Past simple vs present perfect

I have read many online articles. I've read questions and answers on this site. I still can't get my head wrapped around the difference between `past simple` and `present perfect` I know the difference is between finished time (use `past simple`) and unfinished time (use `present perfect`). But as a non-native English speaker, this still makes no sense to me. I am **not implying any kind of time period.** > I have posted on SE   >  I posted on SE I just want to convey that the action completed in the past. I don't want to provide any connotation whether the action just completed, or completed at certain period in past. Maybe with **"I"** , I know the time period, but what if I am talking about someone else. > He has posted on SE   >  He posted on SE I don't know the time frame that **"he"** did the action. I don't know what **"he"** was planning (continuous action, or at specific time). I just know the action took place in the past. I don't know if it just finished. I don't know if there is a consequence to the action or not. It seems to me that I am **forced** to imply a time frame. So my question is: if I don't want to imply any time frame, or at least to imply as little as possible, what should I use?


Term for dedicating a book

Let's say:   1. John Doe writes a book -- _Me and My Dog Spot_. On the page after the title, he writes: _For Nancy_.   2. My aunt gives this book to me for my birthday, and on the title page, she adds in her penmanship: _Dear Jen, this reminds me of you and Fluffy. Love, Aunt Marge_ I'd refer to #1 and #2 as a _dedication_ , but are there more appropriate terms?


Why are the past and present tenses of "read" spelt the same?

and only have different pronunciations?


Isn't behind your back in front of you?

We've all heard the phrase that usually goes along the lines of "blah blah did something behind my back". I've always thought that from your back's point of view, anything behind you is in front of it therefore behind your back is in front of you. Is this just another unnecessary redundancy and should we all just say "behind me" or am I reading too much into this?


Potential future events

Does the following correctly express potential consequences of meeting someone? > A chance encounter is a great idea. However, in this case, chances would be > very slim to meet her this way. Even worse, if I went out of my way to meet > her socially and randomly, chances that her two roommates would accompany > her are pretty significant. This question arose from my latest post on seddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/ed4at/trying_to_get_with_a_9_but_she_is_hesitant_to/ as I was contriving the comment to one of the responders. Feel free to suggest modifications to my actual post.


subject + verb + infinitive

I am having difficulty with subject + verb + infinitive set-ups, as I discovered with who/whom sentences. I understand who and whom as the subject and object forms. For sentences that I find a little more difficult I find it challenging to identify the form. For example: "This is the man who/whom Sara asked to wait for her." I figured this would be whom. Since the man is the object of asked; as a variation: "Sara asked him to wait for her." (Subject + verb + object + infinitive + prepositional phrase.) "This is the man who/whom the authorities refused to permit entry to the building." I think whom is correct; as a variation: "The authorities refused to permit him entry to the building." (Subject + object + infinitive + object + adverbial phrase?). I ask because of the following I found online: "[This is the] man who the authorities refused to admit existed." I applied the variation: "The authorities refused to admit he existed." Existed applies to the man and so he is the subject of the verb exist. I'm confused because “he existed” seems to me to be the object in the sentence. Take for example: “They refused to permit him entry”. The objective pronoun is being used. Both 'to permit' and 'to admit' are transitive here (I think); therefore, isn't “he existed” the object? I am confused by the use of the infinitive and what qualifies as the object in the subject + verb + infinitive set-up. Any assistance with how to understand this subject + verb + infinitive set-up and the object would be much appreciated.


"Needs cleaned" or "needs to be cleaned"

I'm from Western Pennsylvania. Until I moved away, I never realized that when I omitted the _to be_ from phrases like _needs to be cleaned_ , my usage was different than what most English speakers are accustomed to. Is it wrong?


Scottish English: past participle instead of gerund or infinitive?

A few years ago I moved to North-eastern Scotland. I've noticed that people from all backgrounds and levels of education frequently use the past participle instead of the gerund or infinitive forms, both in written work and in conversation. For example, the group secretary at my place of work has just sent out an e-mail saying: > I will be out of the office on Monday. If you have anything that **needs > booked** before then, please let me know. This just seems wrong to me: **needs booking** or **needs to be booked** would be correct. However, I hear it so regularly up here - and from people that are clearly well educated - that I'm beginning to think there must be more to it. Does anyone know of any historical precedent for this kind of usage in Scotland, or elsewhere? Perhaps it's actually fine and I'm just showing my ignorance? Thanks!


"Order something done" for "Order something to be done"

As far as your variety of English goes, can the verbal turn "order something done" be used interchangeably with "order something to be done"? > "We ordered this item sent to our local store." > > "I ordered this item sent to my son in Utah." > > "I ordered this item delivered to my girlfriend's workplace." > > "Yemen ordered him caught dead or alive."


"Conventional" vs. "traditional"

What is the difference between _conventional_ and _traditional_? E.g.: > My grandfather used to live a conventional/traditional life.


Word for a part of a wooden railroad track

I'm looking for a word for the thingy that's in the blue circle - ideally something not too complicated for a 3-year-old buddy. :) ![Train](http://i.stack.imgur.com/EhjkS.jpg)


Meaning of "to be" in the example

I cannot get the meaning of the following: > The failure to include these actions, which could be easily performed, might > by their absence betray an otherwise convincing claim to be feeling fear or > distress. Could anyone please explain what "to be" here means? And use synonym or explain that? It does not make any sense to me. EDIT: Does it mean "betray an otherwise convincing claim that he is feeling fear or distress"?


Transitive form of "to be"

Is there a single word in English that means something like "is-ify" or "to confer the property of existence"? I am not looking for "create."


"file content" vs. "file contents"

I am aware of the difference between _content_ and _contents_ and usually the distinction is clear to me. However I am wondering whether _file content_ or _file contents_ is more correct. On the one hand, the content of a file is a finite sequence of bytes, hence _contents_ would be appropriate. On the other hand, those bytes represent some entity (an image, for example), to which I would refer as the file's _content_. Is this distinction correct, or am I complicating things too much?


"Dignity" vs. "respect"

Today, I read an article, and one sentence talked about > treating other people with dignity and respect I had thought I understood the difference between the words _dignity_ and _respect_. But then I realized that I didn't understand — at least in the above context. I checked out the definitions on dictionary.com, m-w.com, etc. and I still didn't get it. What is difference between the two words _dignity_ and _respect_ in this context?


Can "duration" mean "remainder"?

On multiple commercial domestic flights, I've heard a flight attendant make an announcement just before final descent back to the ground that "the seat belt sign will remain illuminated for the _duration_ of the flight." This strikes me as an obvious mistake, where clearly "remainder" is intended. Is there an argument for using "duration" in this instance, despite much of the flight having already been spent with the seat belt sign dark?


When should "such forth" be used?

I was just having a conversation with a friend and I said "see how far from the access point each device is, so that I can do some relocation and such forth". She said that using _such forth_ at that part of the sentence is incorrect. Why?


Term for a firm used as a public front to hide an illegal operation

What do you call a firm used as a public front to hide an illegal operation? This would be a term for, for e.g.,   * A law firm used to hide a money laundering operation;    * A DVD corner shop where pirated films can be traded;    * A chemical plant concealing a large meth lab;    * A museum where secret slave auctions are held;    * A motorcycle shop where illegal guns are sold; and    * A legal casino where illegal gambling is secretly held in a back room club.


What does 'excluding the systematics' mean?

A business user asked me if I can run the report for her 'excluding the systematics'. Does that mean without going through the formality and procedure and etc?


Does "ran to" have a specific ending point in time?

Consider the following sentence: > Sam ran to the university pool. Does the running action have an ending point in the past?


What would you call 'A person who is ready for support all the time'? I wanted to write an email and convey to some clients that I will always be there for support, and was stuck when I got to this.


"The first time" vs. "at the first time" vs. "for the first time"

I have to arrange as a sequence some details about operations an ATM user will do to take cash. Which of the following is or are grammatical? >   1. The first time the user pushes the button, if the number he entered is > not valid, then... >   2. At the first time the user... (as the above) >   3. For the first time...(as the above) > I would be inclined to choose the first... Am I right?


"Small Latin and Less Greek"

About a third of the way through his poem "To the Memory of My Beloved the Author, Mr. William Shakespeare and What He Hath Left Us," Ben Jonson writes: > And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek, > > From thence, to honour thee, I would not seek > > For names; but call forth thund’ring Aeschylus, > > Euripides, and Sophocles to us, > > Paccuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead > > To life again, to hear thy buskin tread > > And shake a stage; or when thy socks were on, > > Leave thee alone, for the comparison > > Of all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome > > Sent forth; or since did from their ashes come. I have always supposed that the first line quoted above meant, as it would today, "And although you had little command of Latin and less of Greek"; but a footnote in George Greenwood, _Ben Jonson and Shakespeare_ (1921) offers the following gloss: > "And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek" wrote Jonson. "Here," > says the learned Dr. [Clement Mansfield] Ingleby, " _hadst_ is the > subjunctive. The passage may be thus paraphrased: 'Even if thou hadst little > scholarship, I would not seek to honour thee by calling thee as others have > done, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, etc., _i.e._ , by the names of the classical > poets, but would rather invite them to witness how far thou dost outshine > them.' Ben does not assert that Shakespeare had 'little Latin and less > Greek,' as several understand him." ( _Centurie of Prayse_ , 2nd Edit. > [1879], p. 151). This may be correct, but others contend that Ben's words > are to be taken not in the subjunctive but in the indicative mood. It may be > so, since Ben was writing on the hypothesis that the player would be > generally taken as the poet, and, naturally, had to adapt his language to > that hypothesis. Either interpretation will equally well suit the sceptical > case. I have two questions: **1.** Does "And though thou hadst" here mean "And even if you had" or "And although you had"—or is it impossible to tell? **2.** If it is impossible to tell, were listeners and readers in Shakespearean/Jonsonian times accustomed to having to draw their own conclusions about whether the subjunctive mood or the indicative mood was intended in such cases?


