When saying 'He pointed out the bank of England' which of the following statements is correct?

> He pointed out the bank of England... ... he said that London's City was a > village in its way.... Do the extracts above mean:   1. one time in the past he pointed out and he said...   2. more than one time or every time they were out, he kept pointed and said... NB As we know simple past does not always refer to completed action in the past. I want to translate it to Farsi and I do not know which one is correct. Here is the passage: > Among these adult people Cecilia was lonely, and friendless, too, in > Buckingham Street. At weekends her father did his best, making an effort to > be interesting on their strolls about the deserted city streets - the Strand > and Ludgate Hill, Cheapside and Poultry, Threadneedle, Cornhill. He pointed > out the bank of England, the Stock Exchange: he said that London's City was > a village in its way. Sometimes, as a change, he booked two rooms at a small > hotel in Suffolk, usually at Hintlesham or Orford


Confused about tense usage

"A little heat might get things cookin'." I heard this in a movie. Is it correct? Shouldn't it be, "A little heat might get things cooked?" What's the difference? Thank you.


How do I improve on this question from the suggestion given?

I wrote: How do we visualize something that is a independent of experience? How do we visualize green for example without ever seeing it? We can describe it through language but we would never have that subjective and indescribable experience of seeing green for the first time and explaining what it is after. Same goes for mathematical objects. And let's say Modular Functions which even professors have a hard time explaining. How do we even explain what a modular function is to a person who doesn't understand the language of mathematics? We can explain it in the simplest terms but will possibly stop and say it can't be explained easily. That's because we don't have the perception of a mathematician or we don't have the perception to see what green looks like. We could explain it in thousands of words and still not have the simplest clue. * * * They wrote: I'm not really sure what the question is getting at-- the question title speaks of the a priori, yet the text of the question uses examples (like the color green) that are clearly a posteriori. And are we really speaking of "visualizing" without "seeing", or about indirect knowledge in general? Finally, is the OP actually arguing that it is impossible to teach things to people? I really need help I've did this to the best of my ability , will someone help me?


Are there any rules I can follow to make my own derived adjectives from a noun in English? E.g. xenogamy to xenogamic

I'm currently looking through dictionaries (both online and "offline") for an adjective of the word **xenogamy**. Basically I want to translate the Dutch phrase " _De kruibestuivende onderneming_ ". What I came up with was " _The xenogamy endeavor_ " or " _The xenogamy undertaking_ ". It seems there's no adjective for the word " _xenogamy_ " in English, or am I wrong? In Dutch the noun is " _kruisbestuiving_ " and the derived adjective is " _kruibestuivend_ " or " _kruibestuivende_ ". I was thinking I could use some artistic freedom here and translate it as follows: " _The xenogamic endeavor_ " or " _The xenogamic undertaking_ "... Or should it then be " _xenogamical_ "? Basically:   1. **Are there any rules I can follow to make my own noun derived adjectives in English?**   2. **I'll be using this as a title for a CD/Album, so I think some artistic freedom is allowed - but I still want people to know what I mean... and use proper English if possible.**


Can you use "extremely lesser" in a sentence?

I read this on a blog: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/CTqa5.png) This sounds wrong to me, but I'm not sure which rule it breaks. Surely it should have been "much less intensive...". Is there any grammatical justification for using "extremely lesser"?


Conviction before trial

Is there a word that expresses the idea that someone has been convicted before trial, either in the media or by public opinion?


Condition which is likely to happen

For example, after I run one mile I start to sweat. So should I say > I'm likely to sweat. Or if there is any other expression more accurate?


Information that the reports can work 'off' or 'of'

Should it be > Last years data set contains information that the reports can work off or > Last years data set contains information that the reports can work of ?


Can I say, "the article claimed", "the focus of the article is", etc.?

I once went to a writing centre at a community college and asked if it's more correct to write _the article explains..._ or _the author explains..._. The instructor replied that the latter was preferable, as the article _is not saying anything_. Is this right? Can the concept be extended farther? I just caught my self writing _The focus of the article is..._. Does the same principle apply in that it's the _author's_ focus, not actually the _article's_ focus? I'm assuming it doesn't matter if it's an article or other piece of written (or spoken) work.


Punctuation of a Direct Quote

Is any particular punctuation necessary when a quotation is the subject of a sentence? For example, in the sentence below, should there be a comma after _export_? Or anything else? > "Laughter is America's most important export" is a well-known quote of Walt > Disney's.


What is this "Nor"?

> And I saw Tityos, son of glorious Gaea, lying on the ground. Over nine roods > he stretched, and two vultures sat, one on either side, and tore his liver, > plunging their beaks into his bowels, **nor** could he beat them off with > his hands. > > — _The Odyssey_ This _nor_ is not like _not . . . either_. This _nor_ is similar to _never could he beat them off. . . ._ Is this correct? Is this an archaic use?


With "to+infinitive" & without it

I am having problems writing sentences of the pattern "to + infinitive". Long ago I heard that in a sentence there should not be two verbs, but I feel if I write it as below, then that rule is violated. Any clarification on the sentences   1. without to + infinitive    2. with to + infinitive > (1) Data gaps, occurred in between two planar regions, also **_leads for > missing of_** important boundary edges. > > (2) Data gaps, occurred in between two planar regions, also **_cause to > miss_** important boundary edges. Are both sentence correct? What would be the best way to write what I want to say?


Which is the proper response to “I love you”?

When my wife says _I love you_ , my natural response is _you too_ , meaning “[I love] you too.” I realise that I’m in the minority here. I more frequently hear _me too_ , but I don’t feel comfortable with that response: I can only hear it as “[I love] me too”. Is there an argument that the grammatical would be _I too_ , as in “I [love you] too”?


Is it correct to intrigue me?

In conversation if someone pitches something to you but you're not entirely convinced, can you ask for more details by saying "intrigue me"?


Grammar: French conditionnel in English?

Could anybody help me here, please? I’d like to know the grammatical form of the verb “can" in the following examples: > 18y old Tim is asked by a relative what he’s going to do with his life. > After some hesitation, he finally answers: “Well, I COULD help my father on > the farm - but I’m not sure if I want to be a farmer. I COULD also go to > university but I don’t like studying… or I COULD train really hard and > become a football pro. I don’t now yet, too many options…” Ten years later, > Tim is lying on the street, an empty wine bottle in his hand, and he’s > saying: “What ever happened to me,… I COULD HAVE become a football pro, if > only I had tried harder,... or I COULD HAVE helped my father - but now he’s > sold the farm.” It's like conditionnel 1 and conditionnel 2 in French ("je pourrais / j’aurais pû”), but how is it called in English? Thank you!


Meaning of "in a look of a frame of reference"

Does "in a look of a frame of reference" mean "regarding to sth."? Sorry, unfortunately I couldn't find a simple example.


Origin of the word "Bluechip"

The word "Bluechip" is used to refer to large cap companies which are in existence for at least 10 years. But why are they called Bluechips? What does the word denote?


Where does the anglicisation "Ottoman" come from?

Wikipedia on Ottoman Empire gives its naming as coming from the Ottoman Turkish language, but on that very page, the name of the language is transliterated as _Lisân-ı Osmânî_. In Russian we call the empire and language "Османская"/-ий, also transliterating as "Osman[suffix]". The trail vanishes there... Were telephones that bad that the Turks said "Os" and the English heard "Otto"?


Correct form for a page range?

Is, for example, "pp. 1567–93" an acceptable way to denote pages 1567 through 1593? In what contexts must you always write it in long form "pp. 1567–1593" instead? Also, what about in the case of smaller numbers, e.g. "pp. 54–7," or more complicated ranges, e.g. "pp. 6, 23–5, 7, 67–8, 94–117"?


What does ‘a man with 20/20 vision' mean other than ‘a man with a normal sight?

In the latest Time magazine’s “2013 Time 100” presenting the annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world, former governor of Alaska, Salah Palin endorsed Senator Rand Paul for Kentucky as: > “He is a voice of reason awakening the public to what must be done to > restore our prosperity and preserve the blessings of liberty for future > generations. His brand of libertarian-leaning conservatism attracts young > voters, and recently he inspired the nation with his Capraesque filibuster > demanding basic answers about our use of drones. \- -. There’s more where > that came from for this **bold Senator with 20/20 vision** willing to take a > stand for liberty.” http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/rand-paul/#ixzz2R36iTY7l I surmise ‘the bold Senator with 20/20 vision’ here means the senator with the common sense and sense of balance, but I’m not sure. Is it common to use ‘20/20 vision’ metaphorically for anything like this other than the measurement of visual acuity?


Is the difference in "sake" in English and Japanese a form of semantic change?

In Japanese, "sake" means any alcoholic beverage, whereas in English, it means a particular beverage from Japan (Nihonshu, literally "Japanese alcohol"). Is this a case of semantic change, or is there a different term for it? The examples given in Wikipedia only list changes over time, not changes when it's taken from one language to another. **Edit:** I may be mistaken - it looks like the Japanese used to say "sake" rather than "nihonshu", and the latter only occurred once western alcoholic beverages came into Japan.


"A lot of ideas" is or are?

My boyfriend and I are arguing about whether the phrase "a lot of ideas" should be followed with _is_ or _are_. I say that it should be _is_ because the verb is linking to _a lot_ , not _ideas_. If it were "lots of ideas" I would say it is definitely _are_. He thinks, though, that since _a lot_ is synonymous with _several_ it should be _are_. Which is correct?


Is 'set phrase' a set phrase?

