Comma when leaving out *that*?

When the word _that_ is used in a sentence to introduce some relative clause it is always an _essential element_ which follows. Therefore, no comma is required. Example: > I'm sure **that** you are lying. When I leave out the word _that_ , it is still a correct sentence, right? Do I have to use a comma then? Because, when you read the sentence aloud, it kind of feels like there is a pause. Examples > I'm sure you are lying. > > I have the evidence right here in my pocket (that) you are lying. Especially in the second case, I would prefer a comma at the place of the _that_. Is there a strict rule?


Does “landfill” refer only to the landfill site, or also to the material?

In particular, is it proper to say “10 tons of landfill”, or do you have to say “10 tons of landfill _waste_ ” or similar?


A guy walks into a bar. His buddy laughs and says, "Don't worry, I didn't see it either."

> A guy walks into a bar. His buddy laughs and says, "Don't worry, I didn't > see it either. What is the meaning of this joke? What makes it funny? (Is it supposed to be funny?) I saw this joke in the mood message of a British guy. It is a kind of bar joke but there is usually a connection. (For example: a guy with dyslexia walked into a bra). I didn't get this one. Can it be a meta-joke?


What is "hoolihan" in "Old Paint" song?

Lyric is: > I ride an old paint, I lead an old dan   >  I'm goin' to Montana to throw the hoolihan   >  They feed in the coulees, they water in the draw   >  Their tails are all matted, their backs are all raw But what is a hoolihan, please?


"Take your ball and go home" - meaning of this odd phrase?

On a business website regarding the takeover of a radio station, I noticed this unusual phrase: > Can't really see Orion Media changing Gold much, unless Global take their > ball home and say that if you don't want Heart you can't have Gold and take > away the licensing deal. What exactly does "take your ball and go home" mean? Is it a sporting metaphor? Is it a good phrase to use in writing (that is, informal writing), or not?


Is it wrong to say "Music Concert"?

Concerts, by definition, feature music. Isn't specifying a concert to be a _music_ concert needlessly redundant?


Can I give subject line as 'I would be on leave'?

I am planing for a leave tomorrow (because I have some personal work need to be done); I want to send a mail to my boss, here can I choose subject line as `I would be on leave`. or is there any issue with `I would be on leave` (alternatives are most welcome). Please shed some light on this. Thanks in advance.


Is there a verb for "to make something Spanish"?

I'm not entirely clear how you would describe a verb that fulfils this function. I'm looking for a word equivalent to "gallicise", "americanise" or "hellenise", but for Spain equivalent. Is there such a word? What morpheme would you use for Spain?


Use of plurals when talking about a boxes owner?

I have the following technical detail to log in work: > There is no communication between each of the ComboBoxes containers The component is called a ComboBox in singular. Is this correct, or do I need to add an apostrophe to ComboBoxes?


What is a word that could define someone who likes to cause conflict?

What would you call someone who does things knowing specifically that his/her actions will cause pain and/or conflict or completes an action just to get someone in trouble or hurt them? For example, in Private Peaceful there are two people that are in love, but the Colonel goes out of his way to tell the father of the girl that the boy is a thief and would be bad for their reputation. What is a word that would describe him?


Why does English spoken by a native Spanish speaker sounds pleasant but not so pleasant when spoken by a native Indian/Arabic/Chinese?

When in fact, both are non-English speakers and are at same level of understanding of English language. **Could there be any etymological reason behind this?**   **Added later** \- _As i can see, people are not so happy with the word 'pleasant'. So let me be more specific, let us assume there is a Spanish and an Asian, both have never spoken English in their lives. A gentleman decided to teach them how to read and after a week, he gave them a paragraph to read. Let us say, I happened to be there when both the speakers were reading it aloud and I found Spanish fellow's diction more pleasant(although both were pleasant)._   **p.s** \- This question is not meant to offend anyone. If it does, I apologize in advance. Rather than focusing on unnecessary details, concentrate on the basic question. I know what I described is subjective but this is the case. I don't think I am the only one who has observed this thing.


The correct pronunciation of the last vowel in words "a priori" and "a posteriori"

English.SE, Hi, first time being here. I have had this confusion about the pronunciation of "a priori" and "a posteriori" for a long time, normally I just read the last vowel as /i/, however today my office mate asked me about this for he saw the pronunciation on Merriam-Webster online dictionary shows that the last vowel reads as /ai/, this reminded me that the philosophy professors whose lectures I took before didn't agree on this pronunciation either. Since I learned that Immanuel Kant borrowed these words from Latin, I wonder what is the correct way to pronounce these words in Latin or at least in a Latin'ish way.


Word for a salesperson's enthusiasm

Suppose you visit a shop looking for something to buy. Every time you pick up an object, the shopkeeper goes gaga over the features of the product and why it's a must-buy. I'm searching for a single word which describes the enthusiasm and/or marketing effort of the shopkeeper. I'm not sure, but _pushy_ may be one possibility. For instance: > The shopkeeper sounded too pushy However, I'm not sure. Does anyone have a better or more correct choice of word?


What is the opposite of "preaching to the choir"?

I have found "Whistling into the wind" online but I do not think it fits because it seems to mean that your words are not heard, whereas the opposite should mean that you're being informed by someone of a 'fact' with which you strongly disagree. I generally respond, "you're preaching to the choir", when somebody 'vents' to me about something that I too take some issue with, which may be an evolution of the idiom used when you tell someone something they already know, rather than something they agree with.


Usage of the word "implies" when sure of a result

If I have a proven without a doubt that drinking cyanide means certain death, is it correct to write the following? > The result of the study implies that drinking cyanide leads to certain > death.


"On tomorrow" vs. "by tomorrow"

Which is correct? >   * I will transfer the amount **on** tomorrow. >   * I will transfer the amount **by** tomorrow. >


"Champing on the bit"

I read recently that was describing a cavalry, full of "horses champing on their bits, eager to rush forwards into the fray." I have always known it as "chomping". Is "champing" a typo? Is "chomping" or "champing" correct?


What does aw mean?

I have heard somebody saying _aw, shucks_.   * What does that mean?   * In which other cases is the word used?


What dialect is "I be doing this"?

In which part of the world do people use sentences like "I be doing this" (missing out the 'will' after the 'I')? Sounds like some of the 'street- ghetto' to me. What is it exactly?


"I became proficient" - is this correct grammar?

I would like to find out if this is correct: "I **became proficient** at locating information in customer relationship management software and recording customer issues in a help desk system."


"And you?" or "And yourself?" as response to "How are you?"

If someone asks "How are you?", which of the following is grammatically correct? "I am well, thank you. And you?" or "I am well thank you. And yourself?" 'Yourself' sounds more formal, and is used frequently in everyday language (at least in my surroundings). However, I've been doing a little bit of investigation into the use of my vs myself and you vs yourself and it seems that it is only used reflexively to reflect back to 'you' or 'me' as the subject. E.g., you hurt yourself. In the case of "and you/yourself?", you/yourself is being used as the subject, in which case it would seem that the correct version would be "And you?". Any clarification on this would be great!


How do we use 'Stockholm syndrome' in a sentence?

How do we use ' ** _Stockholm Syndrome_** ' in a sentence? Can it be used for the things we hate?


singular/ plural in the attributive

_A doll house_ or _a dolls house_? Which is correct for the toy? ... There's that thing called _Same Sex Couples Act_ ; how about calling it _Same Sex Couple Act_? The question is - when should I put attributives in plural? As far as I remember, Bill Bryson claimed in his _Dictionary of Troublesome Words_ that - and that's what I vaguely recall from my classes - attributives should be in singular. Except for some exceptions. If so, what are they? I'm looking for some rule of thumb here other than _"when in doubt, JFGI"_ , of course. NOTE: I leave out forms like _a doll's house/dolls' house_ as they're pretty clear to me, as well as cases like _The 'Big Boys and Their Motors' Club_ in which attributives are separate entities.


"You are used to" vs. "you used to use"

I'm currently reading some boring programming book and have found this phrase: > If you are used to C and `printf()`, you might think `cout` looks odd. If I wrote this phrase (supposing I understand it correctly) I would say: > If you used to use C and ... without _are_ and with additional _use_. So the question is: why was it written in that way? Is it a short way of writing “used to use” or am I missing something?


Comprehension - gave them the run of the base grounds still in Ukrainian hands

> During the ordeal, the colonel gave reporters and TV crews **the run of the > base grounds still in Ukrainian hands** , and held impromptu news > conferences in front of brigade headquarters. First of all, what does **the run of the base grounds** mean? Break it down for me as far as each word in the phrase goes, please. Secondly, do I understand that line correctly if I change it a little bit by adding some words that help me tie things together to make the connection more obvious: **the run of the base grounds THAT WERE still in Ukrainian hands**?


How to combine "a book about X" with "people are interested in how X works"?

I would like to know how to correctly combine the sentence 1. with the sentence 2. >   1. People are interested in how these algorithms work. >   2. I am writing a book about algorithms... [here I need to recast the > above sentence so it fits] >


Is "please to remind" a valid construction? One of my collegues (not native english speaker) always uses this contruction:   * please to remind   * please to confirm   * please to take note   * please to contact me To me (not native english speaker) it sounds gramatically incorrect, but I wonder whether it is a formal construction I maybe just don't know.


The meaning of "meaning"

I'd like to know the meaning of "meaning" in the following sentences: > Please note that we have implemented a 1 post approval process for new > users. **Meaning** , a newly registered user with no posts under their belt > can post, but will have to wait until a moderator approves it before it > shows up.


What does "animal warmth" mean?

I'm trying to translate a video on TED into my native language (Latvian). At the very start there is an expression I'm unfamiliar with - "animal warmth". I think I kind of understand the idea intuitively, but I can't think of any similar expressions in my native tongue (short of direct translation). It would be nice if someone could explain the concept to me, or give some more examples of usage. Here's the context: > ... Because in my family, reading was the primary group activity. And this > might sound antisocial to you, but for us it was really just a different way > of being social. You have the **animal warmth** of your family sitting right > next to you, but you are also free to go roaming around the adventureland > inside your own mind.