What's a generic name for an attack animal?

I'm looking for the name of an animal trained to attack, whether for defense or sport. I feel like it's on the 'tip of my tongue' but can't quite get it. “Blood sport” is a bit too broad (and, in a sense, too narrow as well), and refers of course to the act and not the creature.


A word to mention a set of products sold together with a bundle price?

Is there a word to refer to a set of products sold together, with a specific price? For example:   * Product A is sold 10 dollars   * Product B is sold 10 dollars Product A and B are sold together for 18 dollars. How can we call the result of this product grouping?


Meaning of "about to [do something]" when it refers to somebody's action

> I am about to launch a start-up company. Would the sentence be understood as _I am intending to launch a start-up company_ , or _I am close to launch a start-up company_? In a sentence like _the ceremony was about to begin_ , I would understand that the ceremony was close to begin; is that the most common meaning assigned to sentences like _I am about to launch a start-up company_?


Where did the term "doggone it" come from?


An adjective that would substitute "underfunded" here?

> Tom remains underfunded to start up a business. The context is that this man has an excellent business plan and entrepreneurial spirit. But the bank wouldn't lend him money in absence of collateral. In my view, the word "underfunded" properly stresses the fact that Tom lacks capital. However, according to Collins Dictionary, this word in most cases modify an organization or services. Are there any words that would fit in better? To clarify, Tom LACKS enough funding. Still, he may turn to other institutions other than banks, a solution not very practical because the former ones charge exorbitantly high interest rate.


A polite substitution for "lamer"

Is there a polite word that can be used to designate someone who didn't really understand what he or she was doing? Or, in general, someone who is intentionally ignorant of how things work. A "lamer" doesn't fit for being impolite, and seemingly harming some people's ears too much. **Edit:** Another good definition is > It distinguishes between people who are ignorant by chance from those who > are ignorant by choice. And it makes me think that there is no polite substitution just because the meaning itself being impolite and abusive. Right?


Correct form of a chapter reference

If I have the following sentences, which version is correct:   1. This chapter provides.... or   2. This Chapter provides.... Note the capitalisation of 'c'.   1. Chapter 1 provides....   2. Chapter One provides... Note the use of numbers   1. This model was discussed in Chapter One   2. This model was discussed in chapter one   3. This model was discussed in Chapter 1   4. This model was discussed in chapter 1 Note the use of capitalisation and numbers in the last part of the sentence. Many thanks.


"To his amazement the girl did kiss her hand and stretch it out"

> To his amazement the girl did kiss her hand and stretch it out. In my understanding, _to_ mostly refer the object of an action. So what's the meaning of _to_ in this sentence? I think, the sentence should be rewrite to something like the following sentence. > Amazemently, the girl did kiss her hand and stretch it out.


Synonyms for 'conference attendees'

I'm trying to think of the best way to casually say 'conference attendees'. Any ideas?


What does "an adverb tells us something about the sentence" mean?

Wikipedia states : > In grammar an adverbial is a word (an adverb) or a group of words (an > adverbial phrase or an adverbial clause) that modifies or tells us something > about the sentence or the verb. I understand that an adverbial usually tells us something about the verb; I just don't know what the something about the sentence is.


"Keep informed" versus "stay informed"

I saw "Keep Informed!" written under the social profiles of a Firefox extension in its release notes. I think, the writer wants to say "keep abreast of all the developments, bug fixes and new features". But is "keep informed" correct? Shouldn't it be "Stay informed"?


A word or phrase for rigging a request or situation for failure (despite appearances to a third party)?

Imagine we have three individuals: Alice, Bob, and Carol. Bob asks Alice to write a letter to Carol asking for a favor. Alice wants Carol to refuse to do the favor for Bob, but for it to appear to Bob that she is trying her best to serve Bob's interests. So Alice writes the letter mentioning or saying something cryptic, which Bob won't pick up on, but which will cause Carol to refuse to perform the favor. E.g. perhaps Alice casually mentions something about Bob that seems benign to Bob but will lead Carol to have a strong negative reaction to Bob. Carol then refuses to perform the favor, Alice shows Bob her letter and the response, and Bob is disappointed but thinks Alice tried her best to help him. Alice is smiling. Is there a specific word or phrase for Alice's actions as described above?


What does “kind of edge” mean?

From Steinbeck's _Cannery Row_ , > If one of you fellas wants **to kind of edge** into my cellar without my > wife seeing you, they’re on top of the side stringer on the left-hand side > as you go in.


Beer vs Beers : Units vs Purchasing

I have run into a conundrum. When I go to get some friends cans of beer I say: > You guys want a beer? When I am referring to going to a bar and drinking some I say: > Let's go get some beers! When I go to a store to buy beer I say: > I am going to get beer. How can I work this out? My friend is a native Chinese speaker and this is the sort of plural thing that trips her up. How is this explained?


"Overseas" vs. "abroad"

I'm a native speaker of Inland Northern American English. My intuition tells me that the word "abroad" is unremarkable, especially in collocations like "study abroad". However, I've been correcting English entries on Lang-8 lately, and I noticed that a Canadian English speaker made a correction I wouldn't have. She changed the following clause: > she told me that she was going study **_abroad_** next month to this: > she told me that she was going to study **_overseas_** next month Her explanation was the following: > Hardly anyone ever says “abroad” in real life, it’s a bit of an awkward > word. We say overseas, in another country, outside the country, etc. This is quite a different impression than I get when I see the word "abroad". That said, I know I can't always trust my intuition on matters of usage. Is she correct?


How to guess/divine definitions from etymology?

I've been using the word 'intuition' to characterise such questions, of which I've asked many, so I'd like to learn or be enlightened about the general methodology. Is there a formal term? **Supplementary:** Thanks to the answer below about etymological fallacy, I've emended this question. I don't expect 100% precision with this modality, but it can lessen the need to memorise definitions, review >3 times each new word, or post a new question for each word? I prefer to try 'intuiting' or glossing words for myself, also to improve my remembrance. If you weren't educated about this formally, then how did you acquire or develop this skill? Books? Online resources?


Which preposition to use in "to live in fear [...] one's life"

> I am being threatened by unsavory sorts. I am now living in fear **for** my > life. or > I am now living in fear **of** my life.


What's the meaning of the 'had'?

Is this word, ‘had’ could be implying two ways, one is ‘owned’, the other ‘made’? [example] Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die.


What is the proper word for 'newly formed flower'?

I am creating a wiki page and I am looking for an exact word for 'newly formed flower' with characteristics like fresh, young, charming, _etc._


Word/phrase for a story in which time passes between scenes

Stories like _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ often have large time gaps between narration. Days, weeks, or even years might pass between chapters or scenes in stories such as these. What word or phrase can be used to describe such a story?


Subject-verb agreement with "Some" as the subject

In the sentence, _"Some of their work to make their community a better place to live include(s):" followed by a list of 10 items,_ which is correct? > a) Some include:   >  b) Some includes: A link to a specific rule to share with others would be helpful.


Usage of "to be done" with "work"

What are the differences between the following and when do we use them?   1. There is still **work to be done**.   2. The **work has to be done**.    3. The **work is to be done**.


Word to describe another hypothesis that could explain the same outcome

I'm curious as to whether there is a word that describes another hypothesis that is accounted for by the same evidence. To be more clear, we may have a hypothesis A, and data X. Data X is consistent with A. However, data X is also consistent with some other hypothesis, B. B may or may not be consistent with A. Is there a special word to describe B?


How do I say that something is a "side" interest?

I am writing my profile and I want to say that reading is a "side" interest i.e. it is something that I don't do regularly but I am passionate about it. I don't want to use the word "side" or the phrase "side interest". Is there a better way to say it, which can captures the two elements above (i.e. it is not my principal interest and I enjoy it)? My current sentence is: Javeer took up reading as a side interest. (Note: I describe what I read later in the profile.)


"when spring arrives"

> I often told you we'd go there when spring arrives. That sentence seems funny to me. It means that in the past the speaker would often promise the listener that when spring arrives they would go to a certain place together. Is it grammatically correct? What about these alternatives? > I often told you we'd go there when spring arrived. I'm not sure if "arrives" or "arrived" should be used.


Adjective for "choosing not to speak"

What is an adjective that expresses someone's choice to speak up (or to stay silent)? > Nothing required her to go into the details of the assault. But she wasn't > **_XXX_**. She stepped forward and gave a full account. _Shy_ , _bashful_ or _reticent_ isn't what I'm looking for. I want to convey that this is not a decision driven by emotion or by an inherent character trait, but rather a clear-cut rational choice.


"Did what I say/said make sense to you?"

Which is correct? > Did what I **say** make sense to you? > > Did what I **said** make sense to you?


Merging words into one. When is it allowed?

There are several words in the English which have been created as a "merging" of multiple existing words. > e.g. Insofar\- Merged from words "in, so, far". How do such words come about? It surely can't simply be a matter of a mistake growing in usage so much that it is eventually accepted as valid, because there are so many examples for which this has not happened. > e.g. "alot"- This is not a valid word, although it is commonly written.


Do you capitalize a quoted word at the beginning of a sentence?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Should I change the structure of a sentence/add filler words to make sure > that the sentence always starts with a capital letter? As a concrete example, imagine that I'm talking about prepositions, and I want to say that the word "with" is okay to use. I gather that when quoting a word, I can use either quotation marks or italic font, but I'm confused about capitalization at the beginning of the sentence. For example: >   * _with_ is always okay. >   * _With_ is always okay. >   * "with" is always okay. >   * "With" is always okay. > Which is correct? I'm guessing #2 and #4, with the capitals, but my logical side does not like the capital letter getting inside the quotation, since it is not really part of it.


Is the word "colic" a right word in this context?

If I drink too much water and run or do some extreme activities, I will feel something in my stomach. I also want to stop doing the activities because of that feeling as well. It's not hurting, aching, or feeling nauseous. I use a dictionary to translate this word from my native language to English and it says "colic." But when I look up this word, it is not the same. What word should I use to describe this feeling?