Some words or phrases have 'special' meaning beyond the combination of constituent parts. For example:   * 'White House' is the white house where the US president lives.    * 'black board' is where you draw on with chalk at school [actually more recently a green board and in the past 20 years a 'white board' (which is white)]. Negative examples (phrases or constructions that are _not_ examples of the concept):   * 'quasi-' anything: (I find) is -not- a 'special thing' for me, it is not a new word with a meaning all its own, 'quasi' is just a productive modifier that doesn't mean anything more than itself and the new word it makes can be judged simply as 'almost like an X'   * colors usually (with some example exceptions above) don't make anything 'new' - a 'red door' is just a door colored red. If it took on some cultural connection, then it might need an additional dictionary specification for that term 'red door'. I'm not talking about the figurative (non-literal, metaphorical) uses of such terms, but certainly **metaphor** ("White House' as the seat of American government), and **idiom** ('raining cats and dogs') are examples of the idea 'a set phrase'. When a **neologism** or coinage becomes an accepted item. For example, if you look at a list of words that begin with the prefix 'quasi-', almost entirely, these words are not special or used ever again, or if they're used again it is simply out of logical need of the construction. They don't describe a recognizably repeatable 'thing'. What I'm looking for is the appropriate way to designate a locution that is more than the sum of its parts. I've been using the bland term 'set phrase' to call this phenomenon. It itself is not particularly evocative of the 'noncompositional' aspect of some phrases. **Is _set phrase_ the best way to name this phenomenon? or is there another**?


Usage of dash in the sentence

I came across the below line in a newspaper > Wayne Rooney finally scored his first World Cup goal for England - after 759 > minutes, in his third cup and 10th game. Why is the dash required in the sentence? If the sentence was like below without the dash, what difference would it make? (I do not see any difference, or perhaps I am missing something) > Wayne Rooney finally scored his first World Cup goal for England _after 759 > minutes_ , in his third cup and 10th game.


Is "please let me know if otherwise" grammatical?

Is this sentence grammatical? > "please let me know if otherwise" The context for it is when I am sending an email to the boss saying: > I am gonna do this and that, please let me know if otherwise. What I am trying to say is " _please let me know if you disagree with my approach_ ," etc.


Using quotes around a nickname that's in the possive

I wanted to send a reading list to my dad about the state of the economy. One such commentator is known as "Dr. Doom". I went to write :   * _"Dr. Doom's" view is ..._ **but that didn't look right because his name is Dr. Doom, not Dr. Doom's** , so I tried   * _"Dr. Doom"'s view is ..._ **but that looked pretty terrible because I have three apostrophes in a row making it look like some crazy emoticon or something.** This might not have a solution. My question is how to correctly use "double quotes" around "nouns" that are in the "possessive form" ? <\-- _and where should that question mark go, **inside** or **outside** the qoutes?_


How do you create the adjective form of an irregular verb such as "read"?

If I understand correctly, some adjectives can be derived from verbs. For example, an **interested** person is someone who is interested in me, and an **interesting** person is someone who is interesting to me. So how you do it with irregular verbs? In the phrase "do something with data which was read" could the "data which was read" be replaced with something like "the **read** or **readed** data"? I'm confused by fact that this verb irregular and is spelled the same in 1-3 forms.


What does "even the Generation is still in motion" mean in this passage?

> The Beat Generation is a group of American post-WWII writers who came to > prominence in the 1950s, as well as the cultural phenomena that they both > documented and inspired. Central elements of "Beat" culture included > experimentation with drugs and alternative forms of sexuality, an interest > in Eastern religion, a rejection of materialism, and the idealizing of > exuberant, unexpurgated means of expression and being. **Even still the > Generation is in motion**.


Is the etymology of the word "pandaemonium" in any way related to that of the mythological figure Pandora?

Do _pandemonium_ and Pandora (she of the box) come from the same etymological source?


What is the difference between "bush" and "shrub"?

What's the difference between "bush" and "shrub"? Are these absolute synonyms?


What does 'ironic' really mean?

I've heard different meanings and uses of ironic everywhere. But I still can't wrap my head around what exactly is ironic. Can someone explain or provide an example?


Word for a male that prefers female companions (no slang such as "pimp")

I am looking for a word describing a man who has a lot of female friends, and who prefers female friends. I was "Wikipedia surfing" (going through Wikipedia pages and clicking on links found within the wiki), and I came upon the page of a man who had a lot of female friends, and there was a word that described that attribute succinctly. I do not remember any details about the bloke. I looked up the word (I seemingly immediately forgot it), and, to tell the truth, I am unsure whether the word defined "someone who has a lot of friends of the opposite sex" (which, if true, means in my memory I incorrectly paired the word's definition to his gender), or more specifically, "a man who has a lot of female friends (and/or) prefers female companionship", where companionship does not insinuate sexual relationships. If there were _two_ words for the two definitions I just gave that'd be all the better! I have tried to remember for quite a while to no success. An update: perhaps an example for some clarification is necessary. Imagine a scenario where you have a gay man (who has never had sexual interests in women) who has all female friends, who know he is gay, and no male friends. Here he prefers the companionship of women, and not of men; thus, he _could_ be a "ladies' man", but only speciously, since I believe the word implies some yearning, from either the women or the "ladies' man", to copulate, which doesn't exist here. The word would also apply for a lesbian who only has male friends (who she has no desire to copulate with), and who thus prefers them as companions. So, generally, we'd get: "someone who prefers the company of members of the opposite sex". I hope this clarifies the request some. Thank you.


What is an adjective made from a verb called? For instance, "disconnected" in "a disconnected phone"

What would you call an adjective that is created from a verb? Typically, the adjective comes from the past participle form of the verb. For example: > A _disconnected_ phone > > A _possessed_ man > > An _inspired_ art piece You wouldn't say these words are past participles, because they are not, they are adjectives. What type of adjective are they, though?


Is the clause "chances are" grammatically correct?

You've most certainly heard this: > _Chances are, he overslept this morning._ I realize the comma is a splice, but it's there only to emphasize the pause that usually accompanies it. When written out, it should probably look like this: > _Chances are he overslept this morning._ However, when you read into it, it doesn't make any sense. I would say that using such a clause is grammatically incorrect. Instead, I believe people should be saying: > _The chances are high that he overslept this morning._ Am I correct?


Tenses with "until then" - Is past perfect needed or is it optional?

If I understood correctly, "until now" can be "until then" in the past sentences. Would this be correct? > 1) _It was a new approach that **was** never successfully performed until > then._ or should I use past perfect? > 2) _It was a new approach that **had** never **been** successfully performed > until then._


Present or Past tense to describe a past condition which is still present?

Scenario: My friend John has a personality disorder, intensely paranoid for example. Can I say: > There were three events last year that told me John _had_ a problem. or can I say: > There were threee events last year that told me John _has_ a problem.


"Has received" in past tense sentence?

"It occurred to me that no Korean has ever received the Nobel Prize in Literature." In this sentence, is "has received" right, rather than "had received"? Is it because "that" indicates continuation into the present? In other words, there's no Korean Nobel Prize recipient even now?


What is the role of "virtually" in this sentence?

> It is virtually impossible to escape this place! I don't really understand what is _virtually_ doing there. First, I can hardly tell what it means to be _virtual_ , and second, I still don't see any extra value added to the sentence compared to > It is impossible to escape this place! As far as I can tell, _virtually_ seems to simply give **emphasis** to the current situation. But I'm lost. According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtual, > 1 . Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, > form, or name: _the virtual extinction of the buffalo_. I don't get that meaning, and I certainly don't even understand the difference between _the virtual extinction of the buffalo_ and _the extinction of the buffalo_. Now then, I may have grabbed the wrong definition. Here's the other one: > 2 . Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used > in literary criticism of a text. This definition seems to suggest me that _virtually_ is used to create some kind of **psychological** (of the mind) context. So when they say > It is virtually impossible to escape this place! It is meant to say something like "even though it is physically possible to escape, people are too scared to even try to do it - therefore, it is rather impossible to escape". Not sure. Any ideas about the usage of _virtually_? **Note** : The context in the sentence I provided is basically this: It is from an article about a community where people are so poor that > It is virtually impossible to escape this place!


Is this sentence structure correct?

I'm trying to state in one sentence several things that are lacking. > There's no A, or B, or C. What about > There's no A, no B, and no C. Are these both grammatically correct? What's the difference?


Theorem about uniqueness of solution

I want to write down such a theorem. **Theorem**. Strong existence and pathwise uniqueness hold for Equation (8). A unique solution is a continuous Markov process. I have a question concerning the usage of an article. Should I write "A unique solution" or "The unique solution"? As a non-native speaker of English, I have problems understanding how to use the phrase "a unique solution" solution correctly.


Difference between "testified" and "stated" in a legal context

If you're working in a law firm, do the words "testified" and "stated" have two different meanings? For example, > The witness testified that...   >  The witness stated that... And is it acceptable to use the two as synonyms?


Why can we say 'an American' but not 'a British'?

I am confused with the use of an indefinite article in front of _British_ or _Chinese_. To my understanding, we can place an indefinite article in front of any “countable noun”. So, we can say _a cup_ and _an orange_. But when it comes to nationalities, it is very confusing. For example, we can say _an American_ or _a German_. But we cannot say _a British_ or _a Chinese_. I looked them up in a dictionary as at first I thought _British_ and _Chinese_ are adjectives in the above statement and that is why we cannot place an article in front of it. However, the dictionary mentions that they are nouns. Does that mean they are uncountable nouns?


Percentages - singular or plural when it's a % of a group of items:

Example : 50% of paper and board produced globally is/are used for packaging?


Unrespect vs Disrespect

Is it ok to say "do not unrespect me" instead of "do not disrespect me"? I heard someone say it and it struck me as odd.


Is it ok to say “mutually practice together”?

Is it correct to say > This way we can mutually practice together. Since _mutually_ has already been mentioned, is it correct if I use the word _together_ at the end? It may be redundant, but is it wrong?


"I went for a run with Victor" vs. "we went for a run with Victor" when only the two of us went

Myself and Victor went for a run, no one else. Can I say > "We went for a run with Victor?" OR > "I went for a run with Victor?"


Earliest use of an asterisk (*) to indicate a zero-to-many character wildcard?