Is "I'm headed to gym" correct grammar?

> "What are you doing?"   >  "I told you, I'm headed to gym." I read the above in a novel today. "I'm headed to gym" seems wrong to me because [please insert reason here]. Am I right?


Meaning of "Rubber stamp"

What is the meaning of _rubber stamp_ in "rubber stamp National Assembly"? Does this imply that the assembly has no real power? Where did this originate?


Should the use of apostrophes be consistent?

> It is time to rock, but don't be too loud. Is it recommended to stay consistent with the use of apostrophes? Should it instead be: > It's time to rock, but don't be too loud. If that is fine either way, what about using the same words with and without apostrophes such as _do not_ and _don't_?


Is past perfect appropriate here?

Is this sentence correct? > We had published the OpenCCU source code at the beginning of 2002. At first > we had uploaded source code on Sourceforge and immediately began receiving > thanks and wishlist items for the future OpenCCU development. The whole narration is in the past tense and the publication of the source code and subsequent feedback precedes other events.


How crazy can "and" be?

After seeing completely insane examples of "and" usage in this question , I realized that I have no clue how to use the word "and" grammatically: How far does the insanity go? Are the following grammatical?   1. John is, and Sally hates, cooking.   2. John has once ineptly, and Sally hates, cooked meat.   3. Sally hates, and Michael said that John has ineptly, boiled vegetables.   4. Sally, at the bakery, bought, and the makeup on her nose, cakes. If 2 is grammatical, what does Sally hate exactly? If 3 is grammatical, does Sally hate boiled vegetables, or boiling vegetables? If 4 is grammatical, I'm going to cry. This question is inspired by trying to incorporate "and" into a mechanical parsing of English, which, surprisingly, is a lot tougher than anything else.


Meaning of "needful"

I am trying to find alternative ways to refer to a very necessary thing or thing that someone must have. Can I use the word _needful_ for this purpose? A person said that _needful_ means the thing needs something but not that somebody needs it.


check point, checkpoint or check-point

I am an English Editor for a journal and came across the following sentence in a paper I was editing: > ...the increase amount will be doubled at every check point. The context is Cloud-Based Virtual Content Delivery Networks and so the word 'check point' is not a physical entity. My question is should it be 'check point', 'checkpoint' or 'check-point'? I cannot find many uses of the word 'check-point' and do not know the rule or reason as to why it would be hyphenated. Can anyone help me with this matter?


Does a claim have to be explicit?

I have heard the claim that a claim must be explicit by definition, but do not see any definition that supports this. An example of how "implicit claim" is used from this Wikipedia page on Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt. > All three implicit claims have been disputed, and some of their elements > disproven, by environmental groups, consumer-protection groups, and the > industry self-regulatory Better Business Bureau I would have thoughts claims can be implicit, either in the case of a point assumed for an argument without being stated directly or a point being made that leads most people to the same conclusion without stating it directly. Essentially I had thought any claim made that is not stated directly but implied would be an implicit claim. Is this incorrect? In English can claims be implicit, or can they only be explicit?


Conjugation of "smite" - unsure of all forms

Smite is an interesting word for which I found a use today. However, my understanding of its conjugation is as follows:   * I/you smite   * He/she/it smites   * We/you/they smite And then "I was smitten (down/by)"; "I have been smitten"; "I smote my palm with my clenched fist" etc (last one courtesy of Wiktionary). Smote is debatably interchangeable although 'smote' is the simple past and 'smitten' is the past participle. But for the following, should it be:   * "With my argument, I fear I would be smote(d) down in court" or   * "With my argument, I fear I would be smite(d) in court" or   * "With my argument, I fear I would be smitten in court" or   * "With my argument, I fear I would be smit in court" Which is it? _Expanded meaning of the sentence: "(on the basis of) my argument, I fear I would (have a decision found against me) in court"_ Furthermore, is this a case of 'auxiliary would', is this just the plain subjunctive form -- or does the example sentence actually fall into the category of an omitted and inferred 'ordinary past indicative' (' _was_ ' in this case, theoretically making the full sentence " _If I was in court, I fear I would be smote/smoted/smite/smited/smitten/smit down_ ")? Apologies for the braintaxing archaic English question on a Friday!


Word for 'that which requires something'?

If `A` requires `B`, then `B` is the **requirement**. In this relationship what is `A`? In this context, I'm describing academic courses where `B` is a course that fulfills the requirements for course `A`.


what should be placed in the blank and why?

He as well as his friends **_____** going to play cricket in that playground.


What is a word to describe an ambiguous amount of time?

The term "umpteenth" is sometimes used to describe a long, but unknown or ambiguous amount of time, or number of times. > ...after he reexamined the cable connections for the _umpteenth_ time... Now, umpteenth isn't exactly a universally recognized word, it's listed in some dictionaries, but certainly not all. I was wondering if there are any alternatives to such a word, one that might be more prominently defined and accepted in the English language (or just a word that I can say in place of "umpteenth" and sound smart).


What are word combinations similar to the effect of "Sofa King" called?

Is there a name for word combination structures that embed other words within them (both verbal or written)? (Any less rude example would be appreciated.)


Word meaning "clear" or "remove" and starting with an O?

Is there a word with a meaning similar to "clear," "clear out," or "remove," or perhaps "fight," but starting with the letter O? I want to start an initiative at work to gradually clear out warnings from our source code base. I really like acronyms, so I'd like to name it with one. I was thinking of a "grass roots" initiative about "warnings" and came up with "GROW" for the acronym (which is also nice as it will improve the software), but I'm having trouble finding a suitable word for the O. (The whole phrase would then be "Grass Roots _O-doing something with_ Warnings.") I've thought of "ousting," but it doesn't really fit. "Obliterating" feels a bit too strong (especially as the process will be gradual). Is there a better word?


"Interaction technologies" vs. "interactive technologies"

What is your feeling about the differences between the two?


Word for a person who condescends himself to praise others

I'm sure there are some obvious words that mean this but I can't think of any. For example, he might say, "You've done an amazing job! Much better than what I could've done."


What do I call someone I hire to do my personal work for me?

Currently I’m living in Place A, but I need a representative at Place B who will go there and perform work on my behalf. He will update me on the progress in Place B. What is that person called?


Hearing equivalent for "speaker"

Let's say there is a conversation being analysed, and the people in the conversation are being divided into two groups: The people who speak and the people who hear. If the people who speak are called "speakers", will the people who hear be called "hearers"?


"Lucid intervals" usage?

Does "Lucid Interval" immediately bring to mind medical disorder? I would like to use it as the title for a blog and I don't want people to be put off.


Kind words / phrasings

Silly question, not sure if this is the appropriate forum to voice this in, but here it goes. I've noticed over much of my life that between exposure to my peers, television, and internet, I've become quite good at being able to toss together a half-decent insult. However, when it comes time for me to compliment someone, I am for a lack of words...usually limited to something in the single adjective category. Now, when you're trying to praise someone for a job well done, or tell your girlfriend that she really is something special to you, this experience can be quite trying, and it tends to come off rather badly. So, might I implore of you linguists which books I should be reading that might help me in this area? Perhaps something you read, that contains some phrases you felt embodied the meaning of the kindness you felt? Do you understand what I mean?


Is it "the business'" or "the businesses" responsibility?

It's quite common in my company to make a distinction between "the business" and "the IT department". I think this is the correct way to write what I want: "It is the business' responsibility to set the policy, and IT's to implement it." But then my spell checker keeps changing it to this: "It is the businesses responsibility to set the policy, and IT's to implement it." Should it be the first one?


Is there a noun for inverting two clauses so that the personal pronoun is mentioned in advance and only later is its antecedent specified?

>   * "Charles can be very sarcastic when he wishes. >   * "When he wishes, Charles can be very sarcastic. > Is there a word for this kind of inversion?


what does "field release" mean in this sentence?

"Technical workshop on preparation of dossiers for field release of LMOs" LMO= Living Modified Organism thanks in advance


Use of the word conciliated in Call of the wild

"as he looked at each brutal performance, the lesson was driven home to Buck: a man with a club was a lawgiver, a master to be obeyed, though not necessarily conciliated" from Call of the Wild. I do not understand the use of the word conciliated here.


Consecutive Nouns

> She wanted pure cow milk. In this sentence, is **_cow_** qualifying **_milk_**? If so, should there be a comma after **_pure_** to write two adjectives one after the other?   Or is **_cow_** also a noun here? If so, is this a case of two nouns being used consecutively?


What's a good word for a category of non-technical blog posts?

I have a website mostly devoted to technical blog posts. In the main navigation there are links for JavaScript and CSS, which take you to a list of posts about those topics. My question is, what should I call the link for my non-technical blog posts? I was thinking of just using the word "Blog," but really, the whole thing is a blog, so it doesn't do a good job of describing what this section is. I was also thinking about calling it "Personal," but I don't like that either, because they aren't all personal posts, they are about a bunch of different things, the only thing they have in common is being non-technical. I don't have much experience with the tags on this site, so please edit them if you want. Thanks. Here are some words I have been considering: Bulletin, Prose, English, Writing, Verse, Essays


Using 'few months back' and 'few months ago'

While I have grown up knowing that 'ago' is the word of choice while referring to an earlier timeline.now I have become quite confused with the regular use of 'back' in its place. Many say that 'ago' sounds better when used in 'many a millennia ago' or 'many years ago', 'back' is more suited while saying 'a couple of months back' or 'a few days back'. I am, somehow, not convinced. Please help.


If I drive a car and ride a motorcycle, what do I do with a boat?

Once we have specific verbs to refer to the action of operating a vehicle, my question is: What verb should I use to "drive" a boat/ship?


Does "maintaining" lead to "fostering?"