Is "each and every one of you" singular or plural?

Is _each and every one of you_ singular or plural? I searched this subject and found a similar post here but I just want to confirm.


What are the uses of ellipses in essays?

I’m wondering about how ellipses are used in essays. Are there any examples that I could see?


Word for situation in which there is no alternative

What is a word to describe the situation in which there is no alternative or something cannot be helped? I am looking for a neutral word, similar to _impotent_ , instead of the slightly negative _helpless_ , _grudgingly_ , _willy-nilly_ or _nolens volens_. For example, how do we describe this situation? > The teacher's lecture is dull, but I have to sit there and listen. I have no > choice. In Japan the (-.-) icon is used in text messaging and in Chinese 無奈 is used to describe this.


What does "has got to be" mean?

Source of the phrase: > Player Union Strikes Called Off   >  "And looking along the table, really, there should be more smiles than > you're seeing. I think people are tired. The reason there should be more > smiles is, quite simply, there will be no strike. And that **has got to be** > for the good of the game, for the good of everybody"--a quotation from > Richard Scudamore


What's the difference between pronunciation and enunciation? I learned this a long time ago in English class but forgot what it was. **Clarification** For example, Wikipedia says: > Good enunciation is the act of speaking clearly and concisely. The opposite > of good enunciation is mumbling or slurring. See also pronunciation which is > a component of enunciation. Pronunciation is to pronounce sounds of words > correctly I can't tell from this what the specific difference is. When is it correct to say someone's _pronunciation_ is off versus when their _enunciation_ is off? Merriam Webster's definition defines enunciate as : >   1. articulate, pronounce > That would seem to say it's the same as to pronounce. Is there a specific example of incorrect _pronunciation_ verses _enunciation_?


use of the interjection "but lo' ..."

In an article I tried to understand (the german understanding) of: > (...) we’re outside the part of **_C_** where the standard Dirichlet series > actually converges. But lo’ we can ask what’s the Ramanujan summation (...) Here the interjection _lo'_ got my interest. I found, for instance _lo and behold_ in leo.org and thus I think I understand the meaning here, too. But is there some root of that interjection (semantic, etymological,...)? I mean, the author has added an apostrophe so something should be behind it; Leo.org does not help here.


“Their Own Pages” or “Their Own Page”

> Your images will have their own **pages/page**. I want to talk about several images. Each image has one page. Should I use **pages** or **page**? Why?


"A makes B good, and so does C"

This sentence is the short form of "A makes B good, and C makes B good too." Then, what is the short form of "A makes B good, and A makes C good too?"


"No kidding" and "not kidding"

What is the difference between _not kidding_ and _no kidding_? Is _no kidding_ valid English?


Breaking or break the habit

Which of these sentences is grammatically correct?   1. Imagining the ill effects of smoking led him to ultimately break the habit.   2. Imagining the ill effects of smoking led him to ultimately breaking the habit. The problem I faced while framing this sentence was selecting the correct tense for the verb _break_. I think it should be the first one as only after “imagining” the effects, the habit was broken. On the other hand, the present continuous tense implies that the process is ongoing, which I think I didn’t intend to convey. Does this seem plausible?


Is f**kstick really an abusive word?

I have heard the word _fuckstick_ in a lot of Hollywood movies, most notably in 'The Shawshank Redemption'. What is this word even meant to convey? An insult? Is it even abusive? Or is just a combination of two random words?


Should I use "who" or "that" when referring to an organisation?

I generally use the rule of thumb of using _who_ when referring to a person and _that_ when referring to an object. Example: _Jim is someone **who** makes me smile.   I was nearly knocked out by the ball **that** hit me._ But what about when we're talking about an organisation? _I am forever indebted to the charities **who** helped me.   I am forever indebted to the charities **that** helped me_. The former seems somewhat warmer, if that makes sense, although the latter feels more correct. What should I use? And how about this: _I'm really happy with the insurance company **who** helped me with my claim.   I can't stand them, they're the insurance company **that** ripped me off._ To me the former evokes a team of helpful people while the latter evokes a cold heartless corporate entity. Is this just a matter of style and so should go with my instincts, or should I aim for what is 'correct?'


Is "ad hominem" gender-neutral?

My immediate thought is that the term _is_ generic, and yet I read recently a verbal brickbat described as _ad feminam_. Was that just a po-mo back- formation, or is there some merit to the distinction? [Mind you, it's likely I saw it in the same office where a proofer once changed an unrelated text I wrote to read _ombudsperson_ , so ....]


"A classmate and I was" vs "A classmate and I were"

I'm writing a resume right now targeted towards a specific company. My girlfriend (a classmate) and I were (see, I don't know if that's the right word, hence this question!) the first from our school to be awarded a scholarship from this company. Is it more correct to say: > Awarded such and such scholarship in 2011. A classmate and I were the first > students from my college to be awarded this scholarship. Or: > Awarded such and such scholarship in 2011. A classmate and I was the first > students from my college to be awarded this scholarship. The first seems much more correct when spoken, but the rule I've been taught is to take the other person out and use the words that make sense about just you.


What is the proper (practical/efficient) way to analyze a sentence?

One is given the sample sentence: > The fat blind man ran from the dog. What are the procedural steps to deduce the subject and predicate from the sentence? What are the general steps to completely analyze the sentence?


How to handle a name that includes an exclamation point (or other punctuation)?

Certain brands, such as **Yahoo!** , insist that the exclamation is part of their name. In writing about such a brand or company, is the inclusion of the vanity punctuation right, wrong, or optional? I would like my writing to be correct; however, of more concern with the average reader, I wouldn't want my writing to seem to be pandering.


What is the correct way to punctuate sentences that end with proper nouns who also contain punctuation?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  How to handle a name that includes an exclamation point (or other > punctuation)? Pardon the example usage, but given a proper noun that contains punctuation (e.g., the title of a show, _Yu-Gi-Oh!_ ), how would sentence punctuation be used? >   1. Do you like to watch Yu-Gi-Oh!? > >   2. Yes, I watch Yu-Gi-Oh!. > >   3. I can't believe someone your age still watches Yu-Gi-Oh!! > > Are these correct, or should they omit the additional punctuation?


What to do if a sentence ends with "Yahoo!"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  How to handle a name that includes an exclamation point (or other > punctuation)? Just like the title of this question. I was reading an article about CAPTCHAs on Wikipedia and I read this: > These methods have been used by spammers to set up thousands of accounts on > free email services such as Gmail and Yahoo!. Is this correct or should the period be omitted? It looks very strange.


Tendency of using pronouns 'she/her' when talking about a random person

Reading different specifications and manuals I've noticed that more often and often pronouns she or her are being used when some unknown person's behavior is described. For example: "when user opens the first screen, let she be notified about something" or "let user input her address". Actually, I've seen more versatile examples but cannot remember anything nice now. Is it a last-years tendency? Or is it something only UK-specific? Are there any rules about it? Or, maybe, is it applicable only for written document/spoken language? I'm not an informant (as you've already guessed) and it's very important to me how should I write in official correspondence with British/US customers and not to hurt their feelings?


When to use the feminine form when referring to a person?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Tendency of using pronouns 'she/her' when talking about a random person I was never interested in grammar and English in school. Now that I am older, I am finding it was more important than I gave it credit. Especially with the people I deal with at work. Plus, I am finding an interest for it now. Anyway, I've noticed over the years that when referring to a person, most books and articles tend to use the feminine form. For example: "A good programmer knows she should write tests." Instead of using "he/she" they prefer to use "she". Same is true for "her" instead of "his/her". Where did this come from? I'm not complaining, I actually prefer it. Reminds me of a "ladies first" mentality. But am I correct in assuming it is grammatically (or maybe politically) correct to use this form? Thanks


Is the phrase "this will blow your and your friends’ minds." correct?

I couldn't find this specific type of phrase on here yet. I'm especially not sure whether to use the plural in this phrase. Should I use your and your friends' -mind- or -minds-?


Any word for "made by combining parts of many things"?

Is there any word in the English language that can be used to describe something made by combining parts of many things? * * * Here are a bunch of more things as requested by some from comments. I need an adjective. I am describing a programming language that has features from many other existing languages. The sentence I want to use it is on the lines of:   * In short, this language is a **____** of { _names of other languages_ } (I know I could use _this language has a combination of features from ..._ , but this (to me) seems to fit in better...) PS: It would be great if I could even use the word as the name of the language (so even nouns will do), if it's catchy.. :)


Usage of "prevalent" in reference to a disease

Is it ok to use word 'prevalent' in the following sentence: > Flu is very prevalent in the third world countries, that nobody cares about > it.


What do you call a person who doesn't pay attention to the principles of ergonomics?

How do you say that a person does not pay attention to ergonomics (like at a computer) in a concise way? Options I've come up with include:   * He does not use ergonomics.   * He does not follow ergonomics.   * He is not ergonomic. Any better ideas?


What is the difference between "knickers" and "panties"? I've read the difference is that "knickers" used in the UK and "panties" is used in US. Is this the only difference?


Formally introducing yourself in an email

I am composing an email to a work associate who I have never had any dealings with before. I'm struggling to think of a _formal_ yet _succinct_ way of introducing myself. In person, I would probably say: > "Pleased to meet you" But this feels wrong because I am not actually meeting him- I'm just sending an email.


How official is the word "subpar"?

How official is the word "subpar"? Is there a reason not to use it in a document and are there any circumstances under which I should avoid its use? Could the phase "subpar performance" confuse the reader?


Meaning of "Apply at 4–6 weekly intervals"

I purchased some fungicide. The instructions on the back of the bottle say "Apply at 4–6 weekly intervals." Does that mean it should be applied 4–6 times a week? Or every 4–6 weeks?


