"rising sea level" or "rising sea levels"?

I've seen both in newspapers when it comes to the subject of global warming. Confusingly, "rising sea levels" seems to be used more frequently. For me, it's much easier to understand "rising sea level", an uncountable noun used to describe a concept of the rising sea, than to imagine it as a countable noun, "sea levels." How does "rising sea levels" even mean? Aren't all the seas that would be affected by the melting of the glaciers connected with each other in a way? How can their "levels" be separated from each other when the amount of water in seas on the earth rises?


"okay" vs "good" in questions starting with "Is it okay/good"

Is it better to use "good" instead of "okay" in question starting with "Is it okay/good", or isn't? For example, > Is it okay/good to eat tonight? > Is it okay/good to break the rules?   >  (I know it isn't)


Can time breaks be shown using dialogue breaks

By ending a set of quotation marks and starting a new set, can this show a break in time? E.g. "I need to read the letter before I can comment." "It looks like he's determined to come here." Here, the dialogue shows that there is a time break because the speaker would need to read the letter before commenting. Is this correctly used, and clearly understandable. I could add normal narrative between, but I don't want to.


verba lgre 2@24

In seventeenth-century France, private and public opinion portrayed the physician as a vulture of greed, circling the sick and dying, battening off the suffering of the afflicted, and **_______________** the remains of his prey. A) spending B) devouring C) retreating from D) decrying E) resorbing I think correct answer is 'spending' , because some keywords 'vulture' , 'circling' , 'batten' are directly support it . but the answer is b can anyone explain ...........


How to correctly use 'whereupon'?

How to use 'whereupon'? I'm making sense of it in the following example by taking 'whereupon' to mean 'which at'. 'This Is Jinsy is one of those weird British comedies, like The League of Gentleman and The Mighty Boosh, whereupon a first viewing, it seems inaccessibly strange but, given time, you come to embrace its eccentricities.' Can anyone tell me if there's anything wrong with this, specifically if the 'it' can be om-it-ted? Cheers


is it possible making plural of 'conceit'?

i think, 'conceit' means pride or something like this.then it is an abstract form.but i find a sentence as_their conceits are sometimes not based on wit.


How offensive is it to call someone a "slag" in British English? (NSFW)

One more colorful slang term I gleaned from the British movie I recently watched is _slag_. In the movie, it was used in curses like, "Fuck-ing dogs! Slags." "Right slag, that one." Now I know via dictionaries that _slag_ means "a loose, promiscuous woman." But there are multiple slang terms for such a woman in American English that have varying levels of vulgarity -- here's how I would rank a couple of them, from least to greatest in vulgarity: > **skank** < **slut** < **ho** < **bitch** < **cunt** So where does _slag_ fit on this spectrum? Of course, I imagine you'd never hear it on proper television, but is _slag_ barely elided over when someone goofs and says it, kind of how the word _bitch_ is in American English? Or is it a word that a rough group of friends might use around each other casually, sort of how the word _motherfucker_ is in American English, and apparently _cunt_ is in British English? Or perhaps _slag_ is a word that one should prepare for a fight over if one uses it, like _cunt_ in American English?


Should there be capitalization after an equation?

In continuation of this question, Should one capitalize the first letter after an equation which is not at the end of a sentence? For instance in the following example, should the second 'the' be capitalized? > In the equation: >   >   >     z = x+y, >   > > the symbol z represents the last number.


"Innovation" vs "invention"

What is the difference between _innovation_ and _invention_? Where should we use these words? I referred to Wikipedia but did not understand much.


What are the abbreviations for days of the week?

I would like to know if there is a common abbreviation for days of the week in a two letter form. I mean: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday; can be abbreviated as Su, Mo, Tu, We, Th, Fr, Sa? Is this the common form? Note that I have also seen Sn for Sunday, and some times St for Saturday (but I think less frequently). It will be used in a tabular data program to show information about free work days of employed and each column can't have enought space to include full week day name. For "common form" I mean, what are the abbreviations that is more used in programs.


