It sounded like I was saying the upgrade will take a long time, but that's not what I want to imply. I almost wrote: > I don't suspect the upgrade will be any time **immediately soon**. ...which sounds awkward, and I don't think it's correct. The search results I got for the term support my assumption. What would be a better way to say "not soon, but fairly soon" in this context?


Etymology of "heulandite"?

Came across the word "heulandite", thought it was weird so I looked it up in the dictionary and found that it means: "a group of minerals of the zeolite family consisting of a hydrous aluminum silicate of sodium and calcium." I looked up "-ite" on etymonline.com so I suspect the suffix comes from Greek meaning: "connected with or belonging to." Where does the "heuland" part come from? Is it related to "andesite" or maybe something else?


What is the antonym of "abjure"?

1. Affirm    2. Cajole    3. Insist    4. Pronounce    5. Shout  What's your opinion?


Identifying the literary technique

I was wondering if there is a literary technique in the following quote: > "Let us be sacrificers but not butchers"


What do you call those pubs that are run in ruins and soon-to-be-demolished buildings?

There are famous pubs in Budapest and Berlin which are operated in abandoned or soon to be demolished buildings. Some call them ruin pubs, but I'm not quite sure that's the correct name.


Usage of "already" and "yet"

I want to know the difference between _already_ and _yet_ in this example: > I was surprised that they had **__** to decide what to do. My answer on this question was _already_ and my teacher marked it as a wrong answer in the test.   What's the difference between _already_ and _yet_ in that sentence?


Why 'Mrs.' isn't read as 'mistress'?

Wasn't _Mrs._ short for _mistress_? Why do we read _Mrs._ as _missus_ (or sometimes _missis_ ) instead of _mistress_?


Why is "fulfil" spelt as "fulfill" in American English?

In this answer, simplification is stated as one reason for spelling variations in American English. But unlike in _color_ and _favorite_ , the number of letters to spell the word in _fulfil_ increases in American English. Other than for "creating a distinct" variant, is there any reason for the change? Going by the etymology the ideal spelling should be _fullfill_ , so even that may be not a motivation.


X are equivalent to Y in Z

I'm pretty new to English StackExchange, and English is not my first language, so I'm not even sure what tags to look for. So, I apologize if this has been discussed before. I'm writing up a blog and somehow I got confused with the proper grammar for a sentence that compares one thing to another thing of a different category. For example, I want to compare Dodge Chargers, the car, with Cheetahs, the animal. Which one is the proper sentence: `Dodge Chargers are equivalent to Cheetahs in the animal kingdom.` `Dodge Chargers are equivalent to Cheetahs in automobiles.` Do I use the category from the first or second subject?


Rhetorical device in Julius Caesar

I thrice presented him a kingly crown/ which he did thrice refuse" Just wondering what the rhetorical technique is in that phrase.


What does "how not to speak" mean?

Consider this sentence. > Americans consider themselves egalitarian and unsnobbish about accents, but > they are full of notions about how not to speak. What does "how not to speak" mean? I know the meaning of "how to speak"; it means asking about which method I should take to speak. Does "how not to speak" mean trying finding a way to avoid saying something?


What is the origin of the phrase "I'll take a raincheck"?

What is the origin of the phrase _I'll take a raincheck_?


How does a signature develop?

In English, unlike in many other languages, signatures are typically very different from ordinary handwriting. A signature will often display all kinds of wild flourishes and elision of forms and what have you. A person usually starts out writing their name in print or in cursive, and develops the style of their signature over time. But how exactly _does_ a signature develop? How did mine go from a shaky, juvenile cursive rendition of "Jonathan William Purdy" to something that looks more like "Joth Wm Pdy"? (And then only if you turn your head and squint.) Mainly I'm looking for research articles, books, and online resources on which strokes and series of characters can be elided, and what flourishes are common and allowable. This is a broad topic, and though I have a pretty clear concept of what I'm looking for, I'm finding difficulty describing it. Please ask any clarifying questions that come to mind.