I was explaining to someone what the * in "trans*" means (zero-to-many wildcard. In this case, it's used to refer to both "transexual" and "transgender" people with the same word), and another friend chimed in saying it came from computer programming. While I could tell them it was used in operating systems such as DOS and Unix before that, I couldn't say whether it came from computer culture or appeared before that. It seems reasonable that there would have been use for it, but a different character may easily have been chosen. _What is the earliest recorded instance of an asterisk being used as a zero- to-many character wildcard?_ Note: I'm not referring to masks such as "f*ck". That is a different concept, in that it's a replacement of exactly one character, and is referring to only a single word.


Meaning of "far and few between" in this context

I came across the following sentence in "The Carpetbagger Report": > The administration published this afternoon a newly released, and > surprisingly short, declassified summary of the key judgments of the > National Intelligence Estimate on al Qaeda. The document is online for all > to see. > > The startling new revelations are ... far and few between. The terrorist > network is rebuilding, its leadership is located largely in tribal areas of > Pakistan, and it’s still focused on committing acts of terror ‘without > requiring a centralized terrorist organization, training camp or leader.” Can someone explain the meaning of the phrase "... **far and few between** " in that context? Presumably it is an idiom, but I have not been able to find its meaning on the internet.


What's the meaning of following sentence

I got this sentence from a book, but i don't understand it: > Orgasm gets the lion's share of her attention.


What's a word for father and mother without the "family" connotations?

Is there a word to refer to "father" and "mother" without the _family_ connotations? For example, there was a guy who refer to his parents using the terms "sperm and egg bank": > They were my sperm and egg bank. That’s not harsh, it’s just the way it was, > a sperm bank thing, nothing more. What other more grammatically correct alternatives are there?


Typographical symbol to indicate page

There are many typographical symbols, for example:   * The pilcrow (¶) is used for paragraphs.   * The asterisk, dagger and double dagger (*,†,‡) for footnotes.   * The hurricane (§) for sections. Is there any symbol for pages?


How to spell 'ewww' as in 'ewww ahhh'

I was wondering how I should spell 'ewww' as in 'ewww ahhh': > Bob showed Jill his most impressive set of magic cards. Jill, impressed, > said, 'ewwww[sp?] ahhhhhh.' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-yCg-0-baE


What does "cable" mean?

I came across the word "cable" very often in http://www.guardian.co.uk. Like:   * WikiLeaks cables: Drive to tackle Islamists made 'little progress'   * US embassy cables: How the Guardian protects sources   * WikiLeaks embassy cables: the key points at a glance I know what a cable is, but what does "cable" here mean?


What is the difference between "truthfully" and "honestly"?

These are different words, and their usage (context) differs substantially. How would you define them or explain the difference (if you believe there is one)?


Why is this a hyperbaton?

According to Wikipedia, this is a hyperbaton: > "Whom god wishes to destroy, he first makes mad" — Euripides Is that right, and if so, why? My native language is Swedish, but I speak English fluently. Anyway, why isn't the following considered hyperbaton too? > It's not that hard, I suppose. It's very common in Swedish, which may be the reason why it sounds so natural to me, but still, it's rather common in English too.


"on the one hand" without the other hand

I've been wondering if it would look strange if I didn't include both "pairs" of this idiom, e.g.: > In recent times a significant increase of popularity of teaching English as > a foreign language in kindergartens is observed. However, it may be > surrounded by many doubts, the main reasons being the great demand for this > type of activities from parents, and at the same time the lack of specific, > clear guidelines governing the teaching of English, which could be of help > to those responsible for introduction of such classes into kindergartens. I know it's possible (and indeed used) the other way around but I am not sure in this case.


"Drag & dropping" or "Dragging & dropping"

_"Drag & dropping"_ sounds better to me, but _"Dragging & dropping"_ has more Google results... Which one is correct and why?


correct usage of “instead of”

Would any one let me know the correct usage of _instead of_? Here, I have written an example. > In this example case, if we traverse from vertex 2 to 3, _in stead of_ > vertex 2 to 4, the problem can be solved.


Relative nonrestrictive clause: "where they can debut unreleased and sought-after music"

> It has been designed to become an artist’s haven for unannounced top DJ > performances where they can debut unreleased and sought-after music. What kind of clause is "where they can debut unreleased and sought-after music"? Noun, adverb, or relative? I'm guessing it's not a noun clause, but I could be wrong. I'm leaning towards relative adjective clause.


How do you tell if synonyms of "almost" default to meaning "less than"?

Having just had a chat with Em1, I noticed that some words or phrases that mean _almost_ will mean _less than_ when used alone, and other synonyms will mean _greater than_. For example, _nearly_ and _close to_ seem to mean _less than_ when used alone: >   * You're nearly 30! >   * You're nearly there. >   * We've close to the required number of participants. > Whereas _barely_ and _just_ seem to mean _greater than or equal to_ : >   * He's barely 18! >   * We've barely enough for breakfast. >   * We've just finished. >   * They'll just be coming over the hill. > If you swap any of the adverbs around then the meaning goes with them. However, if you change the context a little bit then the meaning can switch around: >   * 31 is close to 30. >   * We're just short of the required number. > If we take the over/under question of Em1: > The village is located [almost] 30 km to the south of London. How can you tell if a synonym for _almost_ means _less than_ or _greater than_?


A situation when you do too many thing but achieve nothing

I am looking for few nouns describing "a situation when one does too many things but achieve nothing important or useful".


More Scientific/Psychological Terms for "Acting the Part"

Is there a scientific term or psychological phonomenon for meeting your goals by imagining you have already met them? For example, if I wanted to be a corporate executive, then I might decide to act and work like I was already a corporate executive, in the hopes that one day hiring representatives might notice that I already have the persona and work ethic required for the job, and therefore promote me to such a role? I guess I'm looking for something like "acting the part"... but in more of a behavioural science kind of way.


Does "[noun] of choice" imply the best possible option, or merely *an* option?

If I say something is the "treatment of choice" or the "pencil of choice", etc., does that imply that this is the _best_ of all the possible choices available -- that those who _know best_ would choose this -- or just that there are many choices available, and this is the one that happens to have been chosen at the moment?


"It is to be discussed", what is the infinitive doing in this sentence?

> It is to be discussed. Is _be_ \+ infinitive forming the future tense here? > You are to be dressed and ready by 8:00. I was thinking it's almost commanding (or speaking of a command) but this doesn't seem to be the case, as sentences like this are commanding without this structure: > You will be dressed and ready by 8:00. or > You are going to be dressed and ready by 8:00. And there's sentences like this that don't imply commandment in any way: > I am to go home tomorrow! or > I am to be home tomorrow! (Slightly different meaning, same general sentiment) So what's going on with the _be_ \+ infinitive structure?


Commas in a complex sentence

> Modern English words, then, concerning more complex and theoretical, rather > than utilitarian, ideas (astronomy, poetry and epistemology) can generally > be found to be of Romance origin, whereas more mundane words such as > pronouns and auxiliary verbs can be traced back to German origin." **Question:** I am unable to understand the meaning of above sentence. I am confused with the use of commas in the above sentence and to me this makes the meaning of the sentence unclear. Can somebody explain this sentence structure and how commas are used? _Context_ : This is an excerpt from a reading comprehension passage. The passage is long but I have added a few more lines so that context becomes more clear. One theory to explain this is that the more elaborate and complex words are primarily used by the elite after the Norman Invasion - who would have favored a Latin-based (or Romance) vocabulary - wheras words with the same meaning in the Old English were used primarily by the lower classes and fell into disuse.


Using "not" versus the negation prefixes for negation

Let's take this sentence as an example > He is able to move. Now, what is the best negation of that action between those two? >   * He is not able to move. >   * He is unable to move. > And what makes one better or more correct than the other? **Edit:** In case these sentences aren't good enough, give examples of your own if you please.


Generic word for hyphen, dash, minus sign, etc.?

I look for a proper English word that could be an informal generic term for “bar-like” typographic marks such as hyphens, dashes, minus signs and so on. Is it _bar_? _line_? _stroke_? or another?


Word meaning "to make more efficient"?

I think this question came up in a conversation with a friend...we were discussing how serving lunch could be made more efficient. > They could **___ ____** the lunch line by doing this or that. The only word we could think of was "efficienize", but I doubt that's an actual word. Any ideas?


"Through the course" vs. "over the course"

I have heard the following used often > Over the course of the semester, ... but a friend recently told me > Through the course of the semester, ... Are both of these usages of the idiom acceptable? I feel like the second one is strange while the first one is acceptable.


"Scheduled to September" vs. "scheduled in September"

>   * She is qualified to attend the test being scheduled [to/in] September. > Which is right?


Noun that means "To not take advantage of anyone"

I am writing an essay on _To Kill A Mockingbird_ and need a noun that is synonymous with "not taking advantage of anyone" as I need to be able to say: Scout learns [Insert the noun here].


Is what you "transcend" singular or plural?

I'm working on making changes to some text for a project that I'm on. One of the proposed changes is to the following: > [He] has fostered creative environments that attract diverse talent who > understand how to **transcend medium** and know how to intuitively build > community around brands. The part in bold has had a proposed change to "transcend media" (going to plural, instead of singular). Which one is correct? If they both are, are there situations where one would be favored over the other?


Is there a word whose meaning is "to dissociate from another or others for mutual benefit"?

I read that _cooperate_ means "to associate with another or others for mutual benefit," but what is the verb, possibly a single word, that means "to **_dissociate from_** another or others for mutual benefit"? The word that comes to mind immediately is _divorce_ because there's a benefit at the bottom of it, but that benefit can hardly be considered mutual, and, aside its metaphorical sense, it can be applied to no more than two persons. Thus, what is the word meaning "to **_dissociate from_** another or others for mutual benefit"?