I'm writing a code of conduct for a small government department. It is going to be chock full of punchy, actionable phrases (no real complete sentences) that seek to convey an air of positivity. Example: > Maintain a positive attitude toward our work; foster this attitude > department wide. I feel that I understand what I am attempting to convey, but I am curious whether anyone else is reading this statement in the same way that I am. The department in question is having an issue with the negativity of a few individuals impacting the broader climate. My hope is to convey the idea that an individual's own attitude is part of a bigger picture—and not in a punitive way i.e., "Shape up or ship out." **My main quandary, then** : do the verbs "maintain" and "foster" accomplish these goals of tone and meaning?   * Positivity    * A cause and effect relationship (individual attitude _affecting_ everyone's work environment)   * Clarity of meaning   * Implying an action to be taken by the reader   * Is a semicolon appropriate here? Any alternative word choices, rewrites, or reorganizations are welcome.


Is there the word "ideotechnical" in English?

There's a word that I don’t understand the meaning of even in my mother tongue and cannot find in any dictionary — _ideotechnical/idiotechnical_ — not even sure which one. I would appreciate it if someone read the background and suggested a proper translation of the word. Does the text look as if written by an English-speaking person? > **Annotation**.The article covers the description of the Arabic and Russian > anthroponymy systems.As the information of linguistic and extralinguistic > anthroponymy planes is multidimentional, not only idiotechnical and > universal features of national anthroponymy systems are illustrated by > modelling configurations,but also an attempt has been made to offer a > complex analysis of the materials investigated. > > **keywords** : _onomastics,proper name,Arabic anthroponymy model,Russian > anthroponymy model,name,surname,middle name_.


Someone who prefers no cussing around them

Extra points if the word implies that the person in question is pious.


Question regarding sentence structure in a NY Times article about Michelle Obama

In a NY Times article titled "Michelle Obama and the Evolution of a First Lady", there is this sentence: > Rahm Emanuel, then chief of staff, repeated the first lady’s criticisms to > colleagues with indignation, according to three of them. Is this correct usage? For me, it reads as if Rahm repeated it to angry colleagues (i.e. colleagues with indignation). But clearly the intent is that Rahm was angry and the three colleagues noticed that he was angry when he talked to them. Or, is a comma required after "criticisms to colleagues"? Or should it have been rephrased like this? "Three of Rahm's colleagues said that an incensed Rahm, then chief of staff, repeated the first lady’s criticisms to them." But Rahm is mentioned twice here.


Etymology of the expression "make a larry", i.e. turn left

Where I live (Canada) people sometimes say "hang a larry" or "make a larry" when they mean turn left, like when they're driving. I'm at a dinner party and we're trying to figure out where this expression came from. Can you help us? We promise to laugh heartily.


Is the phrase 'at your Beckon Call' marked with servitude or with politeness?

I recently entered into an argument with my Mom regarding it's apt use. Though traditionally, it implied servitude, but hasn't it's meaning changed over the years? Basically, is using it to a Professor/Higher Authority convey servitude or politeness?


The opposite of "discontinued"?

When a product is no longer produced it's said to be "discontinued", but what's the opposite? "Continued" doesn't seem right to my ears, but maybe it is? I considered "Available" but it doesn't work because a product could be unavailable yet not discontinued. I'm thinking of plumping for "Active" unless someone knows a better word?


The antonym of "abling"

Is there an antonym to the verb form of "able". If my English is correct, you can say the following: > My large backpack is abling me to bring all my books to school. (I see that a far better word in that circumstance would be "enables", but I'll let it stand.) However, is there a way to say something akin to the following? > Arguably, this effect lessens as the obstacles get larger, as they now fill > a larger part of the length of the passing wave, _unabling_ the flow to > onset hydro-elastic vibrations.


Expression for 'One who likes expensive stuff, luxuries, but lacks appreciation?'

What would be an expression for:   Someone who wants expensive stuff; someone who wants luxuries, and who lacks in appreciation.


"How" vs. "that" in "You know how we have pizza on Thursdays, right?"

From time to time I hear sentences like this: > You know how we have pizza on Thursdays, right? Here, _how_ doesn't mean exactly how those guys eat pizza, it is something like "that" in this context. So what is the difference between using _how_ , _that_ or just skipping the conjunction?


Is there a standard ordering for the question mark and the exclamation mark used together?

We've all wanted to express certain questions, rhetorical or not, with annoyance, excitement, surprise, frustration and so on. What better way than with both a question mark (?) and an exclamation mark (!), right? I've seen two ways of punctuating such questions: > Where is this place?! > Who do you think you are!? (Things like _?!?_ , _!?!_ , _?????!!!!!_ , _??!?!!?!?!!??_ , etc are irrelevant here.) Which is the proper way to order the two symbols? Or does each of the above two have a distinct and grammatically correct meaning? Or is the interrobang (‽) the clear winner here? ;)


Exclaiming Questions

What is the correct way to write a question you would verbally ask in a higher tone of voice? > How is this possible?! OR > How is this possible!? The subtlety lies in the punctuation. Thanks


Exclamation before or after the interrogation? Doesn't matter?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a standard ordering for the question mark and the exclamation mark > used together? Which is correct: > _Was That Folk **!?**_ > > _Was That Folk **?!**_ Or both? I always use the former. But the SO FAQ uses the latter.


Explanation for "emails"?

This is a thinly veiled rant, I realize, but if anybody can rationalize "emails" for me in such a way that I can stop grabbing people who say it, and asking them if they've ever gone to their mailsbox to retrieve the mails left for them by the mailsman... I would very much appreciate it. I realize it's probably pure laziness, but maybe someone can rationalize this in such a way that I can stop cringing every time I see it used in a professional setting.


Please explain the: upwards vs upward difference

> **Possible Duplicates:**   >  "Backward" versus "backwards" -- is there any difference?   >  Afterward versus afterwards -- which, and/or when? I have seen both used interchangeably in equivalent contexts. > Market is moving upward of 1600... OR should have I used upwards?


Afterward versus afterwards -- which, and/or when?

So, I've noticed over time that I see both "afterward" and "afterwards" at different times. Having a pet peeve (though I'm not certain it's actually a well-founded prejudice, lexicographically speaking) against hearing "anyways", I've started to wonder recently about "afterwards". With a quick bit of web searching, I turned up this analysis, which I find to be somewhat helpful, I'm just wondering if there's more that people could say to help me get an intuitive understanding of when to use which, or otherwise why to use one versus the other. I suppose (as mentioned in the linked article) this question could also apply to forward, backward, toward, etc. Which shall I use? When? Why? Does the 's' indicate some sort of plural meaning, or something else?


"Adverbial phrase" vs "Adverbial clause"

Please tell me what the difference is between an _adverbial phrase_ and an _adverbial clause_.


What's the antonym of "fifty-thousand foot view"?

I'm writing about a concept that I would like to explain at three levels: high-level, medium, and very granular. "Fifty-thousand foot view" is a common business idiom to describe the highest, most general level. (I've also heard 10K and 30K feet.) But, what's the comparable phrase for the medium and lowest-levels of explanation?


"What does the comments say"

Is this sentence correct? I'm a web developer so I think of "comments" on a webpage as a singular component. So referring to a story on a website that was posted, I asked, "What does the comments say". Comments are a big part of this website, making feel like a singular noun to me.


"To steal the show"

Where does the phrase "to steal the show" come from? Lately I've heard it used for a movie.


polite way to ask someone to be patient?

I have seen the following line in mail replies from customer care executives - > Thanks for your patience They write this when they are not yet ready with a desired solution. They write in the mail that it will be ready after some more time. Writing "Thanks for your patience" in such a mail seems like we are assuming the other person is patient, whereas he actually may not be, and instead, what is probably desired is to ask the person to be patient. What would be a polite way of asking the same, knowing that the person desires the solution ASAP.


Etymologies of "basilisk" and "basilica"

I recently confused a "basilica" with a "basilisk", with the former being a church building and the latter being a mythical snake-like creature. The similarities of the two words made me curious of their origins. But the etymology of both words (from the Wiktionary links) say the same thing: Latin- _basilica_ and Greek- _basilike_ , meaning "royal". What is the connection of this meaning with "mythical snake-like dragon with a deadly gaze"?


"so they are" or "so are they"

Which way is correct: > Just as questions with no answers are highly attractive to you, so they are > to your competitors too. or: > Just as questions with no answers are highly attractive to you, so are they > to your competitors too. The more I look at these sentences the more I'm confused ;-) Please help.


Name of a sequence of moves in martial arts?

What is the name of a fixed sequence of moves used in training of martial arts? Precisely, used in training, not in actual combat, as both parties know exactly what is to come and follow a fixed routine, a sequence they both know - attack, defense, counter-attack and so on, to learn to execute the moves correctly, as opposed to actually fighting or reacting to unexpected moves of the opponent.


Meaning of "we're not out to get anybody"

What is the meaning of _We're not out to get anybody_? This is a message from a teacher to the student.


The thing proper

I found myself writing this: > .. and this is before we consider _mathematics proper_. It seemed like a natural kind of thing to write, but I couldn't find an example of it. I get the impression it's OK to use it in this way; to mean the major mathematical schools in this case (rather than people who just do mathematics). Is there any objection to this?


Are these sentences by Thomas Kuhn grammatically correct?

I'm almost certain that Kuhn would not publish an essay with grammatical mistakes, but those two sentences seem plain wrong to me. (I am not a native speaker.) > Though my argument does demand that I illustrate them briefly, my views will > begin to depart from those long current only after I have done so. The last part of this sentence sounds just wrong to my ears. > My critic asserts, however, that there is only one such value of p, that > corresponding to objective choice, and he believes that all rational members > of the group must arrive at it. In my opinion the third comma needs to be removed and an "is" needs to be inserted after the second "that".


"Is" or "are" with two nouns and one of them being modified by an adjective?

I was surfing the internet the other day when I found this phrase: _Instead your precious time and attention is wasted._ To my ears, it sounds wrong. But I'm not a native English speaker, so I consulted with a number of them, and some of them said that it was "is" because the adjective modifies only the noun "time" and not "attention". Others said it "is" because that's just how it is. But I still believe it should be "are". Any help is appreciated. Thank you.


Can “Any Other Business” be generally perceived, and used as the legit business terms?