Etymology of "trumpet" and "triumphant"

With the lack of a good etymology search engine that I know of I'll ask this here. In classical music, the trumpet is often used to communicate a sense of victory, glory, or triumph. To my linguistically untrained ear, the words _trumpet_ and _triumphant_ sound uncannily similar. Also, the verb form of _trumpet_ is related, roughly, to the idea of triumph. Is there some common origin that these two words share, or is it just coincidence?


Is there a single word to describe a "young wizard"?

A wizard is an expert magician but there are some trainees (like Sabrina the Teenage Witch). I was wondering if there is a single word to describe an amateur or young wizard as opposed to fully describing as "young wizard".


What is a "shipping quote"?

I see this expression in shopping carts, and it seems related to tracking the shipment, but I don't understand what it is. Could please anybody explain that?


Is there a similar proverb in English as of malayalam

In Malayalam, there is a proverb " **Either the leaf falls on a thorn or a thorn on a leaf, it harms the leaf.** " Can you suggest an English saying similar to this?


Identifying that generic words are used with a specific meaning

I am writing a white paper about a software product. This software product uses some common names in a specific way. For example, there is an "Actions" palette that contains items called "actions". There is a "Slides" palette that contains items called "slides". When first referencing these items I can do as I did above, put the word in quotes. However, when I later continue to reference these terms in a manner that may be confusing to the reader how should I format them to best remind the reader that these are the specific items discussed earlier? There are also cases where the same word is used not as a reference to these items, and so I want to disambiguate the usages. For example: > All user interaction is handled through triggers known as “actions”.   >  _[…paragraphs later…]_   >  Conditional interactions are accomplished by placing **actions** only on > specific slides for items in the interface.   >  _[…pages later…]_   >  SCXML supports _actions_ on state entry/exit, _actions_ on transitions, … The bolded usage of "actions" above refers to the specific term. The two italicized usages of "actions" above are (somewhat confusingly) references to a different concept.   * Should I capitalize the reference? e.g. "…accomplished by placing Actions only on specific…"   * Should I quote the reference? e.g. "…accomplished by placing 'actions' only on specific…"   * Should I italicize the reference? e.g. "…accomplished by placing _actions_ only on specific…"   * Should I bold the reference? e.g. "…accomplished by placing **actions** only on specific…"   * Should I leave the reference alone? e.g. "…accomplished by placing actions only on specific…"


Aren't answers to questions dependent clauses? How do you punctuate one after the question?

For example, which one(s) is correct:   1. Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.   2. Why did the chicken cross the road: to get to the other side.   3. Why did the chicken cross the road?--To get to the other side. Please put any other ways to construct this sequence.


"Plausible" vs. "possible"

I am looking to find the difference between _possible_ and _plausible_. Here is what Apple's dictionary gives for each word: > Possible: Able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or > something > > Plausible: (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable I mean, other than these definitions, are there any connotative differences?


What do British and American post boxes say when they don't want any advertising?

Advertising leaflets shoved _en masse_ into mail boxes are one of the banes of modern society. In Germany, putting a note saying _"Bitte keine Werbung"_ ("No advertising please") on your box protects you from them - advertisers who repeatedly ignore the note face heavy fines. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/TxCnh.jpg) Is there a standard English phrase that is widely used in this specific context?


Comma comes before the full subject

I am trying to teach my students about commas and one of them asked if generally, not all the time, a comma comes before the full subject. I believe this is 90% of the time the case. I was wondering what reason I can give. Is it part of some rule. Examples... > While I was eating, the cat scratched at the door. Because her alarm clock > was broken, she was late for class. If you are ill, you ought to see a > doctor. Having finished the test, he left the room. To get a seat, you'd > better come early. However, you may not be satisfied with the results. > Finally, I went home.


Forward slashes: are they acceptable in Commonwealth English prose?

In Commonwealth English is it acceptable to write this in a magazine article: > If there are there any nearby towns **/** villages …


What is a plausible etymology of "dosh", a British slang word for money?

Neither Wikitionary nor The Online Etymology Dictionary seem to know anything.


How do I reject an offer?

Recently I got an offer letter from one of the top companies. However, because of some unexpected situations I want to reject the offer. In the mail I've explained all the reasons, but I am finding it difficult to find a sentence for the end of the mail. Should I say "I apologize for the inconvenience" or "Sorry to inform you that I am rejecting the offer" Would usage of 'reject' be rude? Could someone suggest an exact sentence or a set of sentences? Thank you.


"How be you" or "How are you"?

I have never heard the phrase "How be you?" until yesterday, and started arguing that this was incorrect and that the correct phrase is "How are you?". My friend's reply was "This is how it's taught in the UK". Googling does seem to find usage of this phrase, but it all seems to be colloquial, instead of formal. Is it actually taught this way, in the UK or anywhere else?


Word for including a fact into something that you do?

I'm looking for a verb in the following context which expresses that you   * take notice of something **and** include that into **the result** of your action. Scenario:   You create a test for a software and you detect a behavior which is in some way unusual. You find out what the reason for this behavior is and you decide for yourself that this must be wrong. But because it is not part of your job to decide whether or not, you ignore it and you create the test in the way assuming that the behavior were correct. > I ??? this ( _imho incorrect_ ) behavior in my test. All words that I find means either that you decide something to do or that you remember something:   * take something into account   * to bear/keep something in mind   * to consider   * to factor But I don't want to express neither that you remember the _mistake_ while creating the test nor that you _decided to ignore the mistake_. The verb _to include_ is the only one I can think of that works in the context, but have a bit different expression then the one I want to give. _To include_ is in my understanding more like _just to insert_. * * * **Edit** for clarification: there is something that you know (you take notice of it) and you have a particular opinion about it ("it is wrong") but because you can't change it, you include that (wrong) behavior and handle it as if it were correct.


Meaning of "I am for it?"

I think it means "I'm for it now," meaning said person has to face up to some sort of chastisement/consequence (as they have done something wrong and will pay the price.) Is that right? Are there other examples of this use?


What would you call her actions here?

Here is a situation: Whenever a 2-year-old son does something wrong, his aunt always makes some remarks to her husband regarding that child's misbehavior and she does it deliberately in the presence of the child's mom obviously trying to needle her. For example, the mom told her child not to touch the remote control, but he just went ahead and grabbed it from the coffee table and accidentally dropped it on the floor - so the aunt right away told her husband, 'Look, he is so spoiled! Never listens to his parents!' Usually she doesn't do it loudly. She can't be accused of trying to start a fight with her sister-in-law (the child's mom) as she does have the right to tell her husband whatever she thinks, yet she never fails to do it audibly enough so that the child's mom could hear it. What would you call the aunt's actions here? How would you describe what she is doing? EDIT: I am most interested in a noun and a verb: "What she is doing is called (noun)." or "She is simply (verb+ing)." Examples: What she is doing is called mockery. She is simply ranting.


When is "here" an adverb or a noun?

In the sentence "I hope you are all paying attention, here is a sentence I made earlier", is _here_ an adverb or a noun? I think it is a noun, but if I substitute a noun or a pronoun for _here_ , the sentence loses its intended meaning.


Should I use "the wife" or "my wife"?

I am not sure whether the best form when speaking of my spouse in everyday English is `the wife` or `my wife`. I commonly read `the wife` (or `the girlfriend`) in reference to the author's significant other, so it appears to be idiomatic at least in American English. However, the women are not part of the group addressed, and I don't know how they would react to it. Is `the wife` impolite or even derogatory? If not, which form is better?


Is panda "a kind of a bear" or "a kind of bear"?

Or, perhaps, it's not a kind at all? A type maybe?


What is "plaice" in the US? Would love a good fish and chips

When we went to the market, at the fisherman's counter we asked for _plaice_ with which we would make fish and chips. Now here in the States when we ask for _plaice_ , they don't understand what we mean. Can anyone tell me with confidence what _plaice_ is called in the northeastern United States?


Have any pseudo-anglicisms become proper English words?

There are plenty of pseudo-anglicisms in other languages around the world: _Handy, Pullunder, Showmaster_ and _Beamer_ ¹ in German. These words, though borrowed from English, are used differently from their usual English meanings. Have any pseudo-anglicisms later become common English words? ¹ I’m mentioning Beamer (German word for projector) especially as there is a popular package for the LaTeX typesetting system that helps in creating projection slide; such uses could potentially spread a pseudo-anglicism.


Name, Conditions, and Pluralization of "Conscience' sake"

In some versions of the Bible, 1 Cor. 10:25 contains the phrase _conscience' sake_ with no _s_ following the possessive apostrophe of _conscience_ , which does not end with _s_ , as in: > New American Standard Bible (©1995) > > Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for > conscience' sake; I have three questions:   * Does this unique event have a name?    * When (or with what other words) does it happen? Is it because **both** _conscience_ ends and _sake_ begins with an _s_ sound?   * Is there a distinct pluralized form, i.e. a phrase meaning only "for the sake of several/many consciences"? (A Google search suggested _conscience's' sake_.)


"Is used" vs. "has been used" vs. "was used"

I have three sentences of which I'm not sure which one is grammatical, and why. _It_ refers to the Eiffel Tower. >   * It **is used** as the symbol of Paris and of France for over a century. >   * It **was used** as the symbol of Paris and of France for over a century. >   * It **has been used** as the symbol of Paris and of France for over a > century. >


"Ridiculous amount": semantic change (amelioration) originated from an antiphrasis? When and how?