Term for pertaining to the polar direction

I am discussing a system (in a scientific context) which is described with spherical polar coordinates. This has a radial coordinate _r_ , a polar angle _θ_ and a azimuth angle _φ_. A diagram can be found on the linked page. I would like a term to describe (for example) motion in the polar direction (increasing or decreasing _θ_ ). The equivalent terms for the other two directions would be "radial" and "azimuthal". There are several possibilities:   * "Polar" is the obvious choice, but this could also mean motion of the pole itself.   * "Poloidal" seems to mean the correct thing, but might only refer to a toroidal, instead of a spherical, geometry.   * "Poleward", but this has connotations of only being towards the nearest pole. Hence the word we are looking for is to "poleward" as "vertical" is to "upward".   * "Vertical" is used by some, as the _θ_ direction is parallel to the _z_ -axis in the equatorial plane, and the _z_ -axis is commonly taken to be the vertical direction. However, this is inappropriate close to the pole when the _θ_ direction becomes horizontal.   * "Latitudinal" describes the correct direction, but seems odd when not paired with "longitudinal" for azimuthal motion. Is there another term, or is there a clear best option?


What is the meaning of this sentence?"I shall pay for this later."

What is the meaning of this sentence? "I shall pay for this later."


Online Grammar checker

I often find myself debating about the correct use of English grammar in many situations. Some of them are obvious and silly. It would be nice to know a tool like spell checker for grammatical errors. There are many websites that I find useful but not effective. I would like to collect some online resources specifically for the grammar related error. Some resources I know are:   * "SpellCheckPlus" Online Spelling and Grammar Checker for English   * Free Online Grammar Checker   * Instant Grammar Check - Online Proofreading|Grammarly   * Grammar | Check English Grammar Online for Free   * Check Grammar Free Online with Fast English Corrections | Ginger I have also looked at previous posts like:   * What are your favorite English language tools?   * English tools for non-English-speaking people and many other individual posts.


"I want to be much than more" vs. "much then more"

The doubt came after listening to _Fireal_ from Deftones. I'm not sure of the meaning, or should I say the point the singer wants to make. This is the context: > Life before I would shine down unshy   >  It comes from the first one   >  While I watch you   >  I want to be much than more   >  While I watch you Lyrics aren't present on the or the disc itself so while researching on the internet I've found some sites where the lyric is shown as "I want to be much, then more". But most of them say "...much than more". So I guess that's the right one (my ears are not trained enough to actually get it right from the get-go by just listening to it). What do you get from "I want to be much than more"? * * * On the other hand, if you do believe "much than more" is wrong and the right one has to be "much then more" please say so. English is clearly not "my" language, so feel free to teach me a thing or two.


Opposite of "specialized" in the context of computing units

A graphics card or an algebraic co-processor is a **specialized** computing unit. A conventional CPU, which understands a lot more instructions, is a **flexible** computing unit. I'm not happy with using **flexible** in the second sentence. What are other possibilities?


Is the SE "new privilege" notification message a sentence?

When a Stack Exchange user gets a new privilege, it's accompanied by the following notification: > Congrats, you've gained the privilege – talk in chat **learn more** That phrase "may be oddly worded, but it is a valid sentence," according to Jeff. I'm not so sure. Who's right?


using the word found in a poem

I have the line: > Whereupon the new found its gallows. In this case, could _found_ double as "found having come upon" and "found having outfitted or equipped" and be used without having to used "founded"?


Where do I position the apostrophe in a plural possessive?

I wanted to write _parents birthdays_ but I wasn’t sure whether the apostrophe went before or after the _s_ in _parents_. Please explain which is correct and why.


what do you call the feeling of pain addict have before using drug?

when addicts don't use drug for a rather long time, they feel kind of angry and are in a bad mood. they also feel pain over their body I think(esp opium users.) what is that feeling or mood called?


A word for someone who comes from one city but supports a team from a different city?

Is there a word that describes someone who, for example, supports Manchester United but was neither born nor brought up in Manchester but comes from another city in the UK? I'm not looking for a rude or humorous word but rather a descriptive one.


A word for blowing air into baby's tummy to make him(her) laugh

How do you call the action when you press your mouth against baby's tummy and blow the air to make the baby laugh?


Is there any phrase for journalists lies?

I need a word or a phrase or expression for journalists lies.. There must be something...


"obstacle to developing '" vs "obstacle in developing"?

Which proposition are used after obstacle? I have seen both "in" and "to". what are the difference between them? for example, what is the difference between the following sentences/ There is an obstacle in developing ..... or There is an obstacle to developing ......


What do you call a person who dies an honourable death?

What do you call someone who dies for a good cause or an honourable reason? An example would be a soldier who dies while saving his country.


Is "update" transitive or intransitive?

According to many dictionaries including merriam-webster, **update** is a **transitive** verb. So I expect the following sentence (used in Firefox) to be incorrect: > Please wait while Firefox is updating. I think Firefox is the object of this sentence and it should have been used like this: > Please wait while Firefox is being updated. Is the first sentence grammatically correct?


Is "today's" grammatical as a singular possessive?

Is the following correct? > Today's easy to use models can come in handy for a variety of purposes. Is _today's_ correct as a singular possessive?


How did the use of "could of" and "should of" originate, and is it considered correct?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is “of” instead of “have” correct? It bothers me that so many people use `could of`, `would of`, `should of` instead of `could've` or `could have`, etc. For instance, I have seen people write `I could of been hurt` or `I should of seen that truck`. Does anyone know how this originated? Is this a mistake only American English speakers make, or is it common with British English speakers too? Also, is that actually legal English?


Would you say "not of been" or "not have been"

I have just wrote out a sentence that ended, "this would not _of_ been possible." but the more I look at it, the more it looks wrong. Would the correct saying be, "this would not _have_ been possible."? Or do both apply?


Is "of" instead of "have" correct?

I have noticed a lot of people use _of_ instead of _have_ , for example: "that must of been really annoying". Is this correct?


Position of "yet" in a causative sentence

If I have to write a causative sentence in Present Perfect, where should I put _yet_ , at the end of the question or right after the negation? >   * She hasn't had her doors mended by the carpenter yet. >   * She hasn't had her doors mended yet by the carpenter. >   * Has she had her doors mended yet? > Could I say this: >   * She hasn't had yet her doors mended. >   * Has she had yet her doors mended? > Which is the right order, or are both acceptable?


Opposite logical fallacy to "straw man"?

The straw man fallacy is where an attacker sets up a "straw man" that looks superficially similar to their _opponent's_ position, but is more easily _attacked_. They then attack the straw man and claim to have successfully defeated the opponent's position. In the reverse of this, a defender sets up an "iron man" (perhaps?) that looks superficially similar to _their own_ position, but is more easily _defended_. They successfully defend the iron man and claim to have successfully defended their own position. Is there an existing word for this latter fallacy? I get the impression people often do it subconsciously, and sometimes before an attack is even made (examples). You could call it a straw man attack on behalf of the defendant I suppose (i.e. your straw man is your misrepresentation of the attacker's stance as an attack on the iron man) but that adds a level of indirection over the original situation that the fallacy describes. Also, if the defense is conceived of before an attack is made, the "straw man" wouldn't even exist yet - only a plan to construct him should the need arise - but the "iron man" is definitely there all along.


How can we use "do"

If I have to write the same name many times like > Ramesh Mishra   >  Ramesh Mishra I can write it as > Ramesh Mishra   >  \----do------- Here, what is the meaning of _do_?


Idiot vs stupid

What is the difference between the subject words?


How to ask in a polite way

I am an international student in the U.S.A. I am writing an email and I am stuck on one sentence. I would like to say: **"Do you know when I can get the flyers?"** I would like to make the sentence more polite. Could I say: **"Would you know when I could get the flyers?"** If there are other ways to use polite language, could you please tell me? If possible, please post an online reference as a citation. Sorry, I forgot to mention about the situation or so on. I am writing an email to someone who is going to deliver the flyers and organize an event. I'm going to promote the event with the flyers. So technically, the person who I'm emailing is kind of my boss. Thus, I think I should write a polite email to him.


"on most of the accounts"

> On most of the accounts, life of a farmer is very hard. Is the use of the phrase 'on most of the accounts' right here? If not, what will be the best substitution?


About the usage of term 'come again'

Last week I was attending a communications training program. The trainer said that the term 'come again' has sexual meaning in American English. I was surprised as I have seen many Americans using the term in movies and meetings. Is there any such negative sense to the phrase?


Is "take care" always a friendly utterance or can it sometimes be considered threatening?

A little while ago someone wrote to me, in a not-too-friendly internet exchange, "take care, man". I interpreted that as a threat, but now I realize that Americans often use this expression "take care" in a very friendly, benevolent way when leaving each other. So my two related questions are:   1. Considering this widespread usage, is it still possible (in the US) to use that expression in a threatening way?    2. If you _wanted_ to threaten someone (!) what would you say? I'm thinking of some scenario in a film where a character approached by some suspicious guy would want to say "be careful [ I'm armed]". Is "be careful" right? Is some other expression more adequate?


"Look into" vs. "look at"

Are _look into_ and _look at_ interchangeable? If not what are the differences between the two? > I will **look at** my options and see what I have. > > I will **look into** my options and see what I have. > > I will **look into** it and let you know. Or the government is going to > **look into** the case.


Is there a name for the stars you see when you hit your head?

When you hit your head, you may see stars or flashes. Is there a specific name for them?


What term can be used to describe Yoda's speech?

What is Yoda's speech called? Is there a particular name for it (such as "dangling...")?


Meaning of "true north"

> Roz, I'm just trying to find my **true north**


What does “She was young and blithe, 22 going on 16” mean?

I found the phrase ““She was young and blithe, _22 going on 16_ ” in the article of the Time magazine (July 6 issue) dealing with the Casey Anthony Verdict, under the title, “The Casey Anthony Verdict The Jury Did the Right Thing.” I know Casey Anthony was 22 when her 2-years old daughter was killed, but I have no idea about “goes on 16.” What does it mean? “Is the phrase, “ _go on 16_ ” understood without question to any native English speakers? The sentence in question reads: “And yet, why would Anthony kill her daughter? When Caylee died in 2008, her mother was young and blithe, _22 going on 16_. Anthony lived with her parents, dated lots of guys and wasn't thrilled about having to care every day for a 2-year-old. And so she chloroformed the girl? Or duct-taped her face?”