I was interested in the fact that the first letter of the each word of “Any Other Business” is shown in the upper case in the following sentence: > “At the first meeting of the new bard, Townsend proposed that Sir Walter > (Age 66) should remain as chairman on his present salary of ￡100,000 a year. > The old man smiled and made a flattering speech abouthow the reader had > unquestionably made the right choice (in approving Townsend as the new owner > by vote.) > > Townsend didn’t speak again until they reached **Any Other Business** , when > he suggested that all employees of the Globe should automatically retire at > the age of sixty.” – Jeffery Archer “The Fourth Estate” – P483. I think “Any Other Business” can be simply rephrased with “Miscellaneous or addendum subject(s),” but I’d like to know:   1. Why A, O, B of “any other business” are shown in the capital letter here?   2. Is “any other business,” which I think is just a plain and colloquial expression for asking someone if he or she has a question or opinion, used as the legit business terms or prevailing orthography of the last heading of the agenda for an official meeting like a board meeting? Why can't it simply be "Others" or "All Others," which I THINK I've seen a lot?


Technical term for `avoiding responsibility` with decision-makers?

Suppose a parliament that tries to `"outsource"` their responsibility in various ways (they take the gains but not wanting to take the risks). Of course, the situation cannot last: risks and gains should have a correlation, here arbitrages are surreal. For some reason, this video here about point 0:50 came to my mind about the situation. Artificial obfuscation and complexity are intentional, I think to hide something evil. Which vocabulary or phrases would you use and when to describe this kind of situation that some parties are trying to make more obscure? **Issue requiring more descriptive phrases or vocabulary** > A parliament may avoid responsibility in various ways such as > >   * does not underwrite official documents with signature or official stamp >   * floods important documents with less important documents so the next > parliament (particularly if it is opposition) cannot find them >   * maintain the location to store and process important documents in an > inferior quality so outsiders cannot realistically find there anything >   * may censor public documents >   * ...many other things > **Some Analysis** > Most of the terms below have drawbacks. The `denial of responsibility` does > not really grasp the reason -- the responsibility may be avoided so that > controversial decisions can be made. Then again, it catches the intent where > `denial` infers consciousness decision. The hard part is that decision- > makers may just `"forget"` things such as underwrite things or be lazy to > process the documents or more evil i.e. totally intended denial of > responsibility (outlined above). > > **A. Conventional terminology** > >>   1. denial of responsibility >>   2. obfuscating things but it may have some technical meaning like here >> > > **B. literature-biased terms** > >>   * Orwellian or better totalitarian (but they are extremely loaded words) >> >> >>>   1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does **not tolerate parties of differing opinion** and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. >>>   2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic. (source) >>> >> >>   * Kafkaesque >> >> >>>   1. "Marked by a senseless, disorienting, **often menacing complexity.** " (source) >>>


"Register" vs. "registry"

What's the difference in meaning between “register” and “registry”? Can both be used interchangeably when talking about an official (public) list of items, records?


Can “whose” refer to a first-person subject in the third person?

This question came from a friend. It is from a college entrance exam for non- native English speakers. > Link the following sentences with "whose": > >   * I was a small kid. My classmates laughed at me at the time. > > > Which of these is correct (if either)? > >   1. I was a small kid whose classmates laughed at me at the time. >   2. I was a small kid whose classmates laughed at him at the time. >


How do you properly say "missing each other" (that's SO the wrong word!)?

Imagine I sent a message to someone over Instant Messaging, and then went offline. 5 minutes later, they come online, send me a message and go offline. 10 minutes later, _I_ come online, find their message but see they are now gone. So what I want to express in this scenario is: "Ack! We keep "missing" each other in the space of minutes!" However 'missing' is the wrong word to use here, obviously, I mean more like a 'missed catch' but it looks more like a 'I miss you' thing. What is the right way to express what I want to?


Why is a vehicle's empty weight called its "curb weight"?

Merriam Webster defines _curb weight_ as: > the weight of an automobile with standard equipment and fuel, oil, and > coolant Why is this weight called a vehicle's **curb** weight?


What punctuation should I use in the following case?

> Eri thought if there were little people living in it, they would be > experiencing earthquakes all the time. Or maybe, they would have been so > used to the movement that they'd no longer feel it. They'd just go on with > their little **lives[...] eating** their little meals, going to their little > jobs, and spending time with their little families. What kind of punctuation should I use in the example above? At first I thought I had to use a comma. But I think I'm no longer sure.


What is the right phrase describing a meeting in school with parents?

As a teacher, which of the following should I say? >   * We have a teacher–parent meeting on Monday 9th. >   * We have a teacher–parents meeting on Monday 9th. >   * We have a parent–teacher conference on Monday 9th. >


"Whole" vs. "entire"

I wonder if there is a difference between the words "whole" and "entire". For example, the following sentences: >   * I spent my _whole_ life waiting for you. > >   * I spent my _entire_ life waiting for you. > >


About the position of the object clause

1.Which of the sentences below is best, and why? > People are saying that this is great about X (for example: our new product).   >  People are saying about X that this is great.   >  People are saying great about X. 2.Is the 'about X' phrase an adverb phrase?


Choosing between "100%" and "cent percent"

I am a non-native English speaker. I am applying for the USA university for management studies. While writing the essay I came across the sentence, "I was 100% confident." My query: Is it appropriate to write _100%_ or should I write _cent percent_? Does it sound professional?


Why no Future Perfect in "At the end of the year there will be an exam on everything you've studied"?

> At the end of the year there will be an exam on everything you've studied. I'm just wondering why not use the Future Perfect tense here, as in: > At the end of the year there will be an exam on everything you'll have > studied. Sounds better to my ear... Will you please explain it to me? I wouldn't have been bewildered if one of my American friends hadn't told me that the sentence is better with the Present Perfect.


Etymology of sh*tfaced?

Where does the term _shitfaced_ come from? I'm aware that it means to be totally drunk, but I'm not sure how _shitfaced_ describes being drunk.


What is the singular for an octadic?

As I understand the octadic is 8 of something. In relation to sections, what would be a single section called in the octadic? The comparison I draw from is the quartile, each 'section' being a quarter. Is there a similar case for the octadic? To further explain, what would a shaded section in the below picture be referred to as? For a quarter, I would refer to this area as a quartile. ![image of circle divided into eight](http://i.stack.imgur.com/aYokl.gif) _Edit: I am aware it may be possible (maybe not) to use 'the eighth'. However, it just doesn't feel correct._


What is the definition and origin of "imba"?

I often hear the phrase, "That is imba" in the video gaming community. It seems to refer to something powerful or unskillful: > Hunters are so imba. > > Grenade launchers are imba! But I have also noticed that it is often used tongue-in-cheek or sarcastically to mock people complaining about something being altered in the game: > "Waa... they nerfed my class! Now that other class is imba!" QQ more, > please. What does "imba" mean and where did the term come from? Is it used outside of gaming? My first encounters with it related to Starcraft which has a well known Korean professional gaming league. Is "imba" a loan?


What is the difference between these two "scip"s?

In a question about ships, I added an answer with the etymologies that underpin both `ship` and `-ship`.   * "Ship" stems from `scip`: "O.E. scip "ship, boat," from P.Gmc. *skipan (cf. O.N., O.S., Goth. skip , Dan. skib , Swed. skepp , M.Du. scip , Du. schip , O.H.G. skif , Ger. Schiff )."    * "-ship" stems from "O.E. -sciepe , Anglian -scip." (both from Dictionary.com) There's more to both etymologies, and perhaps the abbreviations are obsfuscating the answer to this question, but how are O.E. scip and Anglian -scip related, if at all (which basically ties back into the original question)?   * More apropos this question, to the extent an etymology would differentiate the two, what familial resemblance or other relationship does O.E. have to Anglian?


coming to the shops or going to the shops?

Which of the following sentences are correct? >   1. Do you mind COMING to the shops with me? >   2. Do you mind GOING to the shops with me? >


"Kill",  "murder" or "slay"

I have a vague idea of the three words _kill_ , _murder_ and _slay_ , but I am not sure exactly what makes the verbs different (as well as the nouns _killer_ , _murderer_ and _slayer_ ). When do we use each of them?


Use of Parentheses

Am I correct in refusing to use parentheses around the area code for my telephone number? Those three digits are not at all incidental.


Is "prepper" a word that an average English speaking person understands?

Is _prepper_ a word that an average English speaking person understands (and also uses)?


"Adaptable" vs. "flexible"

Are the words _adaptable_ and _flexible_ generally interchangeable? For example, do the following sentences have the same meaning? > Older workers are less **adaptable** [...]. > > Older workers are less **flexible** [...].


Which definition is more used for "determine"?

I've seen "determine" used for two completely different meanings: Zeus' mood will determine tomorrow's weather. (determine = control, dictate) The weather forecaster will determine tomorrow's weather. (determine = forecast, predict) Are these meanings used equally often, or is one much more common than the other?


What does the bolded part of the sentence mean?

Giving medicine to relieve suffering, even if it risks or causes death, is not assisted suicide or euthanasia; nor is withdrawing treatments that only prolong a painful dying process. Like the general public, many in the medical profession are not clear about these distinctions. Terms like assisted death or death with dignity blur these distinctions, **implying that a special law is necessary to make such practices legal-in most countries they already are.**


Should the verb phrases following "either" and "or" in an "either/or" sentence have the same structure?

Should the verb phrases following either and or in an "either or" sentence have the same structure? For example, is the following sentence correct? > The coordinates of the points are either given or can be easily calculated. An alternative to that sentence might be : > The coordinates of the points can either be given or be easily calculated. I want to use the first one and wonder if it is correct or not.


What are the rules in composing a Haiku? (aside from the syllable count)

Aside from the syllable count what else do I need consider when writing a Haiku? I'm referring to the English imitation of a Haiku. I have been told that the first two lines should be descriptions and the third line should be the conclusion. But I've noticed that this is not always true. Does a Haiku need to be about nature?


When to make compound adjectives with adverbs?