Does "less than" really mean "subtracted from", or is it bad English?

I got involved in a discussion about some Math problems provided in the local primary school education:   * 20 more than 543 is 563   * 25 less than 261 is 236   * 155 less than 310 is 155   * 355 more than 1233 is 1588 Some of us (including me) argued that this is unclear or incorrect English, while others said that it is correct or that we are not creative if we do not understand it _(huh?)_. In my own Math education, I have learnt that "less than" and "more than" (or rather, "greater than") are comparative operators. However, in the above, they are used as manipulative operators (subtraction or addition) - a usage I never learnt. At first I thought this must be something peculiar with the _Singapore Math_ education, as those who argued that this is incorrect are mostly foreigners, while the other side is made up of mostly locals. After some searching for similar use on the Internet, the two instances I could find are an exercise paper from _Math Activities Resource Center, Mt. San Antonio College, Walnut, CA (USA)_ [link], and a lecture paper from _Professor Weissman's Algebra Classroom_ [link]. In the exercise paper, the lecturer also mentions that "less than" is different from "is less than", in that "less than" is used to mean subtraction (where the numbers are inverted), whereas "is less than" is used to compare two numbers. In the lecture paper, it is mentioned that _"3 is less than 7"_ translates to _"3 <7"_, _"3 less than 7"_ translates to _"7-3"_ and _"3 less 7"_ translates to _"3-7"_. I want to hear from some experts regarding how correct and/or widespread this kind of usage of these terms is. No matter how many times I read the examples back to myself I feel it's odd and wrong to use it this way, and that the correct usage for manipulation should be:   * 20 added to 543 is 563   * 25 subtracted from 261 is 236   * 155 subtracted from 310 is 155   * 355 added to 1233 is 1588 Whereas the correct usage for comparison should be:   * 20 more than 543 is _False_   * 25 less than 261 is _True_   * 155 less than 310 is _True_   * 355 more than 1233 is _False_


"go on a ride" vs. "go for a ride."

What is the difference between these two examples? > I go on a ride.   >  I go for a ride.


Past Simple or Present Perfect: Tried or Have Tried

I’ve tried to help you.   _The action happened in the past but I don’t say when._ I tried to help you yesterday.   _The action happened in the past but I say when._   1. Which is correct and which is not? I’m very confused!   2. Is there a simple rule to follow? More Examples: You can use the account that you’ve already created.   You can use the account that you already created. I’ve sent you an email. Please check your Inbox.   I sent you an email. Please check your Inbox.


Is there a verb that means "the act of replacing a word or phrase with an ellipsis"? " _Ellipsize_ " doesn't seem to be in the dictionaries. Is there a word for this?


English teacher's question about subject of a sentence

My students and I have a disagreement about the subject of the following sentence: "Many animals were found on the farm." I say it's "Many"; they say it's "animals." Who's right?


Should I use a full stop at the end of text in a table?

The table has a mix of fragments and full sentences. I'm concerned that if I have full stops after the sentences and none after the fragments it will look inconsistent to the reader.


no reservation or no reservations on invitation?

I am sending one invitation out for 3 events. The planners for two events would like for people to make a reservation for each of those events with their reply. So next to those events, there is wording that a reservation is requested ("reservation is requested with your reply"). Please note the singular "reservation". For the third event, the planner does not need or want folks to make reservations. So should the wording be "no reservation needed" or "no reservations needed"? Or can it be either way?


How to refer to an apartment on a specific floor?