A term for released software that is still being actively developed

I'm writing an academic paper that deals with classifying software and I'm trying to think of a term to describe software that is still being actively developed, with new versions being released periodically, like Windows, MS Office, Firefox, etc. An example of software that wouldn't be included in such a group would be any type of legacy software. Terms that come to mind are "survived" and "endured", but I'm sure there must be a better word. Any suggestions?


"because" after "since"

Can "because" come after "since?" Here's an example sentence. > I don't like when you do that, because since it makes you look weird, it > also makes me look weird when I'm with you. Is there anything grammatically wrong with that sentence? "Since" after "because" works here, right?


Alternative phrasing to "getting work done"

I find myself using the phrase **"I need to get some work done"** in a misleading way. At any given time, I'm working on projects for my employer, projects as a podcaster, projects at my home or just projects I've assigned myself that are more open ended research and development type. That leaves me with the phrase "I need to get some work done," which gives an impression workaholism as opposed to a curious self-starter. What's a single phrase or phrasing syntax that'd help me be more aligned with what I want people to convey?


When do you use "you don't say"?

**you don't say** My doubt is whether you use this for _exclamations_ or for _agreements_ , all the references pointed out for saying it when one is surprised but I am sure I have heard some one say this in an _agreeing_ way > _I failed in my maths exam_ > > _You don't say!_ > > * * * > > _The weather is nice today_ > > _You don't say_


Is the following idiomatic English: "At what time do you go to sleep?"

I once asked some English people the following question: "At what time do you go to sleep?" They gave me a blank stare. You see, I tried to avoid the standard expression "At what time do you go to bed?" because it is ambiguous. I may get into my bed but may not fall asleep right away. I may be reading or emailing on my iPad or watch TV.


"the average person" vs "an average person"

There's a question in a forum I frequent, and I'm trying to decide whether "the average" or "an average" is appropriate in its title. Let's say the question is: > "Why is **the** average Canadian more polite than **the** average American?" > [see note]. Another member of the forum feels that this is incorrect grammar and wants it to be changed to: > "Why is **an** average Canadian more polite than **an** average American?". I disagree on both counts with him: I don't think the original question was grammatically incorrect, and I don't think the edited version conveys the same question as the original. However, I only have a vague sense of the difference, that " _the_ average Canadian" talks about the average of all people in that society, whereas " _an_ average Canadian" refers to a particular segment of the society, the segment which is nearest to the average (in some measure) of the society. Is the original title correct, and does the edited version convey the same meaning as the original? What exactly is the difference between " _an_ average" and " _the_ average" in this use case? [Note: The original question was equally loaded and stereotyping, which is one reason I'm not linking to it here.]


"Which professors..." or "Whom professors..."?

Which one is correct?   1. Which professors do you recommend?   2. Whom professors do you recommend?


Name for setup and reversal style of writing?

What is the name of an expression where two noun/verb sentences are reversed in the second half of the expression? Here's an example: > People were created to be loved. Things were created to be used. The reason > the world is in chaos is because things are being loved and people are being > used.


Ways to greet a third person in a conversation?

For example a situation where you are on the phone with a friend and he is with a person that you know. You would ask him to say hi for you. The french equivalent would be "Passer le bonjour" I am looking for formal and informal ways to say that.


Can 'on' be used in a temporal setting?

I usually replace _upon_ with _on_ because it sounds less pompous. Is it correct to do so when the meaning is temporal? Consider > Languages change (up)on contacting others. Should I replace _upon_ with _when_ intead?


What is the difference between two words "amorphous" and "mercurial"?

The meanings in the dictionary are as follows: amorphous: without a clearly defined shape or form. mercurial: subject to sudden or unpredictable changes of mood or mind. What is the origin of the word "mercurial"? If the chemical element mercury is it's origin, then since mercury is amorphous, should both of these words not mean the same?


"Are those a new [object]?"

Is this question grammatical: > Are those a new [object]? I know that the singular form of that question, " _Is that a new [object]?_ ", sound perfectly fine but the collective form of it sounds odd, at least for me?


Origin of "despicable"

I was looking at the wikiquote of Daffy Duck, when I noticed the word _despicable_. What is its origin? Is it Latin or Greek?


difference between "to share in" and "to share"

The following is part of a Washington Post article of today. > This may be Obama’s military intervention, but if she is a candidate in > 2016, Clinton could share in whatever credit or blame the public assigns to > his decisions. Is there any difference in the meaning or nuance between > _share in whatever credit or blame_ and   >  _share whatever credit or blame_ (without _in_ ) ?


Citing a name with punctuation at the end

I'm using IEEE citation and the title of the work I am trying to cite has punctuation at the end. I'm unsure how to proceed because part of the citation includes putting a period at the end of the title. For example, I am citing this webpage and am not sure if the title should appear with a question mark **and** period when I cite it. > Editor. **“What is a Hypervisor?.”** Internet: .... > > Editor. **“What is a Hypervisor?”.** Internet: .... > > Editor. **“What is a Hypervisor?”** Internet: .... Also, I've seen others claiming to use the same style of citation but having the period appear after the closing quote. Is there some flexibility in citation or are people really supposed to follow it exactly?


What does the word "tie" (and the thing called "tie") imply?

I find the symbolic meaning of standard pieces of clothing or jewelry fascinating. For instance, high heel shoes for women. A colleague of feminist persuasion once said that apart from all other values and signals high heel shoes might convey, they make the wearer look like a "prey that cannot run away". A delicate chain necklace adorning the neck of an attractive young lady could add to this look, because it suggests, to the male libido, that she might, with the right moves, be captured and enslaved. Needless to say my colleague never wears high heel shoes or necklaces. What might the symbolic meaning of the male necktie be? I'm referring to the collar-and-tie formally required of men in recent centuries. Is any inkling given in the word "tie"?


I have been sick for the last week?

I' would like to know whether or not the following sentences are correct and why: > I have been sick since last week. > > I have been sick since the last week. > > I have been sick for the last week.


For as long "as" ... ? When is the last as not used? What are the rules?

For instance: > For as long as it takes... but > For as long we have a future... I know how to use them because I heard them being used, but I don't know whether there is a rule or not.


I'm looking for an idiomatic expression meaning 'that old problem'

It's on the tip of my tongue but I can't think of the expression referring to a repeated problem that gets verbalised; something like 'that old nugget'??!


Can "edition" be used to mean "the act of editing/changing something"?

As one say _creation_ for "the act of creating something", couldn't the word _edition_ mean "the act of changing something"? I was under the impression it was the case. But a remark from one of my colleagues, telling me I should use _editing_ instead, prompted me to check on Wiktionary. As it turned out, I didn't find the meaning I searched under the definitions. Note that my colleague and I both are not native speakers. So which of us is right?


What is the opposite of the verb "animate"?

What is the opposite of the verb _animate_? I am looking for something meaning "take life out of something."


Use of the term Hans in an American name in the 1700's

I'm doing some research on family history. I am trying to track some people that came to the U.S from Germany in 1737 on the ship "Charming Nancy". Here's the link: http://www.progenealogists.com/palproject/pa/1737cnan.htm Close to the bottom of the list are the names:   * Thomas Spiri   * Sara   * Anna Eva, 27   * Hans Peter, 26   * Hans Henrich, 24   * Hans Jacob, 21   * Hans Thomas, 20   * Hans Nickel, 16   * Johan Jacob, 14 I'm trying to decide if the term "Hans" is an English/American version of a German term for men of some age (maybe 16?) or older. For example, the first name "Thomas" with no age given might be a very young boy (under the age of 14?). Where, Sara with no age might be a young girl. And, Johan Jacob, 14, a boy, does not have the "prefix" Hans. Can anyone point to a source/reference for this problem? Edit (08/01/2011) ========================================== After more research, it is possible that the first two names (both without an age) in the list are the names of the parents of this group. They didn't make the trip to America, but it could have been the names that would have identified "the group".


Why use 'I are' 'You is'?

I've seen many American and English people writing their sentences like this:   > I are...   >  You is...   > * * * While the way I've learned it, and seen most widely used is like this: > I am   >  You are   > * * * Is this some kind of a slang, or have I missed an English lesson?


"To hear" or "to hearing"?

I often see constructions like this one: > I look forward to hearing from you soon. It seems a little strange to me. In my mind it would look better using the infinitive form "to hear". I don't know if it has something with the verbals... Anyway, what I want to know is which form is correct and why?


Is there a double-meaning to "picking my belly button" in this context?

I understand all the individual words in the following remark, but there doesn't seem to be any connection between the first half and the second. I am left wondering whether there is an English idiom that gives a double-meaning to part of it (perhaps "picking my belly button"?), but if so it does not appear to be in any dictionary. > I'm not Catholic, but I gave up picking my belly button for lint. Reference: _The best God joke ever - and it's mine!_


Should I use "who" or "whom" as the only word in a sentence?

I understand that "who" is for the subject and "whom" is for the object. However, sometimes they are used as the only word in a sentence. For example: > Person 1: Yeah, he ate the entire cake. > > Person 2: Who(m)? Which form is correct? I can see it being short for both "Who is the person who ate the cake?" and "Whom are you talking about?"


Expression "that's the top and bottom of it"?

What is the meaning of the expression "that's the top and bottom of it"? In which situations can be used?


"Demonstratable" — a dictionary word, or just a well known hack?

Someone has just pointed out a mis-spelling on my site - _demonstratable_ , as in "demonstratable experience of...". I can't see it in the _New Oxford American Dictionary_ or the _Oxford Dictionary of English_. A quick Google shows it in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but it has a note attached: > This word doesn't usually appear in our free dictionary, but the definition > from our premium Unabridged Dictionary is offered here The closest matching word seems to be _demonstrable_ (which means the same but sounds like it shouldn't!). My question is, is _demonstratable_ a recognised dictionary word or just one that is generally accepted? Where do these edge-cases fit in? For example, when writing copy for a website or other literature, is it acceptable to use words like this on the assumption that, even if they are not in the dictionary, people will recognise the meaning?