Simple past or present perfect?

Which is preferable, simple past or present perfect, in situations like this one: I had a conversation with my friend and we planned to do something; shortly afterwards I call him back to announce the accomplishments. My biggest doubt about simple past is that perfect aspect is used to indicate past action (accomplishment) with current relevance, at the same time I'm not sure if I'm allowed to use present perfect, because there's a gap between accomplishing and the current moment, which is a characteristic of simple past.


Something is of/in the order of

What is the right preposition in > The human's weight is (of/in) the order of 10^2 kg. Are both correct, or do they have different meanings? I found both in the internet and I found many discussions on this question without a solution. I guess SX is ideal to find a short solution.


"Head over heels" and "head over feet"

Does the expression _head over heels_ mean the same as _head over feet_? To be madly in love with someone?


What is another way of saying "final solution?"

"Final Solution" is not the optimal phrase to use because it has a negative historical reference. When working on a project, I'd like to find a phrase that describes the process of evolving solutions (see, for example, Agile software development). Additionally, the phrase should fit well with phrases like initial solution, intermediate solution, etc. **Update** : Doesn't necessarily have to be a 'solution.'


How can I rephrase a question with if clause, to be answered only if the event of the "if" clause happened

I would like to ask a question which is to be answered only if some past condition is met: _If you did something in the past, could you tell me more about it?_ How should I rephrase it?


What is the difference between "have not to" and "have to not"?

English isn't my native language, of course, to ask something like this. I personally thought that "have not to do something" and "have to not do something" were the same. But recently, I've seen a (self-claimed) native speaker in an English forum state they're different. For example:   1. > You mustn't stay up late. Clear, you don't have any choice, you don't do it.   2. > You don't have to stay up late.  Clear, you have got a choice. You don't do it if you don't want to, do if you want. It's not necessary to do it.   3. > You have not to/(haven't to) stay up late.  Same as _mustn't_ (per that English forum).   4. > You have to not stay up late.  Not clear? I think it is the same as 3.


“Half a cup of milk” or “half cup of milk”? “½ cup of milk” or “½ a cup of milk”?

I have two questions related to this topic. Since they are very closely related, I decided to group them in one thread. If it is better to separate them, please let me know and I will fix it. Thank you. **Question 1:** **Context:** It is only half a cup of milk. Drink it all. Is it “half a cup of milk” or “half cup of milk”? I am leaning toward “half a cup of milk” but I have no explanation. I can only guess that it is probably because it is half of a cup, so half a cup. But then this reminds me of “half an hour” and “half hour” :( so now I have just confused myself. **Question 2:** Under the same context, except now instead of having “half a cup” we have “½ cup.” **Context:** It is only ½ cup of milk. Drink it all. Is it “½ cup of milk” or “½ a cup of milk”? I am pretty sure it is “½ cup of milk” because of examples like “⅔ cup of milk” and “½ cup of butter.” But again, I have no explanation (assuming I am right). Please advise. Thank you in advance. P.S. Under what grammar keyword should I look into for this topic? I thought it would fall into measure words or something, but my grammar book doesn't have this specific topic.


Irregular verbs: differences between BrE and AmE

I've just found BrE sneak/sneaked/sneaked and AmE sneak/snuck/snuck. Are there more of these deviations? Generally, lists of irregular verbs in grammars are so poor that they show only half of what there is to know. PS I see there is an article on the verb form snuck on the Internet. "snuck" in AmE


Which one is acceptable in an academic paper? Fig 4. show or Fig 4. shows?

Is it right to say: > Fig. 4, **Show** the wireless transmission of data. Shouldn't it be: > Fig. 4, **Shows** the wireless transmission of data. By the way, another question would be, is it right to use both of mentioned forms in an academic paper? I mean, some one writes _Fig. 4, shows_ in a paragraph and in another, in the same paper, writes _Fig. 4, show_?