Suppose that on the first floor of a building, there are three separate apartments numbered 1, 2 and 3 respectively. How can I refer to one of them when writing a postal address? I am wondering if there is any need to mention words like "apartment" or "unit" before the apartment number. Which one is more appropriate to use? > "Apartment 2, first floor"   >  "Unit 2, first floor"   >  "2, first floor"   >  "2 first floor"   >  "2 1st floor" I also found this entry on Wikipedia which suggests that the words "lot" and "unit" can be used before the apartment number in Malaysia. (My question is more about American English though): > Salutation, Name of recipient   >  Name of Position & Department (if applicable)   >  Company name   >  **Unit/Lot number** , Building name/Commercial area   >  Lot number (for building), Street name   >  Postcode Post office/Mail centre   >  State (optional)   >  Country > > _example_ : > > **Lot** 323, 1st Floor, Bintang Commercial Centre Any advice would be appreciated.


Good expressions to signify extensive analysis

I am looking for a way to communicate in a business context that I am carrying out extensive analysis to get to the bottom of something by synthesizing info and insights from various sources to come up with an insightful and clear viewpoint. The analysis could be described as deep dive, but I am looking for a more profound / sagelike way to express this process (could also be a quote).


Past simple vs. past perfect

Here is an exercise from _Intermediate Language Practice_ by Michael Vince:   (Please note that I have replaced all the blanks in the exercise with the answers given in the answer key.) > Put each verb given into the past simple, past continuous or past perfect. > More than one answer may be possible. > > (A picture showing a man being seized by a police officer) > >> The police suspected that Brian (1) **had broken** the window at his house because he (2) **wanted** to make them think that a burglar (3) **had stolen** his valuable stamp collection. They (4) **thought** that Brian (5) **had done** this because he (6) **needed** the money. However, they (7) **didn't know** that Brian (8) **had flown** to Brazil the week before, and (9) **had been/was** abroad when the burglary (10) **took place/had taken place**. My questions are:   1. At (2) and (6), is it possible to use the past perfect instead of the past simple? As I understand it, the past simple is used here to indicate that Brian's "wanting to fool the police" and "needing the money" were still in his mind at the time he was being seized by the police. If I used the past perfect instead in order to talk about his state of mind at the time the burglary took place, would the sentences sound right?    2. At (9) and (10) why is it possible to use the past simple when "his being abroad" and "the burglary" had both taken place before he was captured by the police? Which of the following sentences are acceptable? Which one is the best? **a.** However, they didn't know that Brian had flown to Brazil the week before, and **had been** abroad when the burglary **took place**. **b.** However, they didn't know that Brian had flown to Brazil the week before, and **had been** abroad when the burglary **had taken place**. **c.** However, they didn't know that Brian had flown to Brazil the week before, and **was** abroad when the burglary **had taken place**. **d.** However, they didn't know that Brian had flown to Brazil the week before, and **was** abroad when the burglary **took place**.


Looking for a word that describes thinking something is more common than it is?

I'm wondering if there's a good term for assuming knowledge, or other things, is more common due to my own experience. Essentially it's like being out of touch with reality, but a little more specific. One term comes to mind is confirmation bias, but again I don't think it quite matches. Essentially it's because I've self selected to receive a certain amount of information, I assume it's common knowledge, only to find it isn't. My personal example is, I repaired a broken kindle screen by replacing it with a new one, and opening up the old kindle. I assumed a lot of people knew this was a possibility, turns out it they don't. I was surprised to realize this, until I concluded that because I work with technology it's in my sphere of knowledge. * * * Something about cultural knowledge? Frequency fallacy (I see it a lot, but that doesn't mean it's really frequent) -- Is frequency fallacy a real phrase?


Is follow-ups the right word?

I'm creating a web page (intranet) where administrators can add customers to scheduled "follow-ups" by phone (we'll call them in the future and ask how it goes). So I used google translate and the web to find a good word for my menu tab. When using Google Translate I got "follow-ups" as a suggestion. This don't seem appropiate enough to me, so is there synonyms or better word for my purpose? Or is it the right word?


Specific word/phrase/idiom for the following scenario

I have a second cousin living at the end of my street, but we hardly meet. I plan to meet her soon and tell her to come out and go out for a walk. Could anyone suggest a phrase, word, or an idiom for the following sentence I have written? > I'll come to her home and take her out myself.