Why is 'shucks' (as in 'aw, shucks') used with an '-s' ending?

I understand that 'shucks' is a slang that is: > used especially to express mild disappointment or embarrassment and this definition is listed separately from 'shuck' (the verb/noun) in merriam-webster. Oxford dictionary online  lists 'shucks' under 'shuck' as: > exclamation > > (shucks) informal > > used to express surprise, regret, irritation, or, in response to praise, > self-deprecation: 'Thank you for getting it.' 'Oh, shucks, it was nothing.' But neither explains why the exclamation must be 'shuck' + 's'. I don't really know if the 's' expresses a plural (from the noun 'shuck') or a 3rd person singular (from the verb 'shuck'). Some online sources like Urban Dictionary says it is > a combination of f*** and sh*t which I'm not really believing as I don't really hear people say 'aw f**k sh*ts' -it'd be more like 'f***ing sh*t'. So, why is there an '-s' ending in this usage?


Weaved or woven

Is _weaved_ an acceptable past-tense form of the word _weave_? Does it have to be _wove/woven_ or are both acceptable like _hung/hanged_?


What does "He who sups with the devil should have a long spoon" mean?

I've recently read this quote somewhere in a book and I can't seem to comprehend it.


Is "shined" correct? If so, is "he shined X on the tree" also correct?

Recently, I overhead a former professor of mine use the word _shined_ , a word that makes me grammatically uncomfortable. She used it as following: "Then, after we shined a light on the other ball, what happened?..." My first question is: Is using _shined_ mainstream, over what sounds better to my ear, _shone_? If so, is there any historical flip-flopping between the two usages? Secondly, if _shined_ is in fact legit, can it be used transitively? Saying something like, > The light shined all throughout the night. while odd, doesn't sound as bad to my ear as, > He shined the light on the ball throughout the night. The latter sounds quite bad to my ear. Indeed, à propos the original question, can _shone_ -- the better sounding alternative to my ear -- be used transitively?


proper way to write the slang term for “gravitational force”

I came across something very similar to this in a thriller novel: > At this stage, the rocket is experiencing its maximum acceleration, say > about ten gees. Here, the author has spelled out the common military-pilot slang term for “gravitational force” using _gee_. However, as this term is an abbreviation, and is in essence a unit of measurement, I'd have expected the written form to be _G’s_. Similarly, I have heard people speak the unit “kilometer per hour” using the two-letter symbol for kilometer. However, I would expect this to be transcribed as “km per hour” versus “kay em per hour”. Is this use of _gee_ common? Is it correct?


Past participle used as a noun?

Some examples include: > We fear the _damned_.   >  He honored our _fallen_.   >  This is a _given_.   >  You are the _chosen_.   >  The _lost_ were among us.   >  They obey the _venerated_.   >  My _beloved_ kissed me. ( _TIL “beloved” is a verb thanks to RegDwight АΑA_ > ) Is there a word to describe the past participle used as a noun? I’m hesitant to refer to it as a gerund, since it doesn’t end in _-ing_. Another possibility is adjectival noun, if you originally treat the word as a participle (e.g. “the _damned_ man”) that has given up its modified noun. Also, why does English tend to preface such nouns with _the_?


What is the meaning of "the green and blue of the crops"?

I'm reading the _My mother never worked_ essay by Bonnie Smith-Yackel. > In the other fields, when the oats and flax began to head out, the green and > blue of the crops were hidden by the bright yellow of wild mustard. What does this sentence mean?


Difference between two phrases

Which is more appropriate to say: >   1. We go on learning >   2. We go about learning >


Who and when did the quotation, "Vulgarity is the efforts of a weak mind to forcibly express itself." originate from?

Seems to have high merit as a motivation to think and speak with civility.


Usage of "Revised Document"

I offer two Word templates and recommend to use one of them in order to get a well-designed document. Using the expression `revised document` is correct in this case? For example: `It is recommended to select the first template in order to get the most revised document; The first template offers a cover page and automatic numbering of chapters and pages.` Any other ideas?


"These will be, should be"

Is the following sentence correct? > "... the goods will arrive later. These **will be** , **should be** packed, > **will be** stored in our third shed" I don't know if it does make sense to you guys, but since it does to me, I'd like to know if it's a correct form (even if it's a little odd).


the meaning of 'relevant' used in linguistic explanations

Maybe someone who is well-versed in semantics could help me. The word _relevant_ turns up at places in the following paragraph. While I know the fundamental meaning of it -- pertinent, germane, there seems to be more to it when used in linguistic explanations. Could anyone please help me with its nuance, connotation, subtlety etc.? (I'm not a native speaker of English, by the way. If you would put your help in plain English as much as possible, it would be really appreciated) > > (14) # While in Santiago, Bill broke his foot and was rushed to _the big > hospital._ > > Here, the hearer is licensed to assume that the modifier is **relevant** (in > accordance with the maxim of Relation (Grice 1975)). However, the modifier > in (14) could only be **relevant** if it distinguishes this hospital from > others, in which case the hospital in question is no longer undifferentiable > and, in the absence of unique identifiability, the conditions for the > felicitous use of the definite have not been met. Hence, infelicity results. > To put it another way, since the modifier is presumed to be **relevant** , > it must be the case that it matters which hospital, or at least what type of > hospital, is under discussion -- i.e., that it is big. Thus, the condition > of not being **relevantly** differentiable is not met, and the hearer must > assume that the other condition for the felicitous use of the definite > applies -- i.e., that the hospital be uniquely identifiable. In the absence > of a uniquely identifiable hospital, the utterance in (14) is simply > infelicitous. > > _Uniqueness, Familiarity, and the Definite Article in English_ by Betty > Birner and Gregory Ward, Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1994, via eLanguage


What does `not in small way` mean

Can you tell me what does `not in small way` mean in following context : > To work at this company you really have to have just desire to do something, > and **not in small way**.


Can the verb “tend” be followed by a bare infinitive (“tend be” v.s. “tend to be”)?

I thought _tend_ (used to imply “regularly or frequently behaving in a particular way or having a certain characteristic – Oxford’s def; 1.1) always has to be used with the to-infinitive form of verbs. Today, however, I encountered this example: > Most meta-analyses show that, with some exceptions, well-established > psychotherapies **tend be** approximately equivalent in efﬁcacy (Wampold, > Mondin, Moody, Stich, Benson, & Ahn, 1997). And while I couldn’t find anything regarding _tend_ in regards to these two forms (with or without “be”), searching .edu domains precisely for "tend be" returns some 12,000 results. E.g.: > Fungal-like protists and the Chytridiomycota **tend be** aseptate, except to > delimit reproductive or specialized cells (such as sporangia and > gametangia). > > * * * > > The disadvantages of physical sunscreens is that they **tend be** thicker > and look a little white on the skin. > > * * * > > [The book] reveals that readers [...] **tend be** more open to diversity; > politically tolerant; less authoritarian; less likely to support the use of > deadly force or torture; more politically active; and are more likely to > have a negative view of the Bush administration. > > * * * > > It has long been appreciated that genes that perform core functions **tend > be** more conserved in amino acid sequence over long evolutionary time > periods. So, is it ok to write “tends be” instead of “tends to be”?


definite article usage with president

What would be the correct sentence and why: He is president of Finland? or He is the president of Finland?


past tense for future

Which one is ok? 'I found out she is not going this Friday' 'I found out she was not going that Friday' 'I've found out she's not going this Friday'(Friday is in the future). Thanks for help.


Word order again?

I have been thinking about word order and its meaning, thus when we have for instance: >   1. Planet of the apes or Apes planet >   2. Proposal for extra work or Extra work proposal > Which is the more usual way of writing the above sentences and when should we use one or another?


What is the origin of "in one fell swoop"?

I know the meaning, but wanted to know the origin of the phrase.


Is "They won't tell me where is the office" correct?

Which sentence is correct? >   1. They won't tell me where is the office. > >   2. They won't tell me where the office is. > >


Are "do you think" embedded questions exceptions?

In most embedded questions, the "Wh" portion of the question stays grouped together with the rest of the converted question (e.g. "What time is it?" becomes "Could you tell me **what time it is**?"), the rules seem different when "do you think" is used (e.g. "what time is it" becomes " **What time** do you think **it is**?").   Is this splitting of the embedded question with "do you think" a unique exception, or is there something I'm missing? This would be great to clarify!


Which adverb implies supreme confidence, falling just shy of arrogance?

> When he participated in debates and round table discussions, Christopher > Hitchens spoke with supreme confidence. I'd like to replace `with supreme confidence` with an adverb that implies supreme confidence, falling just shy of arrogance. Does anyone have any suggestions?


Should I use desirable or desired here?

> If a talk is desirable/desired, I can drop by your office any time. Should I use desirable or desired here? Or some word else?


Word for someone who is "pretentious", but without negative connotation?

Pretentious is defined as "attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed." What if someone does impress others because they actually do have a greater importance, talent, culture, etc.? What would be a good word to describe such a person?


Correct use of either in a conversation

In the following conversation:               Person A: I don't like Bob     Person B: No, he's annoying. Mind you I don't like Barry, either.      It is my understanding that the use of the word "either" is appropriate. As, according to Oxford English dictionary, either can be defined as:               2 [adverb, with negative] used to indicate a similarity or link with a tatement just made:      You don’t like him, do you? I don’t either it won’t do any harm, but won’t really help either     for that matter; moreover:      I was too tired to go. And I couldn’t have paid, either      In this case, either is being used in the "for that matter; moreover" context. I am having it argued to me that the use of the word either is not appropriate here as it is said by Person B in response to person A's original statement of not liking Bob, and saying "I don't like Barry either" in direct response to "I don't like Bob" doesn't make sense. I believe that as Person B has already agreed with Person A's initial assessment of Bob, the use of the word "either" when referring to Barry is totally valid. That is that the "either" being used by Person B is in fact relating to Person B's first sentence and not in direct response to what Person A originally said.