"Ridiculous" means laughable, laughable because it is obviously and hilariously **_not good enough_**. However in English "a ridiculous amount of money" is "a ridiculously **_large_** amount of money". In general it seems that "a ridiculous amount" is always "a ridiculously large amount":   * «That's an absolutely ridiculous price for that sweater»   * «Don't be ridiculous! You can't pay £50 for a T-shirt!» «They ate and drank a ridiculous amount» «The meal was ridiculously expensive»   * «Hedge fund giant David Tepper made a ridiculous amount of money in 2013»   * «Beyoncé has sold a ridiculous amount of albums since Friday»   * «GTA role offered to Alec Baldwin for “a ridiculous amount of money”. Alec Baldwin turned down an “incomprehensible amount” of money»   * «… it's a ridiculous amount of pain for such a light touch …»   * «5 year old genius knows a ridiculous amount of geography, turns down a Sony tablet»   * «Our teacher gave us a ridiculous amount of homework tonight», nº 24   * «She had spent a ridiculous amount of money buying this apartment, free and clear, for cash, the way other people bought sweaters. She had spent a ridiculous amount of money buying her little tangerine orange Mercedes sports car, also for cash»   * «I did love that piece, Bernard, but you were right when you said that $1,688,000 was a ridiculous amount of money to pay for a piece of furniture. So I decided to auction it off in the hope of obtaining an equally ridiculous amount of money that I could use for a better purpose», page 199 In my opinion this is an **antiphrasis** exactly as "terrific", "tremendous", "awful", "sick", "bad", "wicked", etc., when used with a positive connotation. When an antiphrasis becomes popular, a proper **semantic change** occurs, in these cases it would be called an **amelioration**. But it is important to stress how a semantic change of this type is often originated from an antiphrasis. If you agree with this premise, my question is: when and how was the **meaning** of the adjective "ridiculous" **inverted** from "obviously and hilariously not good" to "absurdly great" when referred to an amount of money? Otherwise, can you explain why you do not agree with the premise?


pronunciation : Vine vs Vineyard

Why `vin` in `vine` sounds similar to `vice`, but `vin` in `vineyard` is similar to that in the name `Vincent`? I would expect since both `vine` and `vineyard` are related to grape in some way, they probably should share the root. As a result their pronunciation should be similar. What is the history behind the difference?


"Broken my duck"? Is this a common idiom/phrase?

I steal this phrase from a comment on Meta Stack Overflow: > yep, I think **I've broken my duck** or so to speak :) – Kev♦ 51 mins ago The context is one of having been basically broken into a particular fold, or going through a rite of passage - Kev has symbolically become a true moderator because he has gotten a Meta thread about his actions. But the phrase is... unusual, to be soft about it. You don't break open ducks, or really most animals at all you don't break. Is this a common idiom? If so, what in hejudas inspired such a phrasing?


A word for "to make more concrete" in philosophical context?

I am looking for a verb for _to make more concrete_. Initially, I chose _to practialize_ but it is not an English term according to ispell. Please, come up with verbs of the same meaning. **Example** The situation where I want to use this is in philosophy. The sentence is like this > XYZ philosophical ideas are meant to make THX issues more practical over > long-term but solving the practical problems requires in the first step > critical understanding of present state through certain philosophical > machinery. The reason I want to avoid the term _practical_ is that it has a bit of a diverted meaning in this context — the goal is to make abstract ideas to help other people, not necessarily physical things but to transform technical issues into practical. Even the term _practical_ is a bit diverted here. I am writing a synopsis about a very long philosophical article where the author redefines or moulds the original meaning of _practice_ into _reasoning_ , _judging_ and _perception_. Clearly I want to avoid this term because it means something altogether different to normal. I need to find another way to describe the original author's desire for _to make things more practical_ , not by repetitively using _practical_ , but some variety to this process with words having different connotations and background. Initially, I thought that I would favor scientific terms such as _precipitate_ from Chemistry because of the technical background in my course but I am now unsure, it may make the text too hard to read.


Are these how's meaning 'how well'?

It’s not easy how I have to read clauses starting with _how_. I’m going to start this question with a case from Longman –– “ _He was impressed at **how well** she could read!_ (A)”. Though Longman says _how_ is used to emphasizing with adjective or adverb, Random House says _how_ intensifies not only adjective or adverb but also the whole sentence without them –– “ _How it rain!, How I envy you!_ ” So far it’s not that hard to follow. But when _how_ -clause becomes a content clause, I’m confusing this **exclamative content clause** –– “ _She told me how very aggressive he had been_. (CGEL,p991)” and cases in which _how_ is read as conjunction that; the fact that; the way that –– “..referring to _how_ Capone was eventually charged with tax evasion rather than criminal activity”. This aforesaid that-usage is, I guess, based on “in dependent question and exclamations”. **[Q i]** Now, what I want to ask is can the Langman’s case (A) be rewritten without meaning change into “He was impressed at **how** she could read”. The examples below put me up to this question. > 1 Then she changed her desk into a pig and back again. They were all very > impressed and couldn't wait to get started, but soon realized they weren't > going to be changing the furni-ture into animals for a long time. After > taking a lot of complicated notes, they were each given a match and started > trying to turn it into a needle. By the end of the lesson, only Hermione > Granger had made any difference to her match; Professor McGonagall showed > the class **how** it had gone all silver and pointy and gave Hermione a rare > smile. > > 2 Malfoy had been even more unpleasant than usual since the Quidditch match. > Disgusted that the Slytherins had lost, he had tried to get everyone > laughing at **how** a wide-mouthed tree frog would be replacing Harry as > Seeker next. Then he'd realized that nobody found this funny, because they > were all so impressed at the way Harry had managed to stay on his bucking > broomstick. So Malfoy, jealous and angry, had gone back to taunting Harry > about having no proper family. > > – Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, p.134; 195 **[Q ii]** Now, vice versa, can these two how’s can be rewritten into how well or how good?


Complex reported speech question

I had the following sentence today in my exam: > "Would you like to come with us to a service in the Maori Church?" asked my > hostess. "Indeed, I would," I replied. What would be the indirct narration of this sentence? I wrote: > My hostess asked me if I would like to go with **them** to a service in the > Maori Church, to which I replied that I indeed would. Is this correct? If not, what would be the correct version?


Why does "forgetive" mean "creative", not "easy to forget things"?

As the title says. It surprised me when I found this online dictionary entry at the time I tried to express "easy to forget things" and "forgetive" appeared in my mind. What is the history or background of this word? Also, what adjective means "easy to forget things" in English?


usage of 'its' in sentence

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is audience singular or plural? > During the final minutes of his speech,the speaker requested the audience to > hold _its_ applause. Is the usage of 'its' correct in the sentence. Should it be replaced with 'their' ? I am not sure of using 'its' because, the audience are not inanimate(like stones).


Looking for the inverse of "frictional"

Does _frictional_ means "that which is produced by friction"? Or is there a better word that means "that which generates friction"?


What is the difference between providing that and provided that?

Please tell me about this question and give me an example for each one. Is it conjunction or not? Thanks


Meaning of: "If I could buy my reasoning I'd pay to lose"

In the lyrics of "It's my life" by No Doubt, there is: > If I could buy my reasoning, I'd pay to lose Can someone explain what this means? **Update** Does it means: my feelings tell me to go left, my reasoning to go right, if I could pay to keep my reasoning quite and go left, I would do it, but my reasoning is stronger, so I still feel I should go right?


What is the small room most businesses have at their entrance called?

Often times when you enter through the front doors of a business, you enter a small room, generally less than 10ft × 10ft, and then have to go through another set of doors to enter the building. The purpose of this room as I understand it is to create a buffer between the atmosphere outside and inside the building and prevent drafts. During the winter it helps to prevent heat from escaping from the inside of the building and during the summer it helps to keep the cool air conditioned air inside. I've often seen these rooms so small they are barely big enough for two people to stand in. What is this room called? I thought it was called a foyer, but the Wikipedia article, Google Image Search, and the Merriam-Webster definition all suggest a foyer is what I've only ever referred to as a lobby.


Meaning of “ball off ”?

> How do you get a good job without a college degree?? > > Claim unemployment, ballin off the state bro.


How to use three adjectives in a sentence

I have a sentence where I would like to use three adjectives. Is this the correct way to do it? > "Moments such as this have allowed me to understand the privilege I have > been given to be a **_first generation_** , **_working class_** , > **_engineering_** student." Thanks!


"That is" vs. "i.e."

Is there any (even the most subtle) difference between the meaning (or connotation) of _that is_ and _i.e._? I used to be convinced that they were synonyms, until an editor of a scientific journal changed all occurrences of _i.e._ into _that is_.


Any alternatives for the word "deservability"?

The word "deservability" officially doesn't exist in dictionary. But, we might come across few situations where you need to make sentences like this one. > You deserve that job. But sometimes, capability is also required along with > **deservability**. I was discussing with my friend this morning who lost his job very recently and I had to say something like the above sentence but couldn't find the right words. Are there any alternatives for the word "deservability" and if so, how to use those words in the situations like above?


What does "backworld" mean?

You can read the chapter where the word was met. And I put a little extract below: > To me the convalescent would it now be suffering and torment to believe in > such phantoms: suffering would it now be to me, and humiliation. Thus I > speak to **backworldsmen**. Suffering was it, and impotence - that created > all **backworlds** ; and the short madness of happiness, which only the > greatest sufferer experienceth. Weariness, which seeketh to get the ultimate > one leap, with a death-leap; a poor ignorant weariness, unwilling even to > will any longer: that created all gods and **backworlds**. There is also a derived word "backworldsmen". I guess the world is author- invented? Could you shed some light on its meaning?


"Records" or "record"?

I would like to know what the difference between _records_ and _record_ is. Which would be correct — _John Allen's Records_ or _John Allen's Record_?


Is "omni" a prefix or a root word?

I always thought it was a prefix, but then doing a google search confused me. I need to explain why a word like "omnipotent" is often mispronounced. If "omni" is a root word, it would be easy to conclude... If it is a prefix, i guess it's an exception to the rule?


Commas that are sentence flow-stoppers ... Can I leave them out?

Is it acceptable in BrE to omit the commas (as I've done below) after _2006, 1946, France, Texas_ and _New York_? To me, commas after each serve no purpose: they reduce the flow of the sentence. _• The performance took place on February 2, 2006 at the State Theatre in Ithaca._ _• January 23, 1946 is Helen's date of birth._ _• Prague, Czechoslovakia is a great vacation spot._ _• Paris, France will host the Olympics._ _• Dallas, Texas is the home of this special event._ _• Syracuse, NY will play host to this year's Rock of Ages music festival._


What is the “Ap” in the surname “ApSimon”?