Word/phrase meaning an action is appropriate and should be encouraged

The context is: > The police, [appropriately so], are subject to a high level of scrutiny. Are there any other terms I can use here?


Is saying "but nevertheless..." redundant?

I've heard in many places, educated people saying _"but nevertheless..."_. I think both _but_ and _nevertheless_ have the play the same role. Is their combination, as to emphasize that what follows is opposes to the previous statement(s), allowed? Is it considered redundant or uneducated?


Nothing's on. What does it mean?

What is a meaning of "Nothing's on"? I tried to find something on the internet and the results were like "nothing's on the radio" etc. I certainly understood the meaning of those sentences. But what does the sentence consisting only of these 3 words mean? Nothing's on. Thank you for the reply


word for false nostalgia

Is there a word to describe nostalgia for things that never existed? For example, a 1950s-style diner is supposed to reconstruct a cultural archetype, but there never existed such a diner. John Wayne characters are similar, he usually plays a cowboy-type, but no heroic cowboy ever really existed.


A better, more academic way of saying 'whether or not'

This is my sentence, and I was hoping to make it sound more academic: > The aim is to ascertain **whether or not** the actors from the two films > analysed can be considered to be heroes Is there a better, more academic way of saying ' _whether or not_ '?


Capitalization of "School" as an adjective

I am working on a research poster, and the teacher supervising wrote the following language. It doesn't seem to me like "School" is a proper noun, but he tells me it is when referring to a specific school. Is the below correct? is it the best way to say this? > Such questions would allow us to learn how the School culture affected > cheating. "School" refers to _our school_ , but I still don't think it looks right capitalized (especially when used as an adjective).


youngest of his siblings

I have a problem with this sentence: > He was one of the youngest of his siblings. The meaning should be clear: _he had many brothers and sisters, and he was one of the youngest of the lot_ , but the expression feels awfully awkward to me, with expression _his siblings_ implicitly excluding the subject from the set; you're not your own sibling, so you're not one of your siblings. Is there a better way to convey the idea without getting too muddled with details and without losing the meaning? A collective expression for all of own siblings plus self maybe?   * Eldest of the children have children of their own, so he's not one of the youngest in the family.   * His parents have siblings who have their children, so he's not one of the youngest in his generation.   * "One of the youngest of his parents' children" while technically correct is awfully roundabout way to convey it.   * He's not the youngest, so he's not just "younger than his siblings". "Younger than most of his siblings" might work but still feels somewhat awkward.


"I lost my chems." What does it mean?

I heard this in this movie: > I lost my chems. What does it mean? Tried via Google. But, found nothing about it.


"Flexibility" vs. "adaptability"

I wonder whether it is   * Functional/Geometric Flexibility (engine type) or   * Functional/Geometric Adaptability (-"-) What's the difference? What's the right choice in this context?


Origin of meaning of 'express' such as a fast train?

I seem to recall reading that 'express' to mean a rapid transport service (e.g. express train) has its origin in the verb 'express' to mean to press out. Can anyone shed any light on this? (Of course, my recollection may be wrong!)


Proper sentence structure

When using _if I were_ and _if I was_ \--is there a rule of thumb one can rely on? I seem to remember it has something to do with fact and fantasy.


What's the difference between "swollen" and "inflamed"?

As the title says, what is the difference between _swollen_ and _inflamed_?


Difference between "I have got" and "I have gotten"

I see these two expressions are used almost identically in different contexts. Is there a difference between _I have got_ and _I have gotten_?


"...that I have not got", vs. "gotten"?