Is this wrong? "What are each of them's objections?"

Let's say I've put forward an idea to a number of people and each person has several different objections to it. I know I can say: > What are each individual's objections?   > \- OR -   > What are the objections for each of them? But can I say: > What are each of them's objections? It sounds awkward, but is it wrong? I don't want to say: > What are each of their objections? Because the "their" in that sentence refers to all the people and therefore all the objections. What I want is to ask for the objections grouped by person. Also can I say: > What are each's objections?


What is the right sign to show in a retail shop

Let us see the signs shown in the images below. What is the right one to show in a retail shop, #1 or #2? In case #2 doesn't it seem as if the cashier may **or may not** give us a receipt? ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/z3zAY.gif) ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/SdaZc.gif)


use of "everything" or "anything" in positive and negative sentences?

As a non-native speaker, when I read the books about grammar, I learn that usually the word "everything" is used in a positive sentence and that the word "anything"is used in a negative or interrogative sentence. But I often see sentences in some magazines and articles like:   * _We'll do almost_ **_anything_** _for our beloved animals._ What's the difference between them, and is it changing the meaning in sentence?


An active verb "to find peace in" something

I'm looking for an active verb which means something along the lines of "to take or find peace in" something. Something like _soothe_ is the opposite of what I want, in the sense that the something is the thing doing the soothing. e.g., > The river soothed him. But I would want "him" to be the subject. This would result in... > He was soothed by the river. ...but this is passive rather than active. Is there such an active verb? A single word that means something like "find peace in" in the following? > I find peace in the trickling of the river.


Article necessary with "secret"?

Is it necessary to use an article with the word _secret_? For example: > Teach your children not to keep problems, games, or other activities a > secret. or > Teach your children not to keep problems, games, or other activities secret. and > If your kids go out for ice cream with a grandparent—even though you > wouldn't approve—the grandparent shouldn't tell the kids to keep the ice > cream a secret from you. or > If your kids go out for ice cream with a grandparent—even though you > wouldn't approve—the grandparent shouldn't tell the kids to keep the ice > cream secret from you.


Must I capitalize Tivoli?

In this sentence: "Bakken is the world's oldest tivoli", must tivoli be capitalized ? My program's atleast trying to make me think I must.


"Excuse I" correctness

I had a gentleman say "Excuse I" to me the other day as he passed me in the hallway. He was a professor at the university I attend, and so it got me thinking: Is "Excuse I" acceptable grammar even though "Excuse me" is more commonly used?


Latin (or Greek) -x becomes -ght?

I have attested two words in English that come from two Latin words. These are "night" and "light". They derive from the words "nox" and "lux" respectively; both Latin — in the case of the word "nox", though, this one might also derive from Greek "nyx". Nevertheless, the question is: is this a normal transition and happens often, or has it happened because of the word wasn't a direct loanword from Latin, but it came through other languages? If so, do we have any other word in English that ends with _-ght_ and its Latin counterpart ends with _-x_?


Are constructions like "That's me out, then" primarily British rather than American?

Prompted by comments to this question on English Learners (about _"That's you done"_ ), I've been searching Google Books for similar constructions of the general form _that's [pro]noun adjective_ (for this context, I classify past- tense verb forms such as _done, fucked, finished_ as adjectives). What I seem to be finding is that using _"That's"_ in this way (not referencing anything in particular, just "whatever came before/caused the current situation") is a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm also getting the impression it's more common in BrE than Ame. So by implication, if the boss says to his secretary... > "Just get those letters off in the post, and that's you done for the day." ...I should assume the boss is probably British, rather than American. * * * Would my assumption be right? Can anyone shed more light on the usage? Is it the same as... > "Here's me doing all the work while you just sit around waiting to be fed."   >  _(said by, for example, hard-pressed mother to idle teenage offspring)_


"To dedicate" for "to inaugurate" in AE

What's the difference between "to dedicate" and "to inaugurate" in the sense [to open or begin use of formally with a ceremony, as of a highway, park, or building]? What's the story to "dedicate"? How did it evolve from the sense [to address or inscribe (i.e. a literary work) to a person or a cause, etc., as a mark of respect or affection] to the "inaugural" one? Sources: > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dedicate > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inaugurate


What is the word that is emphasized more?