I'm trying to figure out what style guidelines or rules apply to creating compound adjectives when adverbs are involved. Typically you create compound adjectives when there is potential for ambiguity between the noun and the previous modifiers(s): > This is a high-risk behavior. But you don't typically hypenate 'ly' adverb pairs (I believe). > This is a highly risky behavior. While the example above looks correct to me, the example below just _feels_ somehow wrong. > That is a friendly looking dog. It should be be: > That is a friendly-looking dog. Is there a general rule or style guidance for when a compound word is preferred over leaving the modifiers separate?


If I go to a Language School, do I go to school?

My friend, aged 21, has just started taking classes at a language school, and will shortly be doing 4 hours each weekday there. It feels very odd to be saying "How's school going?" – we finished school years ago, we're at Colleges and Universities now. It seems something of a paradox to me, that she is clearly going to "a school", but it feels so incorrect to state that she is going "to school". Any thoughts? What would be the best ways to refer to it?


Why does "enjoy" (almost) not have a causative sense?

Its etymology confirms that the _en-_ is the same prefix as in _enshrine_ , _encourage_ , _encircle_ , etc., which would normally suggest a causative sense. But rather than "to give joy to", the predominant sense is "to take joy in", opposite from the supposed direction. To be sure, besides the idiomatic _to enjoy oneself in_ , I can't come up with any current causative usages of _enjoy_. Stranger still, at least to me, _to joy_ without the prefix does (or used to) have the causative sense of "to gladden": > It joys me to see that he is safe. So I'm not sure why the following is unacceptable: > *It enjoys me to see that he is safe. What's the story behind _enjoy_? Did it undergo some semantic change long ago? And if so, why, when _en-_ seems to be such a strong causative marker?


Why do you think the Oxford English Dictionary modified their definition of "of?"

Of 'of': Expressing Possession and Being Possessed I would like to discuss changes made to the definition of 'of' in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) from the 1989 edition to the 2010 edition. Below are 2 discussion topics regarding 2 changes to the definitions of 'of' that I believe are significant: Discussion Topic 1: This was the definition of 'of' from the 1989 edition of the OED: > XIV. In the sense belonging or pertaining to; expressing possession and its > converse: 'the owner of the house', 'the house of the owner'. > > Formerly expressed by the genitive, and still to some extent by the > possessive case (with transposition of order). The use of 'of' began in Old > English with senses 47, 48, expressing origin. After the Norman Conquest the > example of the French 'de', which had taken the place of the L. genitive, > caused the gradual extension of 'of' to all uses in which Old English had > the genitive; the purely possessive sense was the last to be so affected, > and it is that in which the genitive or 'possessive' case is still chiefly > used. Thus, we say the King's English, in preference to the English of the > King; but the King of England in preference to England's King, which is not > natural or ordinary prose English. I went on-line and found the September 2010 revision: > X. Expressing possession and being possessed Eg 'the owner of the house', > 'the house of the owner'. Generally regarded as one of the central uses of > the word. > > Formerly expressed by the genitive case, and still to some extent by the > genitive of nouns (especially proper names) and possessive adjectives (with > transposition of order). The use of 'of' began in Old English with senses > 33, 34, expressing origin. After the Norman Conquest the example of the > French 'de', which had taken the place of the Latin genitive, caused the > gradual extension of of to all uses in which Old English had the genitive; > the purely possessive sense was the last to be so affected, and it is that > in which the genitive or 'possessive' case is still chiefly used. Thus, we > say the King's English, in preference to the English of the King; but the > King of England in preference to England's King, which is not natural or > ordinary prose English. The 'pertaining to' condition has been removed and the choice of words condensed to 'Expressing possession and being possessed' along with the comment 'Generally regarded as one of the central uses of the word,' is, in my opinion, significant. Discussion Topic 2: I'd like to highlight another change below: 1989 OED version: > 50\. Belonging to a thing, as something related in a way defined or implied > by its nature where the its refers to the 'something' that belongs to the > thing. And the 2010 OED on-line definition of 'of' which reads: > 36\. Belonging to a thing, as a logical consequence of its nature. The 'something' that was mentioned in the earlier definition has been strategically removed and been replaced by 'a logical consequence of' the thing's nature. In my opinion, by not mentioning the 'something' of the earlier definition, valuable information has been lost concerning the intricate nature of the relationship between this word and the thought it is intended to convey in that context, though it could be argued that this is a matter of grammar and not one of definition the change itself seems to me to be overly strategic. The two OED editions then go on to give the same examples: e.g. the cause, effect, origin, reason, result of; the correlative, counterpart, match, opposite, original of; a copy, derivative, image, likeness of; the square, cube, logarithm, tangent, differential, or other mathematical function of. See under these words. Grouped as follows: 1) the cause, effect, origin, reason, result of; 2) the correlative, counterpart, match, opposite, original of; 3) a copy, derivative, image, likeness of; 4) the square, cube, logarithm, tangent, differential, or other mathematical function of. Could you please contact me with your thoughts about these particular changes in the definition of 'of.' Are people using 'of' differently today than they were 20 years ago? For example, the comment "Generally regarded as one of the central uses of the word." that was not present 20 years ago. Also, the shift in the logic outlined in discussion topic 2 should be of interest to anyone with a genuine interest in the English language. My question is about the English language and a change in the definition of one of its most important prepositions and what affect this will have on future generations who will be using this "new and improved" definition who probably will not see the subtle shift in meaning that has occurred since the 1989 edition. Please keep in mind that as The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language mentions: "'Of' is the most highly grammaticalised of all prepositions."


Is there a general word for the letter/numeral used in enumerating a list?

For example, if I have a list   1. First Item   2. Second Item   3. Third Item or                A. First Item      B. Second      C. Third      or               i. First     ii. Second     iii. Third      Is there a general term for the symbol denoting the enumeration of each item? e.g. in first example, it's the numbers 1, 2, and 3; second it's A, B, C, and third it's i, ii, iii.


What is the etymology of "anarchy"?

I understand the word "anarchy" to mean "without a political leader" rather than "no rules". Consequently, it would seem that "anarchy" has roots in "an-" and "hierarchy". Is this correct, and would someone provide more detail?


Is there a good synonym for "recency"?

I wasn't sure I had ever used/heard the word _recency_ before but, when trying to come up for a word to describe _proximity in time_ , it popped into my head. It's in the Merriam-Webster dictionary so I must have come across it somewhere before. They do not list a synonym. Is anyone aware of one?


What tense to use here (sending an email)

What should be the correct tense:               Dear XY,     As agreed, I am sending / I send this email so you can find...


In my example, how do I use in-text citation?

I'm writing an economics research paper based on my professors journal. We only use one reference, and that is my professor's journal article. I want to use a sentence which has in-text citations. I also cannot reword this sentence because it is a list. It is exactly as follows: motor vehicle accidents (the leading cause of death and injury in this age group), homicides, suicides, falls, and other accidents are all strongly associated with alcohol consumption (Bonnie and O’Connell, 2004). Should I put quotation marks on it? Should I cite it using his journal as the reference or do I use the same citation he uses?


Feminine equivalent of "priapic"

For a male, if you are enumerating your sexual conquests, you might refer to it as:               "Priapic conquests"     Ex: The pirates joined on deck and exchanged stories on their own priapic conquests.      Is there a lesbian equivalent of this phrase? Something like:               The lesbians joked about their "priapic conquests" (i.e., all the women they had slept with)     while they were sizing up their next opponent.


Why do we use 'did' with questions using the simple past tense?

> Where did you go last night?   >  Where went you last night? Is there a reason we say the first of the previous two sentences as opposed to the last one? I know the second sentence is ungrammatical. I was just wondering if there was more of a rule than just "asking questions in the simple past needs 'did' + verb in the present tense."


Did vs. was in sentence

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why do we use 'did' with questions using the simple past tense? Do the following sentences have the same meaning?   * Did she say something?   * Was she said something? What is the difference when you use Did and Was to make questions about past?


Word for devastativeness?

I am composing a problem for my students. It goes something like this: > You are writing a software for an observatory. You have a database of near- > Earth objects that contains the following information about each object > >   * name >   * category (asteroid, planet, comet, etc) >   * ... >   * the probability of impact with Earth >   * devastativeness (?) in case of impact > > > ... I don't seem to be able to find "devastativeness" in dictionaries. Its meaning is obvious, but I would like to use an actual word here. Any ideas? To be explicit, I am looking for a word meaning the extent of being devastative /catastrophic. P.S. In Russian I would use the word катастрофичность, which means "catastrophicality", exactly what I need, but google translated it as catastrophic, which can't be right.


How can you use "either... or" twice in a sentence?

I want to be able to say something like: > There either needs to be X to do either Xa or Xb or there needs to be Y. ( **edit** : since from some answers it doesn't seen to be clear, I mean that that Xa and Xb would only happen under X, not Y. ) Is there any way I can make it less cumbersome or more clear which "either" the "or"s are associated with? **edit2** I think the word "do" is confusing things. Another way of phrasing it would be: > There either needs to be X which would either [have behaviour] Xa or > [behaviour] Xb or there needs to be Y.


Openings at the shores where rivers enter

What do we call those points on the sea shores where rivers join the sea?


Another verb for "to skate by" or "to skirt by"

People sometimes use the phrases _to skate by x_ and _to skirt by x_ with the meaning: _to do x with ease_ or _to do x with minimal effort_. Is there another verb that sounds like _to skate_ or _to skirt_ that is either used or more often used for the same purpose? Examples of sentences in which the phrase would be used are: >   1. Before I went to college, I could just [verb] by school. >   2. I used to respect Felix, but now he just [verbs] by at work. >


Hot is to heat as cold is to

Can you please fill in the blank? Hot is to heat as cold is to.... In other words, what is the noun for "cold"?


What does ‘Go for a three’ mean in the basketball?