There are two questions here (1,2) concerning names with “Mc” in them (such as McGregor), revealing that Mc comes from Mac, which is Gaelic for “son of”. I have now come across the last name **ApSimon**. A quick Google search reveals that there are quite a few people named like that, some spelling their last name **ApSimon** and some **Apsimon**. I am wondering why there is double capitalization in some cases – is this in any way related to the “Mc” names? Is it another prefix with a similar or different meaning? In any case, the “Ap” prefix seems to be a _lot_ less common than “Mc”.


Is there any rule for differentiating between the endings "th" and "ht"?

Some words end in _th_ ( _length_ , _width_ ), and others end in _ht_ ( _height_ , _fight_ , _tonight_ , _caught_ ). I sometimes have difficulties in spelling such words because I don't know which ending to choose.   Is there _any_ rule or pattern (even localized) in choosing one or the other?


When to use "respectively"?

I have been wondering what it means when people use "respectively" in, before, and after sentences. For example: > We are looking for a babysitter to pick up and supervise our kids ages 6 and > 3, respectively, on Monday and Friday. I don't know if this person used it correctly, but if they did what does it mean? If they didn't use it properly what would be the proper usage? Thanks in advance.


Can I continue a sentence after "respectively"?

Is it okay and in common usage to continue a sentence after using the word “respectively”? Consider this example: > Denoting the object’s mass and acceleration by m and a, respectively, > Newton’s second law can be written as F=ma.


Types of Independent Clauses

I am curious if anyone is aware of a list of different types or categories of independent clauses. By comparison, there are four types of sentences (simple, compound, complex, and compounds complex), and many types of subordinate clauses (comparative clauses, that-clauses, contact clauses, etc.). However, I haven't been able to find a breakdown of different types of independent clause. I'm especially interested in a categorization by structure. For example, some sentences have compound subjects, others have compound predicates, others have the verbs omitted, etc. I have tried on my own, but I fear I'm reinventing the wheel. Your help is certainly appreciated.


Is language inherently circular?

I looked up "Hallelujah" in etymonline.com today, and the result, as often happens with etymological research, ended in following a rabbit warren of possibilities. Take the word "Hallelujah" for example. This apparently springs from the Hebrew hallalu-yah (praise-Jehovah). Following up on "praise", the etymological roots are linked to the idea of "price" and "value". This is, of course, a dangerous, and ultimately deceptive route for researching etymological roots, as etymology is the study of (a) chronology and (B) geography (and the its linguistic implications). So, I looked again at etymonline.com, to find that "hillel" (he praised), was "of imitative origin, with primary sense being "to trill."." So, "to praise" in its original Hebrew terms had its etymological roots in "to sing". Now, I realise that to go beyond this chronologically would be futile (or very difficult to say the least), so I searched the etymological roots of "trill" and "sing" to see what conceptual links they brought about (I am aware, of course, that these concepts may not have been congruous with the Hebrew concept of "to sing", but I am hopeful that that they may shed light on the root (though this is, of course, conjectural)). So, looking at the roots of "sing" brought up, other than circular links of variations of " to sing", was "sengwh- "to sing, make an incantation." ". Now, to "incantation" clearly has its roots in magic. My question, therefore, is ultimately metaphysical. Can one go beyond "magic" and "sing" to define a term that is , at best, instinctive, and at least culturally significant? NB: I realise this question doesn't do justice to, or even qualify the use of the title, but the question clearly has larger implications that are communicable within a forum setting.


what is the correct abbreviation for millions, billions and trillions in a financial context?

I've found answers on the web but also got conflicting answers from financial professionals (coworkers). In metric, you'd use M (mega) for million, G (giga) for billion and T (tera) for trillion. The only financial specific similar abbreviation I can find is MM for million (Roman numeral notation). What's the AP style (or equivalent) abbreviation for billion and trillion in a financial context? Bonus: where would I find this information?


Capitalization of a noun that has be made definite

If someone were writing a paper on a particular train station, for brevity, it is easier to refer to it as "the station." Should station in that phrase be capitalized? It is unrelated to Capitalization: when does a phrase become a proper noun? and Definite article with proper nouns, titles followed by a common noun, but apologies if this is a duplicate.


Subject/verb agreement when a title ends in a plural

1) "The book 'The Three Musketeers' is a wonderful example of..." Here we have a proper noun, a title that happens to end in a plural, and I have no sense that the verb should be plural. "Musketeers"/is seems proper/natural/correct, and 'are' not at all. However, such certainty begins to wane in other examples: 2) "'The Heidi Chronicles' is a wonderful example of..." doesn't completely shake my confidence, but it moves the needle, at least a little bit. But, practically speaking, I wouldn't have a second thought about correcting a student who used 'are' instead of 'is'. Here's the one that really bothers me: 3a) " 'The Basement Tapes' are a wonderful example of..." I don't think this sounds any less proper/natural/correct than 3b) " 'The Basement Tapes' is..." In fact, 3a seems less awkward than 3b. Why?


What does "there, there" actually mean?

It came from an episode of _Big Bang Theory_; when Penny gets hurt, and asks Sheldon to be more comforting, he starts the conversation with "there, there." What does that mean?


Is there a single word for "not yet released because it is still being worked on"?

I am working on a quality assurance system where some procedures might be in a state where they haven't yet been released because they are currently being worked on. They may have also been a previous release of the document, and the document I am trying to describe is the one with changes to the previous release. An analogy might be how you would refer to Mac OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion - it isn't yet released, because it is still being worked on. I have been calling it `unreleased` but this to me sounds awkward and doesn't really describe the state. Is there a word that I'm overlooking that describes this?


"Writing things down" vs. "writing things up"

Is there any difference in the usage of "writing things down" vs. "writing things up"? Are they both correct?


What are the replacements for "i.e." and what are their differences?

I can think of "that is to say", "in other words", "put differently". And I'd like to know if there are any subtle differences in the usage of these synonyms. Can they always be used interchangeably regardless of the context?


Synonyms / slang words in American English to express "I am very excited for something"?

In British English we can say "I am keen to do something with you". Also: "Would you like to go to a concert?" A: "I'm keen for that!". What are some equivalents in American English? Is it "I want to do that" or "I am excited for that"? Those seem very generic. I'm looking for a phrase that is used in everyday conversation.


Why is the word business shortened to biz?

I don't know why `biz` is short for business. Can somebody explain to me why how and when `biz` was used? Thank you!


A word that means "interesting-ness"

I'm trying to make a sentence about evaluating how interesting something is. I'm evaluating its ________?


Is this correct usage: "My interests are closely aligned with that of Dr. XYZ"

Is this correct usage: > My interests are closely aligned with that of Dr. XYZ. or does this sound better: > My interests are closely aligned with the work of Dr. XYZ.


Difference between "inflammable" and "flammable"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why are not infamous and inflammable the opposite of famous and flammable > like incomplete, inactivity, inappropriate and so on? I'm very confused by the existence of these apparently antonymous words, which actually mean the same thing. Which word should I use? Can both words be used interchangeably?


Why doesn't the prefix 'in-' mean the same in "invaluable" and "infamous" as it does in "insufficient" and "incompetent"?

Looking at a Prefix/Suffix chart confirms that the prefix "in-" is _supposed_ to mean 'not' or 'without', just wondering why the exception only occurs for certain words. I don't know if it's an origin thing, as infamous originated in Latin, but so did insufficient, and I can't find a concrete orgin of invaluable.


Is "rather" shifting to become a verb?

In colloquial English, I constantly run across sentences of the form: > I rather my [noun] [verb] A quick Google search returns tons of examples: >   * I rather my opponents don't find out. >   * I rather my fans not read this. >   * I rather my teeth froze than hurt. >   * I rather my smile with the braces on. >   * I rather my kids smoke pot than drink alcohol. > Looks like "rather" is on its way to becoming a verb, a synonym of "to prefer". When did that start? Obviously there are several steps to this process, from "I'd rather do X" via "I'd rather X" to "I rather X". But none of the dictionaries I have checked, from Hornby to Merriam-Webster to Cambridge to Wiktionary, seem to have picked up this usage just yet. So how recent is this phenomenon?


Is it correct to change the common structure in these phrasal verbs?

I just read a book to learn English. And the topic I read is about the phrasal verbs, but a big doubt has come up to my mind. **Is it correct to change the position of the preposition (putting it with the verb instead of after the direct object)?** As in: Common structure:   * _My wife **backs** me **up** over my decision to quit my job._   * _We have to **blow** 50 balloons **up** for the party._   * _I need to **break** these shoes **in** before we run next week._   * _Please **help** me **out** to get this job done._ So, would it be correct to do the following:   * _My wife **backs up** me over my decision to quit my job._   * _We have to **blow up** 50 ballons for the party._   * _I need to **break in** these shoes before we run next week._   * _Please **help out** me to get this job done._


"I will call you back" instead of "I will call back you" Why?

Why "I will call you back" instead of "I will call back you"? Here "call back" is a phrasal verb, and "back" is a particle. Then why are we separating the particle? Is there any rule for it?


in-able ? un-able?

Suffix -able adds meaning "being able" to a word. I know that. Prefix in- and un- mean "not" or some negative meaning. I know that. However, when it comes to mixing of these, I am confused.   * unbelievable   * indispensable In the dictionary I can find many words of these forms, let's call them in- able and un-able, whose composing rule seems just random to me. When given a certain word body, how can I make an in-able or un-able word to mean "not being able"?


List of Opposite Sounds for Letters?