In such a context as... > I have never applied to job that I cannot do, nor to one that I have not > **gotten**. vs. > I have never applied to job that I cannot do, nor to one that I have not > **got**. My guess would be the prior, as > I have never applied to job that I have not **gotten**. just sounds "better", to me. I referred to this _ultimately-just-confusing-reference_ \- without a clear conclusion as to the correct form. It said... > Gotten is probably the most distinctive of all the AmE/BrE grammatical > differences, but British people who try to use it often get it wrong. It is > not simply an alternative for have got. Any help?


American English

I notice that Americans use the word 'gotten' when we in Britain just use 'got' - is 'gotten' accepted American English, that is, used and accepted in English examination papers, or is it a type of slang, used in speech, but not written? The previous answer you directed me to doesn't quite answer my question, although it was interesting. I can deduce from it, however, that 'gotten', if used correctly, is indeed acceptable and an actual word, is that right?


Shouldn't have got or gotten

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Difference between “I have got” and “I have gotten” In this example, my teacher thinks it should be _got_ , but I feel like _gotten_ is better: > I shouldn't have **got** / **gotten** married. Which one is correct?


English approximations of Spanish pronouns

Excuse me if this question sounds familiar, but I've searched and couldn't find what I desired. In the Spanish second-person, there is _usted_ (formal), _tú_ (familiar), and _ustedes_ (plural for both). In Argentina, the role of _tú_ is usurped by _vos_ , and in Spain, the role of the familiar _ustedes_ is (usually) usurped by _vosotros_. With these verbs comes different conjugation:   * You are   * Usted es   * Tú eres   * Ustedes son   * Vos sos   * Vosotros sois I'm not a native Spanish speaker but these all seem very natural to me now, and when using them you can understand how they came to be and why they exist in the way they do. I'm helping my friend with his Spanish and I've told him that there are a few concepts in Spanish that don't exist in English and can't really be translated, diversity in second-person pronouns being one of them. This got me thinking, though. Are there any English dialects where _you_ isn't simply used for any possible reference to the second-person? _Y'all_ is often considered as a rough approximation of _ustedes_ and _vosotros_. Is this as far as it goes? Any others? And what's so different about English that causes it to not develop in the way that Spanish does?


'There seem' or 'there seems' + usage of the word 'seem'

First, I have a question "How words 'seem' and 'there' are used together?" Which is correct:   * There seem ... or   * There seems ... Then, I'm am interested in general constructions with the word 'seem'. What are common mistakes people make when they use this word?


What is the formal synonym of "taking over the property"

I'm writing a text and am confused about a word I knew before. The definition is : to Take away the property of someone (by government or bank or a legal institution). I have found seize or take over, but I know there is better word for it which I had used in my translations before. Can any one suggest a better word?


Am I using “suggest that” correctly?

I am writing to my manager. I want to suggest making a new service to her. I have problem with this sentence: > Can you suggest to them **that** [Company Name] develops the Italian version > of the website? Am I using the word _that_ correctly here?


Why present simple not continuous

I have a few sentences here: > A) The instructor explains the diagram to students who ask questions during > the lecture. Why are "explain" and "ask" used here in present simple, and not in the present continuous? > B) He had been listening to loud music on his stereo. The past perfect progressive verb _had been listening_ 'suggests' action that began in the time frame prior to the main narrative time frame and that was still underway as another action began. Then why is "suggest" used as simple here, and not as continuous? > C)He has been listening to loud music on his stereo. An old man is standing on the steps.(the progressive verbs _has been listening_ and _is standing_ "indicate" action) Why " indicate " is used in simple present here, and not in continuous form?


etymology: drag (clothing)

I've seen conflicting accounts as the etymology of 'drag' (as in: drag queen). the first being acronymical of "Dressed as A Girl". the second as: > One suggested etymological root is 19th-century theatre slang, from the > sensation of long skirts trailing on the floor. - _Wikipedia_ Any conclusive answers as to the etymology of drag?~


What does the abbreviation "con" mean in the following context?