In New Yorker magazine (April 25) titled “A marriage counselor tries to heckle at a Knicks game” -http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/shouts/2013/04/a-marriage-counselor- tries-to-heckle-at-a-knicks-game.html- there was the following statement: > “Laughter and joke-telling is healthy and can be used to convey messages > that may otherwise be too difficult to express! > > Melo, you suck! - - Ref, are you blind? - - FOUL? Are you kidding me? > > Get your head out of your ass, you must be the most flexible person I’ve > ever seen! > > **Go for a three!** I want to see this game go to overtime! I know it’s > difficult to hear, but I believe there is a future for you both!" For me as an utter layman of pro basketball games, it seems a fervent New York Knicks fan is sending a yell to Melo who was robbed his play by the ref, but what does “Go for a three” mean? I was unable to find the hint for this phrase on Google search.


Looking for the word to describe this natural quality

I'm trying to look for that word to describe this natural quality that all humans have. It's a basic word, and the word basically means/describe something like, capable of feeling, and the ability to realize what's happening in your surroundings. Babies do not yet have this quality/ability, but it will gradually develop as a child enters probably the age of 3. So, as an example to illustrate this, lets say, an 8 year old boy with Dwarfism is a patient at a hospital, and without the child's consent the doctor orders him to strip naked except the underpants and enters a room full of students where the boy is used as a visual aid in a lecture on Dwarfism anatomy and disease. One might think this is totally fine, the child is fine and that he's just a little boy. However, a child has [that word] too, so on the outside he might appear okay and unaffected, but that's just because he is unable to express his opposition and displeasure under the doctor's authority, but really he is embarrassed, upset or even terrified because even an 8 year old has [that natural quality].


while he works or while he working or while he is working

I want to tell my friend "please take photos while the painter does something" but I don't know which one is correct way to say it. "Please take photos while the painter paints" "Please take photos while the painter painting" "Please take photos while the painter is painting" If these sentences are related to grammar rules please let me know too.


Can "cattle" be singular?

I've grown up on a farm, and my dad and his dad, apparently, always used "cattle" to refer to both the singular and plural forms of the domestic bovine. I've always assumed it's how the word "deer" is. However, I've heard people say that this is incorrect and the singular is just "cow", but this has always offended us as a cow is a mother cattle, and is incorrect if you're referring to a steer, a bull, or a heifer. So, is _cattle_ singular as well as plural? If not, is there some general, non-gender-specific word that should be used instead?


What grammar is involved in the catenation "need to be released"

"We will let you know when these need to be released." Is this sentence grammatical? If it is, what grammatical construction is "need to be released"?


What alternative would you suggest to "in/with regard(s?) to"?

I see in many of the "corporate emails" I receive the expression: "`in regard to`".   Sometimes, it is also written "in regards to". First, to be sure:   * "in regards to" (with an extra 's') is incorrect, right?   * " **in** " or " **with** regard to": are they strictly equivalent? Then, the expression sounds a bit too wordy to me.   Is there any simpler alternative?   If yes, is there any context when that simpler alternative should _not_ been used? (i.e. when "in regard to" is actually more appropriate)


'Cromulent' Etymology

Given its first use: > "I don't know why, it's a perfectly cromulent word." The verb is "is" (=> it's) and the noun is "word". Since _cromulent_ links them both **and** directly addresses the noun, isn't that the definition of a Predicate Adjective? Has it been used in any other way?


Words to say after someone welcomes me?

Please can someone tell me some proper words to say after someone say "Welcome to our office"? Other than just "thank you"?


Punctuation and word choice in one particular sentence

I'm wondering, what is the correct punctuation in this sentence: > In OOP, each object contains data and a set of methods, which operate on the > data. I read the rules about restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, but I'm not sure which one is the case here. In my opinion it's supplementary information. Another question is whether comma is needed after "In OOP".


"An erratum to" vs "Erratum to" vs "Erratum"

I have had to write an erratum (single) to one of my papers recently. I searched the internet and I found out that there are at least three versions as follows:   1. An erratum to "the title of the paper".   2. Erratum to "the title of the paper".   3. Erratum: "the title of the paper". I chose the pattern number 1, but I was wondering which one of these patterns are more grammatically correct? When there are more than one error to address in the paper, I suppose there is only one option (Errata to "the title of the paper"). Am I right?


"Stoppage" vs "Stopping"

Can " _stoppage_ " and " _stopping_ " be used interchangeably? If not, could someone please provide an example where they would convey dissimilar notions? Do they have any semantic differences? I don't refer to " _stoppage time_ " (or _injury time_ ) for sports vs " _stopping time_ " (the statistical concept). I refer for example to : " _premature stopping of the procedure X_ " versus " _premature stoppage of the procedure X_ ".


Which verb to use when sentence has both singular and plural nouns

For example: > The floor plan and room numbers __ updated I want to say `are` because of `room numbers`. However `floor plan` is singular. _The room numbers and floor plan is updated_ and _The floor pland and room numbers is updated_ does not sound correct. What is the rule?   In my example there is technically one floor plan which has many room numbers, if it matters.


Is there a word to describe someone who keeps trying to do something but always fails?

Is there a word that describes someone who continually tries something but always fails? This isn't describing in the positive sense - as in someone who never gives up - but more about the negative side of always failing. Examples would be someone who creates many failing businesses, someone who can never stick to a diet or someone who cannot remain faithful to their partner. **Edit** > More context would help narrow down the possible words that might fit for > this person. Why do they fail? Are they aiming too high and can't attain the > skillset needed to achieve success? Are they lazy? Do they lack the > intestinal fortitude to follow through on a goal? All of these scenarios > conjure different words to describe such a failure. – Kristina Lopez I'll give you an exact example to narrow it down more: A person who tries to diet and exercise but they always cave in and eat unhealthy stuff and/or skip exercise, despite knowing it'll be bad for them. Someone who's perfectly capable of doing it, has a sound mind and knowledge of why and how they should do it, but regardless, still fail each time they start doing it after a short while. I'm not talking about an unlucky person or a person who's too stupid or naive to achieve it. However, I don't want the word to be specific to dieting (like "fatty" :P) but a word that could be used in other (albeit similar) contexts too. Hope that clears it up.


"para-" in words like "paraglider" and "parabrake"

As is well known, para-, meaning "alongside or beyond", is derived from Greek loanwords such as paraphrase and parasite, while, meaning "against", is derived from the Latin "be prepared" as in parachute and parasol. Question is: From where is _para-_ derived in words like, for example, parabrake and paraglider? Can _parachute_ itself be the source of the prefix "para-" in these words? The scope of the question is to investigate whether grammarians recognize only two roots for the para-words, or, instead, they recognize three roots, the last one evolved independently in modern English.


Which tense should I use when presenting a table of data?

I have a table and the description of the table as followed: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/R4Hcc.jpg) > Table 7 presents the likelihood of OPT occurrences from the time annotated > sentences; V-RB refers to the sentences which contain post-verbal adverbs > and RB-V refers to the sentences which contain pre-verbal adverbs. The OPT > phenomenon manifested 68.18% of the time when an already or yesterday adverb > was present in the sentence in the ICE-SIN. Within the paragraphs, my tenses were inconsistent. When i present the table and how to read the table I used present tense. But when I wanted to described the phenomenon that was recorded in the data, I used the past tense. **Is the inconsistent tenses grammatical? Or should I use the past tense when I present the table and how to read the table?**


Capitalization of Captain

The Chicago Manual of Style sets out these rules for capitalizing "Captain": Robert greeted Captain Jones, "Hello Captain." "Good evening," replied the captain. I looked at 20 books by the most famous novelists of the 1900s to see who follows the rules noted above. Generally, most writers follow those rules (Michael Chriton, Dan Brown, Ken Burns, Tom Clancy, Wilbur Smith, Clive Cussler, James A. Michener, Joseph Heller, Robert Ludlum, Nora Roberts, to name a few). Some other writers do not follow those rules and would write "replied the Captain." Those include Douglas Adams (in some books), William Goldman (the Princess Bride), JK Rowling (Harry Potter). To me, it's strange that none of the "style books" cite any authority as I just did. Finding authority for a rule was the basis of the Oxford English Dictionary, and gave it credibility. Generally, American writers use "down style" as in the Chicago Manual of Style. British writers are more likely to use capitals. I think it looks sloppy to have the word "captain" capitalized in some sentences, and lower case in other sentences, despite the fact the word is used differently. Should I consider the nature of the writing? If I were writing an article for the New York Times, I would use "down style." But if I were writing a fanciful book like the Princess Bride, should I consider using capitals, as William Goldman did? People say "the captain" is correct, because with that use, it's a descriptive noun, whereas, when the character is addressed, "Hello, Captain" the word substitutes for the name and is thus a proper noun. To me, that is a rather fine distinction. When I choose between writing "said Captain Jones" or "said the captain" it is interchangeable, yet one is capitalized and one is not. When writing alternates like that, it looks sloppy to me. Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks!


"We're all each other has"

I heard this phrase > We're all each other has. in Family Guy and a quick googling shows about a hundred thousand occurrences. It sounds really strange to me. I would say > We are all we have. Now that I think of it, _"We are all we have"_ technically means _"We have us"_ rather than _"We have each other"_ , although I suppose context could render the two meanings equivalent. In _"We're all each other has"_ , however, it is emphasized that _"We have each other"_. Here _each other_ is used as the subject rather than the object (of the subordinate clause), which seems illogical. Is this usage acceptable in standard English? If not, is it uncommon? I mean, does it hit the ear wrong for native speakers? Should I avoid using it even in informal speech?


Is ‘a clip of’ (X % growth) an idiom, or just a set of words?