Talking out of the side of your mouth

> Talking out of the side of your mouth This means one is lying, right? Or something else?


Morpheme help: How many morphemes does the word "dost" (Shakespeare) have?

How many morphemes does the word "dost" (Shakespeare) have? How many morphemes does the word "thy" have? How many morphemes does the word "thou" have? Are "and", "if", "of", "a", "but", and "in" considered morphemes?


When someone says "that explanation was a lot of hand-waving" what does this mean?

I've been hearing term "hand-waving" thrown around a lot, especially when my peers describe their CS(computer science) classes. Does anyone know what that term means in this context? (also a little background on where the term came from would help too!)


Is "vast majority" something to avoid?

I've seen a few folks in various situations complain about the phrase "vast majority". The only online reference I can find for such dissent is (unfortunately?) the urban dictionary. I grant that the phrase is not particularly eloquent. But it is idiomatic and I use it myself quite frequently in technical documents to represent a figure over 90% but where I don't want to break the flow of text to present the actual value. So my question(s):   * Is the idiom "vast majority" something to avoid? Does it leave a bad impression?   * What are (better) alternatives?


What is “the culinary chops”?

The article of Time magazine (June 23, 2014) titled “Don’t blame fat” says “New science reveals fat isn’t what hurting our health, and wraps up with the following sentence. > How we eat –whether we cook it ourselves or grab fast-food takeout – matters > as much what we eat. So don’t feel bad about the cream in your coffee or the > york in your eggs or the occasional steak with béarnaise if you got the > **culinary chops** – but don’t think that the end of the war on fat means > all the Extra Value Meals you can eat. I don’t find the word, “culinary chops” in neither Cambridge nor Oxford online dictionaries. Google Ngram doesn’t show this word either. As far as the word, "chop / chops" conscerns, OALED at hand gives only four definitions of “chop” as a noun:   1. A thick slice of meat with a bone attached to it.   2. An act of cutting something with a quick downward movement using axe or knife.   3. An act of hitting sth with the side of your hand in a quick downward movement.   4. (informal / Pl.) The part of a person’s or animal’s face, and no more. What does “culinary chops” mean? Does it simply mean a butcher’s or carving knife, or chunk of meat, or skills / knack of cooking? If so, why doesn’t the author use more common word?


Balance paid prior to arrival to hotel

I am looking for adjective (if exists) for paying for hotel stay prior to arrival or if possible word that would describe paying upon checking-out ? If there is no such word, then is there any neat expression for this type?


Usage of 'Hi' and 'Dear' in Formal Communication

I always hesitate using 'Hi' in formal mails. Is it OK to use it like "Hi Sir,..."? Same with 'Dear Junior,...'. Any help would be appreciated.


Is there a word for the moment when the ground falls out from beneath your feet?

Looking for a word to describe that moment when you realize everything is falling apart. You are going along in your life and everything is ok and then suddenly, you realize it is really not. This would be for an event akin to you think you're happily married and then your spouse files for divorce; you think your boss is a great, upright person and then you realize they were embezzling money and the company is folding, etc. Not so much for a natural disaster, if that changes any potential answers,


Can someone please tell me which of the two sentences is correct?

Here are the two sentences.   1. This was the fastest I heard someone responded.   2. This was the fastest I heard someone respond. Can someone help me understand: > A) Which one is correct, and what is wrong with the mechanics of the > incorrect one? > > B) If they are both correct, can someone tell me what is the subtle > difference between the two different words used? I chose #1, but my rival chose #2 and everyone agreed with him because they said it "sounds" good. But i'm interested in mechanics and accuracy not sounds. I am really confused with this one. Help from the grammar mechanics gurus is greatly appreciated. Thanks. **UPDATE** Thanks to both Cerberus, Leon Conrad. Cerebus gave the excellent mechanics break-down. The missing _That_ was making it sound awkward. > This was the fastest [that] I heard [that] **~~someone~~** anyone responded. > > This was the fastest [that] I heard **~~someone~~** anyone respond. And Conrad gave the subtle difference between the two meanings. Based on the context, (from Leon's explanation) I was correct, because I did not hear the response my self, I heard about the response from someone else. Because I cant choose 2 answers, I chose Leon's. That subtle difference was hard for me to spot.


Roles of commas

I couldn't understand the role of the commas in the following sentence. > While many of his people starve, they write, Mr. Kim “is such a connoisseur > that, according to his former chef, every grain of rice destined for his > dinner table is inspected for quality and shape.” What is the gramatical role of each comma in this sentence?


Counting contractions as one or two words

I read this in a product review, and it has been bugging me all day. > Three words: it's really cheap. "It's" is obviously a contraction of two words, but does it count as one or two words?


Metro Station or Subway Station in US?

I am not sure which term is more common when people talk and refer to metro station. Somebody told me you should use subway instead of metro and people use subway in everyday talking. Is this true? I am living in Washington,DC.


Putting a phrase like "in particular" before a negative statement

In a sentence starting with a word like _nowhere_ , inversion is necessary like in the sentence > Nowhere in this document is the use of other instruments even mentioned. But what happens if I add a phrase like "in particular"? > In particular, nowhere in this document is the use of other instruments even > mentioned. Is this correct?


Opposite of "retrofit"

To retrofit is to take a new item and make it work with something old. What is the word to take an old item and make it work with something new? For example, someone could retrofit a new character by modding an old game. Retrofitting an old character into a new game doesn't sound correct, since you're doing the exact opposite of retrofitting. What word am I looking for?


Loaf of French bread

What is the English word describing a long thin loaf of French bread, which crust is appetisingly golden and crunchy, and the bread inside is light and fluffy?


Can some words serve as both adjective or adverb?

In the following sentences:   * I can move quicker than she can.   * She moves quickly, but I can move quicker still.   * Between us, I move quickest.   * Between us, I move quicker.   * I am even quicker than she. I am apparently trying to modify the verb "move" with the adjectives "quicker" and "quickest". It seems to me that I have been speaking like this all my life, but just now I've been told that adjectives may not modify verbs, and that these sentences are grammatical garbage. Yet, when it comes to: I can move quicker than she can. vs I can move more quickly than she can. The first sentence sounds just as good as the second, to me, at least. Cannot the word "quicker" serve as both adjective and adverb?


How to cite a court case?

I am unsure on how to cite a court case. The one I am trying to cite is Riley v. California. The information I can plainly see is > Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District   >  Division One   >  State of California Looking at Appendix 4 on the courts.ca.gov site, it gives an example: > Albertson's, Inc. v. Young (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 106, 113. I don't know what the volume number is (I've checked justia.com and it only seems to go up to 2002). I've also taken a look at law.cornell.edu and other examples but it is all very confusing. So far using easybib this is what I got, but it seems wrong. > Riley v. California. Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District of > California. 8 Feb. 2013. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Feb. 2014. > <http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D059840.PDF>.


Is there a word that conveys this concept?

The concept being: Lethargy or apathy caused by a continuous cycle of dissatisfaction caused by disinterest from exposure. The best way I can think to elaborate is to describe it as a state where you no longer care to strive because it is inevitable that the thing which you strive for will eventually no longer be interesting. Similar to the Buddhist idea of sankhara-dukkha : "A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all existence, all forms of life, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance."


Comparing negatives: "she seems not to know" vs. "she doesn't seem to know"

What is the difference in style and meaning between the following two: >   * She seems not to know. >   * She doesn't seem to know. > Is there a name to this type of construction?


To be drafted in, to be drafted for or to be drafted into the army?

I'm not sure whether any of these options are valid. Which one is more common? (US or UK) > Daniel is drafted in the army. > > Daniel is drafted for the army. > > Daniel is drafted into the army.


What is the correct term for unboarding passengers from aircraft?

I am looking for a correct term meaning that the given plane is in a state of unloading/ "unboarding" arrived passengers, just before it will board departing passengers. I can't find this on airport sites, and according to spellcheckers "unboarding" is not a correct word.


How can I explain a word used in a previous sentence?

I am defining a "thing" with an adjective. Example: > X is a small y. Then I want to give a clean and simple explanation for the adjective `small` \--because it can mean several things and I want to make it clear. So I'd like to continue the sentence with something like: > .. small y. What "small" here means is ... **My question:**   * What is the correct way to continue with that second sentence in English? Can I say:   1. `What "small" here means is, that, X [verb (is, doesn't etc)] ..` or;   2. `What "small" here means is X [verb (is, doesn't etc)] ..` By correct, I mean, should I use `that`? Should I use a comma? Thank you.


what is the word for someone not trying their best or performing badly on purpose?

It sounds like a street slang, but both webster and urban dictionary gave the same definition. Can't remember what the word/phrase for it is - like when someone plays bad at first to hustle someone else.


"He's liable/likely to win" and "He's likely/liable to lose"

"Liable" is often loosely used in colloquial, nonstandard AE for likely:"My favorite horse is liable to win" -- but discriminating use generally applies "liable" only to what is undesirable: "An overheated radiator is liable to explode." And so -- with this latter sense in mind -- can a phrase like "At this rate this horse is liable to win" mean pretty much the same as saying "At this rate this horse has a serious chance to win and I gotta say I don't like the idea"? Analogously, can someone say "At this rate this horse is likely to lose the race" and mean by that: "At this rate this horse has a serious chance to lose the race and I gotta say I love the idea"?


Using 'generify' to mean 'to make generic'?

Can one use the term _generify_ to mean 'to make generic'? E.g. a software programmer being told: 'generify this segment of code'. If not, what may be a single word replacement of this phrase?


Can 'I would say' always replace 'I think'?