There is a sentence. > He gave me an apple. I heard that more emphasis in on 'an apple' because of the end focus rule. Then, is the subject 'I' prior to ending 'an apple' in meaning? In other words, which is the word on which there is more emphasis the 'I,' or 'an apple,' or another word?


The demand for the stock /The demand for stock or Demand for the stock?

Context: a stock (traded in a stock exchange) was defined prior to the appearance of the following sentence: The demand for the stock/the demand for stock/demand for the stock decreases significantly. Question: which of the three phrases is suitable to use?


Alternative to "a bunch"?

About two years ago I watched some old Monty Python interviews. In one of them, Graham Chapman, a Brit, makes fun of Terry Gilliam (the only American) for his lack of vocabulary. He specifically cited a moment when the group flew over the great lakes and Gilliam said "there's a bunch of water". I found this amusing. But it's also stuck with me. And ever since, every American I meet with seems to have an affinity for saying "a bunch" to describe anything with a high quantitative value. This can be anything from purely literal (a bunch of parsley) -- though this doesn't bother me as much -- to the generally "many", such as "a bunch of candies" and almost sarcastically as in Gilliam's case (obviously several thousand cubic miles of water is a bit more than a "bunch"). But what is a solid alternative for these uses? Not that I'm looking for something to replace "a bunch" entirely. I find it can be useful and an endearing "Americanism". But I'd like to hear of some options. EDIT: Maybe I can make this more specific and ask this: What would an appropriate British expression be for the Gilliam scenario above? Maybe something like "A Considerable Amount"?


"Could not have been" vs. "must not have been"

What's the difference between "could not have been" and "must not have been"? For example, >   * That could not have been an easy task. >   * That must not have been an easy task. > I've seen both used. What's the difference?


Word for "to make italic"?

When we make text **bold** , we can just use the verb "bold". When we make text underlined, we can use the verb "underline". But which verb would we use for making text _italic_?


What is wrong with the phrase “me and my work”?

For my thesis, in my acknowledgements, I have the following line: > I would like to thank my fiancé, ----, who has endlessly supported me and my > work. My supervisor highlighted _me and my work_ and commented “Check grammar :)”. I have been trying to figure out what is incorrect here, but am stuck. What would the correct grammar for this sentence be?


What does "boo-boo face" mean, and how did it originate?

What does "boo-boo face" mean? I've found it many times before but can't understand it. Is it a recent expression? What is the etymology of _boo-boo face_?


knowing as a noun

I'm slightly confused by using the word 'knowing' as a noun. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (5th edition) says that 'knowing' can be used only as an adjective. But, for example, Merriam-Webster Dictionary says that it can be a noun. I've always thought that we should use 'knowledge' instead of 'knowing', and that the last one doesn't exist as a noun at all. But recently I faced with such Richard Feynman's quote: "I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something". So, is using the word 'knowing' as a noun good and common for standard English?


"...and who knew?" or "...,and, who knew..." or "..., and who knew..."?

> Maybe by joining that religion I'd be able to understand myself, **and who > knew?** Maybe I'd find the meaning of life. > > Maybe by joining that religion I'd be able to understand myself, **and, who > knew,** maybe I'd find the meaning of life. > > Maybe by joining that religion I'd be able to understand myself, **and who > knew,** maybe I'd find the meaning of life. What the most grammatical choice? If all of them are, what's the most commonly used?


Can "wet" be used for liquids other than water?