I came across the phrase, ‘a clip of’ in the following line of the article titled ‘A Man in Shadow’ appearing in Time magazine (July 16). > In a capital full of bluster and backroom deals, the quiet economist has > long been admired for his （Manmohan Singh）restraint and personal integrity, > characteristics that played a large part in his being handpicked by Congress > Party leader Sonia Gandhi for the nation's top job in 2004. During his first > term, India's _economy reached a clip of 9.6% growth._ As I first thought ‘ _a clip of’_ (9.6% growth) is an idiom meaning ‘as fast (high) as,’ I consulted with Cambridge, Oxford, and Merriam-Webster online English dictionary, none of which carries “a clip of” as an idiom. Then I searched Google, in which I found the following examples of the usage of ‘ _a clip of_ ,’:‘   * A Clip Of Reality — YouTube   * This is a clip of our article for MTV. The writer Beverly Bryan did such a wonderful job of writing about Morning MUSUKO. — morningmusuko.tumblr.com   * Here is a clip of the performance we did 2 days ago for the opening of much music video awards in Toronto!! Campaigning — iamhok.tumblr.com However, none of these examples seems to be relevant to ‘a clip of’ (X % growth) composition in the above article. It seems to me “clip” in the above article simply means “speed, “ or “pace.” But I’m yet not sure of whether ‘a clip of (X% growth)’ is an idiom, or a mere set of words. Which would it be? Does ‘clip’ here mean ‘speed’ as Readers English Japanese dictionary at hand renders the meaning of ‘clip’ as (collocual) 1.hit. 2. _speed, velocity_. 3.one time, once.


What is past state?

When learning about "used to" and "would" that refer to past habit. They said that "would" is not possible when talking about past state. Even in this, they include "own", "drive" as past state So what is past state?


What does "believe it or not " mean?

I often hear people saying something by starting their sentence with _believe it or not_. What does people mean when they say _believe it or not_ ?. Does it mean that although the statement that the person is making does not seem to be true at first glance, that is the fact actually and he doesn't care if you are not believing his statement?


Which is correct: "There are not any employees"  vs. "there is not any employee"

Sometimes I see two variants of following sentence:   * "there are not any employees" in the department    * "there is not any employee" in the department What is the correct sentence?


Is there a word that describes both "comparing" and "contrasting"?

I'm looking for a more succinct word/small phrase that conveys the idea of "comparing and contrasting". Is there a word that hits two birds with one stone by representing both similarities and differences between two ideas/objects?


Weird future tense usage

I am now reading The Clean Coder book and have noticed a couple of cases of weird (for non-native speaker) future tense usages.   * The point of the kata is to train your fingers and your brain. **I'll do a kata or two every day** , often as part of settling to work. I might do it in Java, or in Ruby, or in Clojure, or in some other language for which I want to maintain my skills.` The phrase about doing a kata or two every day looks perfect for Present Simple. Why does the authoer use Future Simple instead?   * However, a professional also knows that there will be times **when he will fail** , his risk calculations **will be wrong** , his abilities **will fall short** ; **he'll look** in the mirror and see an arrogant fool smiling back at him. Shouldn't we use Present Simple after when/if in this kind of cases? I am especially curious about this case as sometimes I forget to switch to Present Simple after if/when and I thought it is a critical error (which I didn't expect to see in a book).


Is the usage of "in your humble opinion" correct?

We use "in my humble opinion" to express humility. But I even see usage of "in your humble opinion" to ask for others' opinions. What does it mean? I see the usage in the original message here, considering the person being asked is a great scientist in the field. I Googled the phrase, failing to find a definition as an idiom.


fun to make and fun to eat

> “These cookies are fun to make and especially fun to eat.” (source) Semantically, _these cookies_ is both to-infinitves’ object; and to-infinitves seems to be the semantic subject of both funs, as is in the sentence of "It's fun to take a walk". Is this right understanding? Or do the to-infinitves become semantic object of both funs?


One word, preferably short, that describe "quantity limited"

I run an e-commerce site and I want a word or very short phrase that convey the meaning of quantity limited that's easy to understand and also convey a sense of urgency. This word or phrase will display over the product image. However, I cannot display actual number quantities due to site performance reason. Thanks in advance.


"Dammit" vs. "damnit"

What is the correct spelling, _dammit_ or _damnit_? And what is the difference? Just writing this question brings up a red squiggly underneath _damnit_ and the suggestions include _dammit_ and _damn it_.


Word for saying something knowing it's not true

I was just talking on the phone to my old boss who was on his way in to my work to fill out paperwork he needs to sort. I asked him, " _Would you like me to put the kettle on_?", to which he said, " _You no longer need to toady to me_ " (joking of course). I laughed and said, " _Sure, you know that I never did_ ". He's convinced that there is one word to describe this kind of thing. But neither one of us can think of what it is. Any ideas?


"I don't know" is to "agnostic" as "I don't care" is to what adjective?

Atheists reject that God exists and agnostics do not know if God exists. What is the word for people who do not care if God exists? Does some word moonlight for that or is there a specific term (apart from the usual adjectives like _indifferent_ , etc.)?


What is the best way to join 'and' and 'or' together?

What is the best way to join 'or' and 'and' together? 'or/and' or 'and/or'?


Less colloquial version of "(X), never mind (Y)"?

> From Chapter 7, it was found that PV installers do not interact frequently > with geographic data within their assessment, **never mind** 3D geographic > data. "Never mind" seems like a bit of a colloquialism. Do you have any suggestion for a better term or phrase to use?


Does it make sense to end this sentence with "manually"

This sentence: > Verify that the table includes the configured values manually. Is it the same as saying: > Manually verify that the table includes the configured values. or the same as: > Verify, manually, that the table includes the configured values. Somehow it feels odd to put the word "manually" last since it then sounds like you are talking about the configured values and not about the verb "verify". Do all three sentences mean exactly the same thing? Which grammar rules allow "manually" to be placed at the end of the sentence?


What do you call a person who has never done anything wrong in their life?

What do you call a person who always speaks the truth, never does anything wrong, and treats everyone fairly? I am looking for a word or name of a popular person who was famous for having similar characteristics. I cannot think of any example, but I can use the word "Hitler" to associate a person with authoritarian or tyrannical characteristics. PS: Is there any ironic word for it?


How to say "not affected whether we use A or B" in a short and elegant way?

I want to say: Whether we use site A or site B in the analysis, we will get the same results. Both A and B are anatomical sites (or topographies) in the human body. So the results of the test will be almost identical whether we use the data from A site or B site. Now I want to express the whole idea in short form using phrases in bullets to be used in a seminar meeting, the nearest phrases which came to my mind are these two: The test is robust, cost-effective and _cross-topography_. Or: The test is robust, cost-effective and _topography-invariable_. So my question is: what would be the best way to express this idea? Thank you in advance.


"Associate with [someone]" for "socialize with [someone]" in colloquial AE

What's the difference in AE between saying "I like to associate with new folks" and "I like to socialize with new folks"? E.g. > I am a positive person and I like to associate with other positive persons. > source > > I like to socialize with new people. source > > I like to associate with people on the same term as I do in my own country. > source > > I like to socialize with my dog, and I have a cat... source > > I like to associate with other people. source If it all means pretty much the same, is there one of these expressions that sounds more typical of AE than other English dialects?


Children caught by an adult doing something wrong, relaying the blame onto each other

Here's the basic situation: two fairly young children, boy and girl, caught by an adult after doing something really wrong (i.e., for example, breaking some sort of precious vase or something like that). What would be the least awkward way to run the classic dialogue, i.e. something like that:   1. Adult: Who did that?   2. Kid A: He did that _(pointing at B)_   3. Kid B: No, she did that _(pointing at A)_   4. Kid A: Don't believe him, he's lying   5. Kid B: Nah, don't believe him, she's lying I.e. children try to relay the blame onto each other, trying to persuade the adult by their statements. I bet in reality there would be much shorter phrases. I believe that (2) would just "him", and (3) would be just "her", but I'm not really sure how to shorten (4) and (5). So, basically, **my question is how to say miror-phrases (4) and (5) in shorter way**. In fact, I'll feel great if someone could come up with some classic English book that features a scene like that where I can borrow some lexicon and statements? Semi-related: Word for someone quick to blame others \- although note that I'm not looking for a word how to call these children, but rather a figure of speech for (4) and (5) itself.


When a person in public life inadvertently coins an expression, what is it called?

It often happens that a political or other figure makes a remark on to which the media fasten. That remark then goes on to become part of the language. Examples were Poindexter's 'plausible deniability', and Armstrong's 'economical with the truth', discussed elsewhere. I hear the latter expression used frequently as a euphemism for a lie. Another classic example was when Mandy Rice Davies was told in court (1963) that Lord Astor denied having sex with her, she replied 'Well, he would wouldn't he?' Nowadays the expression is often used, sometimes by people who do not know its origin. Is there a name for these coinages?


Is it suitable to use 'etc.' in an academic paper?

I'm writing one of my first academic papers and I'm not sure whether _etc._ is too informal. Should I use _et cetera_ instead?


Is this a correct usage of “gravitas”?

The word _gravitas_ is usually used in reference to a human quality. Can it also be used correctly in the following example? > The use of the time-worn stones for the steps gives an instant air of > gravitas to the design. (landscape architecture reference)


Why is "bombshell" used to describe attractive women?

**_Bombshell_** is a term used to describe very attractive women, similar to the term "sex symbol". The phrase was notably used as the title of a 1930's film, which incidentally lead to its lead actress being nicknamed a "blond bombshell", although the term may have been in use long before that. Where did this term come from, and why? What's the relation between bombshells and attractive women?


Is "nothing but birds and a few insects" singular or plural?

> Nothing but birds and a few insects [was/were] to be seen. In the above sentence, should the verb agree with "nothing" or with "birds and a few insects"?


“got off wrong”: What does it mean?

I heard this in a movie: > "We got off wrong". What is the meaning of _"got off wrong"_? I tried looking it up via Google, but I couldn’t find anything about it.


What does it mean to be "in suspense"?

What does it actually mean to be "in suspense"? It's not a place, or a verb. How would you define "suspense"?


What does the phrase "touch space" mean?

Recently some of my colleagues has started using the phrase "touch space" a lot, for example in sentences like "I just called you to touch space", or "I will touch space with him tomorrow". I can deduce that it means something like "talk to" or "meet with", but what is the original meaning, what is the advantage of using "touch space", and where does it originate from ?


Must a coordinating clause always have a subject?