I have no idea what _con_ means reading through this profile. > Pro : Java, Design patterns, Quick learner (API, SDK, etc.), PHP, > Javascript. > > Con : C++ skills for gaming industry > > Love : Challenge!


Question about meaning of "Object" in the Declaration of Independence

Referring to this: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same **Object** evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." What exactly is the "Object" that is referred to here? What exactly is the "Object" that is being pursued?


Does "turning down the air conditioning" make it warmer or colder?

As the title says, I've heard two possible meanings for "turning down" the air conditioning: It could mean "set the target temperature lower" (i.e. colder) or "make it work less" (i.e. warmer). Turning down the heat makes it colder, but both meanings are in agreement there.


What's a word for articulating something and making it sound worse?

Sorry for the poor title, but I can describe this better through an example. A few weeks ago, one of my friends had a conversation with her boyfriend, and she said that she wouldn't necessarily marry him because he's "not smart enough". The intention and feeling behind this statement is certainly not that he's stupid. But when articulated, this sounds really mean despite the more moderate intent. I'm looking for a word that describes this phenomenon: where a thought may really has a rather mild intent/emotion behind it while its in your head, but when articulated, the listeners tend to dramatize the statement and the emotion/intent comes across much stronger. Another example was a friend was trying to describe his new housemates who are from the East Coast and attend Ivy League schools. They're perfectly wonderful and pleasant people, but they're more willing to spend money on luxuries and fun experiences, and love to just constantly do interesting/crazy things. I feel that when you articulate this, you give off the air that they just ball out of control, when the reality is much more subdued. I'm trying to describe this idea -- that when you express something the emotion and imagery conjured unintentionally exaggerates reality.


Word for grieving parents?

Is there a word that describes a parent whose child has died? Along the lines of "orphan", "widow", and "widower", is there a single word for a parent who has lost a child (of any age)?


What do we call parents who lose their child?

When a child loses his parents, he is referred to as an orphan. If a woman loses her husband, she is considered a widow. But if a parent loses their child, what do we call them? Childless? Childless doesn't make much sense, as if the parents never had children to begin with.


A word meaning "communicating one idea" (Mono-<something>-ic?)

I am looking to see if there is a word to describe "communicating one thought". I imagine it would be something like "Mono--ic". This is how I am attempting to use it: "Instead of using a choropleth map, which is mono--ic, we should use a more dynamic map which displays multiple statistics simultaneously." For those who don't know, a choropleth map is a map with solid colors which correspond to a single value. E.g. A red county might mean it's population is primarily republican. Which I am trying to communicate is that we should use a map which does not communicate a single thought per area - rather a map that communicates multiple aspects at the same time. Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks! -Kivak


Where did the notion of 'dumbing down' first arise from?

Can anyone tell me the origin of the expression 'dumbing down'? It seems increasingly difficult to trace the etymology of neologisms, but I'm curious whether anyone has any information on this phrase. Thank you.


The use of the term "absolutions"

I am curious as to if anyone else has heard of, seen, or used the term "absolutions." I purchased William F. Buckley, Jr.'s book _The Lexicon_ a few weeks back, and this is one of the first words that caught my eye. Its supposed meaning is "the washing of one's body or part of it," with the example text given: > Several witnesses noted the license number, and the California authorities > had it within minutes, leaving it a mystery why there was no one there at > his apartment to greet Edgar Smith when he drove in to perform the identical > **absolutions** of nineteen years earlier—an effort to remove the blood from > his person and clothing. This usage has quite the semantic parallel to the singular version of the word; however, I have had no luck in finding this exact meaning anywhere else. Any thoughts or suggestions are greatly appreciated. (Edit: This turned out to be nothing more than a typo in my book. _Ablutions_ was, indeed, the word that should have appeared in the text. I do thank everyone for clearing it up, though.)


When to call first name or last name?

For example, a man's name is Jeff Smith. My question is: When should I call him "Jeff"? When should I call him "Smith"? When should I call him "Jeff Smith"? in western.