_Wet_ can be used to describe being dowsed in liquids such as beer, milk, juice, urine etc. All of these, however, are water-based. Can _wet_ be used for a liquid that has no water? Can you be _wet_ by mercury? Or liquid nitrogen? I know I wouldn't use it for mercury, but that may be because mercury would not actually stick to anything it was splashed on so it wouldn't even _look_ wet. I could live with _drenched, dowsed_ , or _immersed_ but _wet_? Does _wet_ really imply water or is it just that we tend to get splashed by water- based liquids and so the word is most often associated with water? This definition states > consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (as water) What do you think, would anyone use _wet_ for something completely unrelated to water?


What is the origin of "bouillon cubes"?

What is the etymology of _bouillon cubes_? What other word can I use?


Usage of "same" vs. "selfsame"

I have been wondering in my head when is it more appropriate grammatically and more appropriate in terms of the English language to use word selfsame instead of same. The research that I have done suggests that 'same' can be used as an adjective and a pronoun and as an adverb. While selfsame can only be used as an adjective. So comparably it would appear to be only a subset of grammatical cases where its used. That being said, I am having still having trouble imagining a sentence or a set of rules to follow that indicate when you should use selfsame instead of same. Google define gives this example: > He was standing in the selfsame spot you're filling now. But I can easily see 'same' replacing 'selfsame' without an apparent change in meaning of the sentence.


Is there another way to say 'working on'?

Is there another way to say "We are working on to update our resort."? I do not want to use _working on_.


Statement complementarily reverse to given

Person A stated some noble motives behind actions person B found suspicious. > [Person B] answered with very measured words, her smile not quite reaching > to her eyes. "If what you claim is true, then you can count me as your > friend." The unsaid **counterpart** of the sentence hung heavily in the air. I'm not quite sure if _counterpart_ conveys the meaning well. Is there a better phrase to fit that meaning? How would you call the sentence: _"If what you claim is a lie, then you can count me as your enemy_." in relation to the one given in the quote?


Meaning of “candle” in "I now call to mind that there was a letter in the candle three days ago"

In the book The Trumpet Major, by Thomas Hardy, there is the following paragraph: > That was Budmouth postmaster, and he says there's a letter for me. Ah, I now > call to mind that there was a letter in the candle three days ago this very > night - a large red one; but foolish-like I thought nothing o't. Who can > that letter be from? What is the meaning of _candle_ in this text? That is the only occurrence of the word _candle_ in that chapter.


What is it called when an hourly worker is paid at a different rate for doing different things?

What is it called when a worker is paid a different hourly-rate for doing different things during their shift? The reason I'm asking is I want to learn a bit more about how payroll is calculated when people get paid different rates for doing different jobs at an hourly rate, and would like to know the common term for that so I could search and read up on the subject.


Plural for "photo"?

What's the proper plural for "photo" - "photos", "photoes", or it is generally desired to rephrase the whole thing and stick with "photographs", "images", "shots", "pictures", etc? As for usage frequency, quick Google search reveals that:   * "photos" => ~5,380,000,000 ghits   * "photoes" => ~3,340,000 ghits, which is ~1000 times less often used, although some of the results point to English grammar forums where some people suggest that "photoes" might be indeed _correct_ form given Greek origin of the word Dictionary check reveals:   * Oxford clearly gives plural as "photos", but suggests that "photoes" is a verb   * Merriam-Webster gives plural as "photos", but does not recognize "photoes" as a valid word at all, albeit it does recognize "photoed" as a verb   * Cambridge gives "photos", clearly makes it as AmE-only and also insists that there's no verb - i.e. no "photoes", no "photoed", no "photoing"   * Collins agreed on "photos" and agreed on that verb does not exist   * Douglas-Harper Online Etymology Dictionary tells us that both noun and verb exist - the noun is since 1860, the verb is first recorded 1868, from the noun. I'm kind of hesitating here. If you'd ask me, I'd rather opt for not using plural forms of "photo" at all - both "photos" and "photoes" feel somewhat awkward for me (as do "audios", "videos" or "alphas" / "betas" / "gammas" / "deltas"). So, generally, what's the most neutral way to refer to a group of photographs? Bonus points for revealing BrE/AmE differences.