I'm writing a speech recognition application and I give it possible words that the user could say. The problem is that it is too generous in allowing words through. If I tell the computer to listen for the word Koala, it will accept Kangaroo, Anaconda, and any other word that shares even a common **syllable.** I'm building a list of words so that when I tell it what word to listen for, I can also give it other words that are as far away from the correct word as possible to "distract" the computer away from giving me so many false positives. In short, is there an easy list of letter sounds that are as far away from one another as possible? As in, a list of "opposites" for letters? That way I can properly pull from my word list to give it good opposite words. Any list, or any personal input would be greatly appreciated, as I'm no expert on the subject. I tend to stick with computers!


etc. with postpositioned brackets at the end of a sentence

Where do I put the period when _etc_. is at the end of a sentence, but between _etc_. and the end of the sentence is a bracket? To give context, after _etc_. I cite a reference. Which of these is correct? > ...cost of these events, etc [2]. or > ...cost of these events, etc. [2] or > ...cost of these events, etc. [2].


"In contemplation of"

I came across this phrase in an legal case relating to an ante-nuptial agreement, and was wondering what it meant exactly. The sentence is: > Agreement concluded prior to and in contemplation of marriage providing that > neither party to derive any interest in or benefit from property of other > either during marriage or on its termination Is it synonymous with "in consideration of"/"in expectation of"? Thanks


word for people who continually try and teach you when it's not necessary?

I've experienced this way too many times, and the best example I can give is a person who treats you like you have no idea how to do X and who keeps teaching you how to do it. I feel handicapped. Take for example how to play a card game. You know how to play the game because you've played it 5 times. However, there is a person always insists on explaining the game to you - like you are always new to the game - when you don't actually need any help and you just want to think for yourself. Another example situation is doing a repetitive task which you already have experience with, and yet the person continually tries to 'teach' you when you don't need help/already know how to do it. It almost makes you mad because you really don't need help. As an example which recently happened to me: > "Hey, do you remember how to start the wood chipper?" > > "Yes I do" > > "Okay, well, let me show you one more time" Again, is there a term for someone who does this?


Is "appears likely" redundant?

Likeliness is already uncertain, so saying that an even is likely, is surely the same as saying it appears the event will occur, right? Wouldn't this mean that "X appears likely" is the same as saying "It appears that it appears that X will occur"? Is that right? If so, does it mean that "appears likely" is redundant? Btw, I am aware that "appears likely" is commonly used, I'm not interested in whether it is correct by common usage; only whether it is, in a technical sense, redundant.


Immigrants or Emigrants?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Emigrant" vs. "immigrant"   >  What's the difference in meaning between "emigrate" and "immigrate"? I understand the immigrants refers to people coming into a country, and emigrants refers to those leaving, such as here: > The immigrants flooded into the United States. > > The emigrants gather their meager belongings before boarding the ship in > Liverpool. Which word might I use in the following sentence: > The **___ __ ___** came from the Germany to the US. Would I simply use whichever word I had used before (if it was one of more sentences) to avoid confusion?


What's the difference in meaning between "emigrate" and "immigrate"?

What's the difference between _emigrate_ and _immigrate?_ They seem to have the same definitions in the dictionary but they are antonyms...


Understanding semicolons

I am reading Murray's Microbiology book and thinking what how you understand the use of semicolons: > [Mycobacteria cell wall is a complex, lipid-rich.] It is responsible for > many of the characteristic properties of the bacteria (eg acid-fastness; > slow growth, resistance to detergents, common antibacterial antibiotics, and > the host immune response; antigenicity). **Are _slow growth_ , _resistance to detergents_ , _common antibacterial antibiotics_ and the _host immune response_ somehow related?** Then, I do not understand why they use the last semicolon, just below the word _antigenicity_. **How do you read the sentence inside the brackets which has many semicolons?**


Letter-shape as Description

I’ve got a text using phrases like “an L-shaped room” and “around the bend of the L”. I’ve heard this usage in speech, but not before in writing. Is there any standard way to indicate that a letter is being used for its shape as an illustration? Switch to sans-serif, perhaps, or enclose in quotes?


What does the phrase "Bolting for the Door" mean?

I was watching this video and at 41:05 secs the professor uses this phrase _Bolting for the Door_ . Does it mean that students will get bored or it will be too difficult for the students such that they will be eager to go out as soon as possible ? P.S : Searching google for "bolt for the door" didn't provide encouraging answers. The full context of the quote is: > By the time we get to the end of this class you folks are going to be > _bolting for the door_ because we are going to do some good math today. It's > actually fun math, I think, but it is challenging.


What word is used to refer to a transvestite hater?

Suppose that someone hates transvestites or hermaphrodites. How should we call such a person? What are most appropriate words to describe exactly that kinds of intolerance? It is in some way close to homophobia, but not exactly. **UPD:** For my dear down voters. This is a regular question, one of many of such questions. It is nor a joke, neither I'm trying to troll. Actually, this question came up to my mind after I had read following Kurt Vonneguts' quote: > Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. > They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All > they do is show you've been to college.


What is the optional plural form of a word that ends in “‑y”?

I guess “optional plural” is the correct term. I’m referring to things like   * It can be found at the following **location(s)**.   * Please pick up your **ticket(s)**. But how do I do that to a word that ends in  _‑y_? Take _category_ for example: “category(s)” doesn’t seem correct, because _categorys_ is a misspelling. But everything else I have tried looks ridiculous. What’s the correct approach here?


Is the use of future tense (especially "will" and "shall") going out of grammar?

My English teacher taught us that there is no such thing called "future tense" in existence. Instead we were asked to use present indefinite tense. He said that we should use "I am to go to London" instead of "I will/shall go to London". In that case, how should this sentence be rejuvenated: > "Freedom is my birthright and I shall have it"...? I consider it worthy sharing another side of the story which started the above mentioned discussion in the classroom. My teacher said that if some action is confirmed to occur in future then it 'must' be stated using Present tense. For example, > " **The school reopens in July** ". After this discussion he said that nowadays books are being published wherein the authors state that there are only two tenses namely,The Present and The Past tense. He reiterated that the use of 'will' is only confined to express the conditional statements of the future happenings. For example, > ** If is rains today, the match will be cancelled. ** So is the usage of "will" confined only to express a conditional meaning...???


Using "exempli gratia" in essays

Can I use "exempli gratia" (short for e.g.) in place of "for example?" If so, do I need to add any words to it to completely replace the phrase "for example?"


How to say 'Thirty minutes away by foot'?

Can I use: 'Thirty minutes away by foot'? Or how should I write this sentence properly? I want to say that: 'I will be living less than thirty minutes away, by bicycle or by (foot/walking), from the college'?


What happened first: "ye"/"you" merging to "you", or "thou"/"thee" falling ou of common use?

Simple subject "I": > I went. Replacing it with "me": > Me went. That sounds strikingly wrong. We use it for fake "caveman talk". However, there was a time when it worked like this: 1st person singular, subject/object: > "I"/"me" 2nd person plural (or polite, formal etc 2nd person singular, yes), subject/object: > "ye"/"you" Speakers at that time would say: > Ye went. and would find: > You went. to sound wrong and weird in the same way we currently find: > Me went. So what I'm wondering is, how did this "ye"/"you"-->"you" merger happen? Was the "ye"/"you" form just much more rarely used at the time? If so, I would expect the merger would have happened before the dropping of the "thou"/"thee" pronouns. Is it known if this the case? I would guess the question might be a little complicated by dialects developing differently in isolation, and then influencing each other later, but still, _is_ there a general clear answer to: **Was "ye"/"you" merged before "thou"/"thee" was dropped?**


A word for a "cleaning schedule"

Is there a (British) English word for a printed week-by-week cleaning schedule?


Is it correct to say: "(drink) was getting to him/her?"

I'm pretty sure you can say this: > I wondered if the **alcohol** was getting to her. But I'm not very sure about this: > I wondered if the **wine** was getting to her, but I could tell she wasn't > drunk yet. Would people normally say something like that? If not, how to say it in a more natural way?


Apart from + infinitive

A piece of news from the BBC reads as follows [emphasis in the original]: > The UN has said very little on the matter, apart from **to insist** it is > immune from legal proceedings. Now, I knew that any prepositional phrase must be followed by the - _ing_ form of the verb, so I’d have expected the reporter to use “insisting”. Is it a correct usage? If it is, are there any other prepositional phrases that can be followed by the infinitive form?


to know or know

One of my English friends has written to me: > A teacher can receive no greater gift than **to know** he has had a positive > influence on his students. Here is my question: Why has he written **_to** know_ with a _to_ in front of _know_ there? I myself think the sentence should instead be like this, without the _to_ part: > A teacher can receive no greater gift than **know** he has had a positive > influence on his students." I think the use of _to know_ there is wrong. Is it?


Looking for an alternative to "I hope that...", "I'm hopeful that..." and all the similar expressions

Whenever I say "I hope you...", or "I hope that...", or "I'm hopeful you will...", it sounds so hollow. In part, I think, because it sounds cliche (to me anyway), but also because I can't think of a single statement to substitute for it. I've looked up as many "Hope"-related questions on this site. I'm hoping (Arrrgh) to get a suggestion for an alternative.


Is "proven" very old -fashioned?

I occasionally see the participle "proven" in mathematical texts, instead of "proved".   Of course I realize that this a deliberate archaism, but I wanted to know if this is still used in books or articles in the USA, and whether a young American would find the form _proven_ odd in 2012. (I'm asking because I have a not completely finished project for an article that would end with: _we have thus proven that the zeros of the zeta function are on the line..._ )


Grammar check on a sentence with one subject, many verbs in sequence, and no conjunctions between them

Here is a sentence from my article. Just wondering if there is anything wrong with having sentences which are too long. > He created some data, put up some samples, initiated a sequence and finally, > set up a Demo. I mean, the usage of too many commas in a single sentence.


Why no "the" or "a" here?

> I had asked the man in wardrobe to take a photo of me. Why is it that there's no articles before the noun _wardrobe_?


What does "social mileage" mean?

I came across a sentence this morning on a page saying "...take social mileage out of his good behaviour...". So what does "social mileage" exactly mean here?


Why is the past tense used in "I was wondering if you would like to come for dinner?"

Why isn't the present tense used? > I am wondering if you would like to come for dinner.