There is a question about 'I guess' and one answer is comparing 'I guess', and 'I would say'. >   * I would say characterizes what follows as a personal opinion or > judgment: From what I know of him I would say he is coming. > >   * I guess characterizes what follows as a conjecture or inference: Well, > if he were coming he'd be here by now, so I guess he's not coming. > > My question is I am bored of 'I think' every time I wanna tell my idea, so can I use 'I would say' instead of it? As an non-native English speaker, I feel 'I would say' is more aggressive than 'I think', is that true?


What does "interstitial effect" mean?

Googled, but still do not understand what "interstitial effect" means. Can someone please explain?


What tense should I use here? Present perfect/past simple

It's been two years since the accident and she (forgot or has forgotten?) her lesson.


What is the meaning of `non-normative`?

What is the meaning of `non-normative`? Does it mean `casual`? If I write a document, what requirements must it have before I can say "it's a normative document" / "it's a non-normative document"?


how has language changed from the Tudor era until now?

i want to know what the dramatic changes between now and then. And what language techniques have disappeared or are still in use today. And just anything that proves that language has changed (: cheerios


Where to put the "now" in?

I am not sure how to use the "now", where to put it in the sentence. I have: > "I studied [...] in the joint masters program [...] and I want to continue > my career [...]". I think for understanding it is good to emphazise that I graduated and NOW I want to continue my career in [....]. Thats why I think a now would be good. What is correct? > "I studied [...] in the joint masters program [...] and I now want to > continue my career [...]" or > "I studied [...] in the joint masters program [...] and now I want to > continue my career [...]"


Etymology and meaning of "navy file"?

I've been reading Heinlein's _Starship Troopers_ in which the crews of the starships are referred to by the Mobile Infantry as "Navy files". This appears to be an affectionately derisory term. I was wondering, is this name used by real members of the army or marines to refer to navy people, and if so, what it means? Consulting the dictionary here suggests it might mean _a line of persons or things arranged one behind another_ , or possibly > Military . a. a person in front of or behind another in a military > formation. b. one step on a promotion list. I'm also guessing that this is an American or pseudo-American term as I'd think on the right-hand side of the pond the navy would more likely be referred to as the _Andrew_.


Space After Semicolons?

Should there be spaces after a semicolon in a sentence? For example: "...minimum/standard requirements for a base diploma;there has been..." or "...minimum/standard requirements for a base diploma; there has been..."


What does "so many men, so many minds" mean?

I've come across the phrase "So many men, so many minds". Apparently, the full quote is from Leo Tolstoy, and is "If so many men, so many minds, certainly so many hearts, so many kinds of love." What does the quote mean? I'm interested in both the original meaning, and also how it's used nowadays, if the two differ.


Where does the term "heads or tails" come from?

I recently obtained a Silver Angel collectable coin, where the back side bears an image of an angel fighting a dragon: ![silver angel coin](http://i.stack.imgur.com/vuIvO.jpg) I sort of realized, as I was looking at it, that for probably the first time in my life, I was holding a coin where the image on the back _actually portrays a creature with a tail prominently displayed._ Everyone's heard of "heads or tails?", the traditional invocation for a coin toss. The head is obvious: most government-issued coins, from antiquity to modern times, have borne the bust of some famous ruler on one side. But most coins do not come with some tailed animal on the back, so where does the ubiquitous expression come from?


Which is correct (if any): "please let me know what do you think"? or "please let me know what you think"?

I find myself unsure which of the following is more correct: > please let me know what do you think Or > please let me know what you think My gut feeling tells me that it's the latter... Or are both incorrect and there is a better way to say the same thing?


How to use "should have been" to express conditions?

Lets say that someone is driving a car but doesn't possess a drivers license and I am telling him > You should have been obtained a drivers license before drive a car. is this usage of "should have been" correct or else please give me an example about how to use "should have been" for expressing conditions.


Do native speakers leave out articles in slides for space?

Sometimes _a_ and _the_ take too much space in a slide, and I delete all of them to save me extra lines. Is it a good practice?


Is David Mitchell's writing style in "Cloud Atlas" representative of the described time period?

I'm reading David Mitchell's "Cloud Atlas", and the narrative is written in very distinctive style, and the most striking characteristic of it is the use of ampersand (&) instead of "and", in every single instance. A representative quote: > Disgusted, I retorted that I was a husband & a father! & that I should > rather die than abase my dignity & decency with any of his poxed [word > removed for decency]. Similarly, "etc." is styled "&c." For context, the narrator is a notary from California, and the events take place in mid-XIX century (from various references in the text, a few years after 1838). Is such pervasive use of ampersand in writing common for the period?


Is "an archives" correct? If so, is it an exception or are there others like it?

A friend recently posted a photo he took of a sign at the LBJ presidential library that used the word "archives" as a singular noun. According to a Smithsonian Institution Archives blog post, this is perfectly acceptable. It says: > First of all, unbeknownst to most word processors, "an archives" is a > grammatically correct phrase. "Archives" is one of those words that can be > either singular or plural, though it is relatively common to drop the "s" > when referring to the singular. "Archives" can refer to a collection of > archival materials, the facility in which the materials are stored, or the > organization that collects and maintains them. Are they correct? And is this a lone exception or are there others like it?


"Project's status" or "project status"

Should I say _the project's status_ or _the project status_?


Etymology of "favourite" as a verb

The verb _favourite_ or _favorite_ (past tense _favourited_ or _favorited_ ) is fairly new and isn't in many dictionaries. Two of the few are Oxford Dictionaries Online, who define it as: > **favourite**   >  _verb_   >  [ _with object_ ]   >  record the address of (a website or other data) to enable quick access in > future: _you can see who else favourited the same pictures_ And Wiktionary: > **Verb**   >  **favorite** ( _third-person singular simple present **favorites** , > present participle **favoriting** , simple past and past participle > **favorited_** )   >  1\. Alternative form of favor.   >  1\. (Internet) To bookmark.   >  1\. (Internet) To add to one's list of favorites on a website that allows > users to compile such lists. Some people dislike the verb as ugly, others say it's "an abomination of a non-word" and "emblematic of cultural necrosis & linguistic stupidity", but it's commonly used by Flickr, YouTube and Twitter (with 75m, 800m and 200m users respectively) so it doesn't look like it's going to disappear any time soon. There's no entry (yet) at the Oxford English Dictionary, so when was this internet usage first used? Who popularised it and when? * * * My research: I suspect it could have been first popularised by Flickr (launched 2004), then later boosted by YouTube (2005) and more recently Twitter (2006). _Favorites_ were announced by the Flickr photography website in a August 2004 post, but they it only used the word as a noun. The first use I found as a verb on the Flickr blog is September 2005: > In other news, Flickr user fd has a new addition to his fantastic collection > of Flickr toys— his random photo browser [...] fetches a selection of random > photos that **have been favorited** by at least one person. I found a verb use by Eric, a Flickr staff member, in December 2004: > But there are still a couple of bugs at play here: This photo should not > appear in GustavoG's favorites, because he does not have permission to view > it any more (it being totally private, and Gustavo not being a member of the > fotolog group). I am guessing that **he favorited it** before it was made > private. We will fix this. (Interestingly, in the the bug report he replied to, GustavoG used the verb _favored_ rather than _favorited_ : "This was most definitely not a private page when **I favored it**.") * * * Edit: Stack Exchange also uses the verb _favorite_ , and has done since at least 2010. If you click the star on this question then I may getf the Favorite Question badge for a "Question **favorited** by 25 users." (Or even the Stellar Question badge for a "Question **favorited** by 100 users.")


How to use the idiom "in force"

I'm wondering how to correctly use the idiom "in force". Often "active" can be used instead, but are there any situations in which "in force" can be used and "active" cannot, or vice versa? More generally, what are the idiomatic limitations of this expression? To illustrate, I have the following example from a text I wrote (emphasis added): > Each event has associated with it a tension weight. The tension at a > particular point in the story is obtained by adding all individual tension > weights _in force_ at that particular point. [It is not specified] how to > determine which tensions are _in force_. In both cases, the sentence could be rewritten to use the word "active" instead, but is it incorrect to use "in force" here? I found the following here: _in force_   1. In full strength; in large numbers: Demonstrators were out in force.   2. In effect; operative: a rule that is no longer in force. The second meaning seems to suggest that the above use of "in force" is ok.


Is "the changes you intend to make will not do us any good" polite?

I would like a polite (formal) way to say: > The changes you intend to make will not do us any good. or should I say "intend on making"?


Origin of "good'o"

Where did the Autralian or British expression _good'o_ come from? What is the _'o_ part related to?


Usage of "despair" in the phrase "being despaired of"

I am reading a 1892 novel, in which I see the sentence: > For months my life was despaired of, and when at last I came to myself.... Is this an old use of the word "despair"? If the word "of" is dropped, does the meaning of the sentence change?


Is “checking my résumé” ok?

Is the following sentence correct (when I call a company’s HR department)? > Could you please call me back after checking my résumé?


How to use "have been" and be-verbs -- what's the difference between them?

Consider these two sentences: >   1. They have been disappointing. >   2. They are disappointing. > Could you tell me how can I identify when to use _have been_ and when to use _be_ -verbs in sentences like these? Is it that I need to use _have been_ when "they" disappoint me, during a period that extends up to the present? And that I need to use _be_ -verbs like _are_ when "they" disappoint me generally?


Arcane/obscure word that represents a person's timeline or daily record

I'm looking for an arcane or obscure word to describe a person's daily record. Words like: > account, agenda, appointment book, chronicle, diary, daily record, daybook, > engagement book, journal, log, minutes, notebook, record work, but are common. Do you have something more obscure?


Parallel structures problem with their prepositions and helping verbs

This might clear it up. > It is not _about reducing_ the consumption of sugars or carbohydrates but > _about moderating_ the consumption of them. Does this work correctly? Another example: > Any person who eats based on a good diet _will lose_ weight and _will have_ > a healthier life. Is this the correct way of creating the parallel structures, or should the helping verbs/prepositions of the verb be omitted?