E.g., > (1) You are getting yourselves into a very dangerous situation; get out of > there at once. The imperative following the first clause has an implied subject, so would this mean it is a coordinating clause? If the above sentence was coordinated with _so_ , would that change the status of the clause? > (2) You should wear a suit, a clean shirt and a tie for the interview, and > be punctual. Is _and be punctual_ a coordinating clause? > (3) Worcester is a very sought after porcelain, and is regarded as the > finest of the period by many experts. The following clause of this sentence contains a passive structure with an implied subject, so does this make it a full coordinating clause? How would the status of the sentence change if _by many experts_ were omitted?


How to call the additional paper used during exam and homework

When doing exams or homework, one might need some extra paper to make some rough sketch, before writing his solution into another paper that must be turned in. The extra paper does not need to be turned in. What is that extra paper called? Would "draft paper" fit?


In the sentence "Each time you sleep with someone, you also sleep with his past," what does "past" mean?

I saw this sentence in a website: > Each time you sleep with someone, you also sleep with his past. What is the 'past' mentioned here?


Why is this incongruity?

>   * He sat over trays of food with John. > >   * They talked over a cup of coffee. > > Why is there **plural** in the first sentence and not in the second one?


Medicine language: triage and color codes

I found that in many hospitals, in order to classify patients' health conditions, standard expressions like "code red", "code blue" etc. are used. These expressions do not follow the standard "order of adjectives (adj+noun)" rule. Could you kindly explain this?


Is "taking him going away" a common fishing phrase?

Has anyone ever heard the phrase "taking him going away" used to describe the experience of hooking a fish ("him") while it is moving away from/in the opposite direction of the person fishing?


Meaning of "level a gap in the middle for the trains connection point to make contact"

What's the meaning of level in _level a gap_ , and _connection point_? > Why can't they put a protective sleeve of the power rail, that the train can > still access through. But make it hard for a person to accidentally fall on. > For such a sue friend society, I find it strange many people have sued the > transit system for accidental deaths > > Because insulating a conductor so it doesn't conduct defeats the entire > purpose of having a conductor in the first place. > > You can have two support structures on either side that are higher than the > rail and still **level a gap** in the middle for the trains **connection > point** to make contact. Then if you fail on it, you shouldn't make > accidental contact.


Casual writing to express that someone is thinking of something?

In casual writing we often use the colon to express that people are talking. Example: > Tom: hi   >  Mary: hi I'm wondering what about if it is Tom thought of something instead of Tom talking? Like is this valid, or is there a better way to express this: > Tom thought: asdasd


Interjection "et voilà"

I know _et voilà_ is a French interjection and means _there it is._ It is very much used in the US. Why is the use of _et voilà_ so popular in the US? Which historical fact has made it so popular?


What does the word "democrat" mean in this sentence?

What does the word _democrat_ mean in the following sentence? > Effective sales management is a great democrat for smaller firms.


"just married" or "just wed"?

I saw this for the first time in something recent: "just wed". I wonder how and when it is used (BrE only, under certain conditions). Does it mean exactly the same as "married"?


What is the proper way to mark a letter stressed in a name?

I have a friend named Chloe (pronounced Clo-ee). She writes her name using an accent mark over the e. A friend of ours thinks that the accent mark means unstressed, so that her name is pronounced Clo-eh. Does the accent mark mean stressed or unstressed? I've seen other names that use a double dot over the e to mark something as stressed, like in the name Zoe.


Difference between "Lots of" and "A lot of"

What is the difference between "Lots" and "A lot"? For instance: > I've got **a lot of** apples   >  I've got **lots of** apples


"At the beginning of the century" or "in the beginning of the century"?

> At the beginning of the century.   >  In the beginning of the century. How to clearly distinguish when to use _at_ , or _in_?


"Velocity" vs. "speed"

What is the difference between _velocity_ and _speed_? In meteorological data I found them used like this: > wind velocity: speed including direction > > wind speed: just plain speed


"I saw your lesson request, but when I saw *it* it was late"

If I want to say: > I saw your lesson request, but when I saw **it** it was late. Is it correct to use the first **it**? I know that in this sentence the first **it** function as a pronoun, and the second as an idiom. If this sentence looks awkward, please give me a suggestion to improve it.


Difference in usage of "regular", "usual", "ordinary", "normal", "common"

Sometimes it is obvious which of the following words to use, sometimes not:   * _regular_   * _usual_   * _ordinary_   * _normal_   * _common_ For example: "regular coffee" (not _usual_ , _normal_ or _ordinary_ ) , "ordinary people" (not _regular_ ), "usual way to do something" (sometimes "common way"). Please help me understand the difference between these words.


"He gave her a gesture while leaving the room." - Is this sentence correct?

The intended use of the sentence is for a scenario where a guy gives a positive indication (with facial expressions) to an employee before leaving the presentation room. Is "give a gesture" grammatically correct? Does the sentence portray a positive action?


Is "forth and back" more proper than "back and forth"?

I think the term "back and forth" gets thrown around a lot without much thought. From Dictionary.com: > forth [fawrth, fohrth] > > adverb 1\. onward or outward in place or space; forward: to come forth; go > forth. Wouldn't the term be more meaningful if "forth" was used first since you have to have a starting place before you can go "back"? Example: >   * I've been going back and forth from Houston to New York. >   * I've been going forth and back from Houston to New York. > Which is more correct?


Word (or shorter phrase for) "evaluate the relationship between"?

I am creating a poster to describe some research I have done. Listing the objectives I have something like (edit: using more sensible comparisons):   1. Evaluate the relationship between height and weight   2. Evaluate the relationship between height and width   3. Evaluate the relationship between height and color This is clearly not an efficient use of space, and I dislike the redundancy. Is there a word, or shorter phrase that I can use to replace "Evaluate the relationship between"?


What is the opposite of "Expiring Soon"?

What is the opposite of "Expiring Soon". I want to sort a list based on these two options based on the expiry date. For example, say you've rented some films on your set top box and you're looking at the list of them. I want to show the options: > Sort by > >   * expiring soon >   * expiring ??? >


What does "pneumatic" mean when applied to a person?

For example, in this review of the movie Unknown, Mark Kermode refers to Liam Neeson's character's wife as being played by " _X-Men's_ **pneumatic** January Jones". I'm never quite sure whether this refers to her attitude, her physique, a particular aspect of her physique, or something else. I don't think I've ever seen the word used to describe a man. Any suggestions?


Is there an English idiom “in threes and fives” to describe arriving, gathering, or leaving of people in a pair, trio, or group in succession?

We say ‘san-san-go-go – 三三五五’ in Japanese to describe the status of people coming, arriving, gathering, going, or leaving in a pair, trio, or group in succession in such a way, People gathered in the square ‘san-san-go-go.’ ‘San’ means three in Japanese. ‘Go’ means five, and ‘san-san-go- go’ is used adverbially. I know “by ones and twos” is applied to the case more than “by one and one.” When I consulted New Japanese English Dictionary published by Japanese publisher (Kenkyusha Publishing), I found the translation – ‘in threes and fives.’ I suspect if this is a literal translation of 3-3-5-5, and not standard English phrase. Is there an idiom or phrase to express the status of people coming (arriving) and going (leaving) in the pack of three-to five individuals to a place incessantly?


"Droll" is to "amusing" as "sardonic" is to what?

Could someone solve this analogy?               droll : amusing :: sardonic : ________ P.S. the answer does not have to be a specific length.


I hardly/highly doubt it

I always thought "I hardly doubt it" was a correct sentence, but it seems that it isn't. I do find a lot of occurrences though. Should it be "I highly doubt it"? I know the difference between hardly and highly, but just wanted to know if it can be used in this context. This made me doubt it. _pun intended_


Is it unidiomatic to say "an Australian person" or "an Aussie person"?

As mentioned in For people, can you say "a British" like you can say "an Australian"?, you can use "an Australian" to talk about an Australian person. But is it also ok to use "an Australian person"? If not, is it merely too verbose, or does adding "person" make the language seem more cold and impersonal? What about "an Aussie person"? Would that be even more unidiomatic, because you've got a word that's a shortening and is slang before a redundant word? Also, is "an Australian person" being unidiomatic likely to change in the near future? How did "Jew" become pejorative? talks about how using a noun instead of an adjective is sometimes regarded as offensive nowadays. I tried looking up "Australian person" at onelook.com, but didn't get any hits. That in itself doesn't indicate anything, as onelooking "British person" only got an Urban Dictionary result.


Many to one or many to many

> Record A is linked to case 1   >  Record B is linked to case 2   >  Record C is linked to case 3 _Which of the following sentences is correct?_   * There are 3 records linked to a case   * There are 3 records linked to cases


How do you proceed from pronouncing "t" in the regular way to t-glottalization, as found in various English accents?

It's just strange to me because "t" is pronounced with the front teeth, while the glottalized "t" is produced with the back of the throat; that seems like quite a noticeable journey that couldn't have happened all at once. If I'm correct, do linguists have any clue what intermediate steps would have been taken, and can someone demonstrate a couple of those pronunciations with English words?


Origins of the current meaning of stick-in-the-mud

A quick web search shows several pertinent results for the etymology of the phrase **stick in the mud** , for example http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/stick-in-the-mud.html, which indicates early usages referring to people stuck in mud who were unable to help themselves, and thus either in trouble, or criminals. This seems to me to be a distinctly _different_ meaning from the way we use stick-in-the-mud nowadays, where it's taken to mean 'party pooper' or 'uninterested in change'. So where did the _current_ meaning come from? Also, I never realised it was unrelated to tree branches lying in the mud, 'til I started looking this up!


has been going to have finished

I came across this sentence: > For four months now John has been going to have finished his novel by today. I would like to know if " _John has been going to have finished…_ " is the structure going to (special expression to talk about the future) in present perfect progressive which I find very weird. Would it be a mistake to just use " _to finish his novel…_ " instead of " _to have finished his novel…_ "?


Is "Universityhood" a valid English word?

This is a theme during the foundation day of a college, "Nurturing Elders' Legacy and Aspiring for Excellent Quest as a Keystone into University". Isn't it universityhood instead of just university? Which is a better theme, "Nurturing Elders' Legacy and Aspiring for Excellent Quest as a Keystone into University(hood)" or "Nurturing Legacy, Aspiring Excellence into Universityhood"?