Do vs. did in "do you want to join us?"

What exactly is the difference in meaning between the questions > Do you want to join us? and > Did you want to join us? in the context of a group of people asking asking another person who happens to be in the same place (for example, friends having dinner in a restaurant and bumping into another friend). I would use the first variant, because to me "did" implies that the person who is asked had made up his/her mind before the question was asked.


What's the origin of "I'm down with it"?

I understand it's an expression of agreement. What exactly does it mean and where did it originate from?


"Available jobs to/for them"

First of all, English is not my first language. I have a question, maybe a basic one, about this phrase: > The situation highlights the mismatch between some areas of training and > available jobs to/for them. Should it be "available jobs **to** them" or "available jobs **for** them"? Sorry if the question is really basic.


What is the meaning of the word "along" in this context?

I am a bit confused with the usage of the word "along" in a sentence from some lecture slides "check if X lies on the path along existing neighbors" Does this mean that X is structured in this form: foo ----- X ----- bar or: foo ----- bar ---- X Thanks


Use of the possessive apostrophe in a list

If I was to label something > The Poets and Painters' Distillery do I only apply the possessive apostrophe after 'Painters' as in the text written above, or do I also need to apply one to 'Poets' so that it becomes > The Poets' and Painters' Distillery ? I'm thinking the former is correct, but cannot be too sure.


Etymology of “Easter”

I’ve heard claims that the word _Easter_ has the same Bronze Age root as _east_, _Ishtar_, _Astarte_, and ultimately _star_. Is this the correct etymology of the word _Easter_?


How to mention times before?

Which form is better for mentioning a time before :   * a month and ten days ago   * ten days and a month ago   * one month and ten days ago   * ten days and a month ago


What's the opposite of "speaking clearly"?

When somebody talks in a way where they swallow parts of a word, talk very fast or talk in a way that is difficult for most listeners to comprehend, what do you call the way this person speaks? I'm looking for an adverb that conveys the meaning "unclearly", "mangled" or just "ununderstandbly" (yeah I know it's not a word).


Example of use of autoantonym causing unintentional ambiguous sentences in news reports?

What are some examples of use of autoantonyms causing unintentional ambiguous sentences in (recent) news reports? I'm trying to compile some real-world examples of autoantonyms (as opposed to toy examples that people made up).


How to research the expansion of the meaning of "wildlife" to include plants?

Washington State USA has a law that requires counties to designate and protect "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas." The legal rules for implementing this statute include language strongly suggesting that rare native plants fall within the statute's protection mandate and some counties have done this. The county I live in disputes this, maintaining that "plants are not wildlife.". The standard rule in law is that if a term is undefined in the statute where its used resort is made to a dictionary. Indeed, out of 30+ definitions of "wildlife" I found by googling "wildlife definition" about 2/3 are not limited to only fauna (animals). I would like to trace the expansion of the meaning of this word. Is there a way to do this without resorting to physically visiting numerous libraries to see the word's meaning in multiple editions of different dictionaries at different times? Any suggestions are appreciated. -Steve, Whidbey Environmental Action Network   wean@whidbey.net


Difference between "recently" and "lately"

I have posted a topic using this sentence: > I have picked some fictions to read lately. RegDwight edited this sentence to: > I have recently picked up several works of fiction and begun to read them. What is the difference between lately and recently in this context, and why is it more appropriate to use recently?


What is the past tense of "sync"?

I've always believed the past tense of _sync_ ("I sync my phone with my computer") to be _synced_ ("I synced my phone with my computer yesterday"). This question would seem to suggest either _synced_ or _synched_. I have a friend who insists the past tense is _sunk_. I'd appreciate if you could make this clear for me.


How do you pronounce 'Pall Mall'?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why is The Mall (Westminster, London) pronounced like mawl? A few friends and I are playing Monopoly and are having an argument over how to pronounce the property 'Pall Mall'. Is it pronounced as 'Pal Mal' or 'Paul Maul'?


What does "spot basis" mean?

What does "spot basis" mean, in the sentence "what you want to be able to do is develop the skill to go and do this on a spot basis"?


Is there a word to describe someone that receives a bill?

When a client of mine offers their services, they have to determine to whom to send the bill. Is there a word to describe that person/organization?


Difference between "did + verb" and just "verb+ed"

This is something I always get confuse with (native language German). As far as I know "did + verb" is something done and finished in the past. But isn't it the same with "verb + ed"?


Grammar: For vs to?

In my mother tongue both **for** and **to** have the same meaning, therefore it is hard for (is it being correctly used here?) me to know when I should use one instead of the other.   After some google's searches into the question I verified that the former must be used when we want to refer to a **purpose** or when something is to the **benefit of** somebody.   The latter is used when something is **moved** or **transferred** between locations or in the direction of a location. For instance: > We are going to open this plan **for** public discussion **to** individuals > and organizations interested in maintaining and advancing Thunderbird in the > future. In the above sentence I'm still unable to understand why we use those prepositions; can anyone help on the subject?


How to avoid starting sentence with "And" and "But"?

A lot of times my sentences start with "And" and "But" and they tend to run long. I read a lot of news articles and blogs and have not seen many sentences starting with conjunctions, but I don't seem to get the trick of how to avoid it. English is my second language.


"If you were to ..." or "If you ..." or "If you will ..."

"If you were to go home you would feel better" versus "If you went home you would feel better" versus "If you will go home you will feel better" Are all forms correct? Are there circumstances where one is preferable over the other? Or, are some of them just informal colloquialisms? Is one form always more preferable than the other? In other words, were I to always use the "If I were to ..." form, would I always be correct?


What does the author mean by "door culture" in this context? First-order effects I take to be a metaphor with economics. However, I don't understand how to translate my understanding of "first-order effects" meaning the first derivative of a formula to "door culture". > "The Tragedy of the Conversational Commons", by Clay Shirky > > Flaming is one of a class of economic problems known as The Tragedy of the > Commons. Briefly stated, the tragedy of the commons occurs when a group > holds a resource, but each of the individual members has an incentive to > overuse it. (The original essay used the illustration of shepherds with > common pasture. The group as a whole has an incentive to maintain the long- > term viability of the commons, but with each individual having an incentive > to overgraze, to maximize the value they can extract from the communal > resource.) > > In the case of mailing lists (and, again, other shared conversational > spaces), the commonly held resource is communal attention. The group as a > whole has an incentive to keep the signal-to-noise ratio high and the > conversation informative, even when contentious. Individual users, though, > have an incentive to maximize expression of their point of view, as well as > maximizing the amount of communal attention they receive. It is a deep > curiosity of the human condition that people often find negative attention > more satisfying than inattention, and the larger the group, the likelier > someone is to act out to get that sort of attention. > > However, proposed responses to flaming have consistently steered away from > group-oriented solutions and towards personal ones. The logic of collective > action, alluded to above, rendered these personal solutions largely > ineffective. Meanwhile attempts at encoding social bargains weren't > attempted because of the twin forces of **door culture (a resistance to > regarding social features as first-order effects)** and a horror of > censorship (maximizing individual freedom, even when it conflicts with group > goals.)


What's earlier than an early bird?

The term early bird is well known. What's a similarly well known thing that is earlier than an early bird? Edit: the worm, of course! But I'm particularly looking for an improvement on the bird, something that pips the bird to the post.


'Contact detail' or 'contact details'?

When I ask anyone his contact details, how do I do it? > Give me your contact details. or > Give me your contact detail. ?


Best word for Spanish "integral"

In Spanish there's a word " _integral_ " which, when used as an adjective, means something like "it includes everything". When we say "servicio integral" we mean that the service includes all aspects related to it. For example, an "integral" service of ecommerce includes consulting, design, coding/development, integration and deployment. Is there a word in English to describe this kind of service?


Can we use "morning" to describe half a day? How to say half a day using an adjective?

I don't know how to use an adjective word to describe the same meaning of half a day. E.g. I have done all the work in the morning. In this sentence, "in the morning" means from 08:00 am to 11:59 am or what?


What do you call these cars ridden by disabled people?

What do you call these cars used by disabled people, they are everywhere and I've seen them again today and was wondering what they are called; these cars they are very small for a person to sit on used by the disabled for traveling on the sidewalk instead of walking?


I've been writing a technical document and I wrote the following sentence. "The rest of sections focus on realizing each use case." MSWord shows this sentence is wrong. I'm not sure what is wrong in my sentence. Is there anyone who gives me a hint? Regards,


Word for person who was ignored by everyone while alive, but whose importance was realized after he died

Is there a single word for a person who was ignored by everyone when he was alive, but later people realized his importance after he died? It can also be related to his work, teaching or something like that.


Can one use a question mark after "Please"?

I'm imagining someone importuning another person. For example, if someone asked another person if he or she could come join them on an outing, and when the other person doesn't seem too keen on the idea, the person who asked the question could say, "Please?" Using an exclamation mark gives the sense that the person is raising his or her voice, and a period just doesn't seem strong enough at all. Could a question mark work here?


What do you call a person who hates everyone but himself? I'm looking for a single word for this.


When did ironic use of "as in" start?

As far as I (as non-native speaker) understand the words _as in_ , this is short for _for instance_ , as in: > Understanding “that” _as in_ this statement It's my impression that at some point in time people started to use _as in_ in an ironical way, like: > He's dead, _as in_ not alive. Is this impression correct or have the words _as in_ always been used this way? If this ironic use developed later, when was that?


Phrase for "suddenly wake up from a dream"

What is a natural thing to say when you suddenly wake up from a dream? The impression I have in mind is of something like burst/tear apart or escape from the dream scene by waking up.


Is it correct to say "This requirement is because"

The following passage uses the phrase "This requirement is because". Is that correct usage? > Modularization is a key requirement to manage the size and complexity of > large ontologies that can be replaced by a smaller ontology. This > requirement is because existing ontology languages such as OWL do not > support partial reuse of ontology and ontologies are growing to cover more > knowledge in a specific domain.