Is this considered grammar?

If I say "today was good day," and add an _a_ in the right spot like, "today was _a_ good day," from a broad view, is what I just did considered a _grammatical_ change or something else?


Term for “pressure relief valve”

For a history paper, my argument is that the American Frontier acted as a sort of _pressure relief valve_ for Colonial dissidents who did not agree with Puritan theology. What is a more appropriate word or term for _pressure relief valve_?


did <verb> and <verb>

While reading _A Dance with Dragons_ by George R. R. Martin, I came across the following line which seemed odd to me. _(Note, English is only my third language so "seemed odd to me" is about as meaningless as it gets)_ > [...], even if he did look like a monstrous yellow slug and smell of piss. The _smell_ part is what seems off to me, though I realize there's an assumed repetition of _he did_. I guess I just find it sounding odd. Is the used phrasing correct? Is it also correct to use the following line? > [...], even if he did look like a monstrous yellow slug and **smelled** of > piss. Which way is most common in English?


Which type of comma is used here?

I was reading a book called "The Penguin Guide to Punctuation" by R. L. Trask. It seems that the book doesn't explain all the uses of comma. It says "There are four uses of the comma, called the listing comma, the joining comma, the gapping comma and bracketing commas". Here's a brief summary of the rules as described in book: * * * **The listing comma** : Use a listing comma in a list wherever you could conceivably use the word _and_ (or _or_ ) instead. Do not use a listing comma anywhere else. **_Example_** : _The Three Musketeers were Athos, Porthos and Aramis._ **The joining comma** : Use a joining comma to join two complete sentences with one of the words _and_ , _or_ , _but_ , _yet_ or _while_. Do not use a joining comma in any other way. **_Example_** : _Norway has applied to join the EC,_ **and** _Sweden is expected to do the same._ **The gapping comma** : Use a gapping comma to show that words have been omitted instead of repeated. **_Example_** : _Some Norwegians wanted to base their national language on the speech of the capital city; others, on the speech of the rural countryside._ **The bracketing comma** : Use a pair of bracketing commas to set off a weak interruption. **_Example_** : _Schliemann, of course, did his digging before modern archaeology was invented._ * * * In the following examples, which type of comma is being used? > After two hours, the train came to the station.   >  Before I could talk to her, she was gone. It appears to me that the above usage of commas doesn't meet any of the comma rules described in the book.


What is "Theodical" disappointment?

A recent Wired article had the following sentence: "... beneath the paranoia and infighting lurked something more vulnerable, an almost **theodical** disappointment." I've never encountered this word, and I haven't found it in any online dictionaries either. I'd guess it shares a root with Theology, but I can't guess at the exact meaning. \--Edit-- Even after reading the Wikipedia article, the meaning of this sentence is not clear. What makes disappointment "theodical" when the subject is not God?


Vocabulary resources for abstract concepts

I watch out for a resource that provides me with vocabulary for comparatively 'abstract' concepts, which means words from areas such as:   * emotional/inner states   * communication   * personal relationships   * temporal and causal relationships   * hierarchical relationships I hope you get a picture of what I mean. Most vocabulary books provide vocabulary for material objects, but I have not found something comparable for this class of words.


Usage of "matter" and "substance"

What is the difference between _matter_ and _substance_? For example, are ice and water "the same matter" or "the same substance"? Dictionaries seem vague about the difference. For example, the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary states that _matter_ is "a physical substance in general" or "substance, material or things of a specified kind", while _substance_ is a "particular type of matter".


Mathematical symbol as simple predicate

I am translating a paper about a general physics question. I am not very familiar with physics other than the historical perspective and I am requesting some help with the grammar. I have a sentence that translates perfectly from the original Spanish as follows: “At the moment of t1 at which both objects reach the ground, y1(t1)=y2(t1)=0.” In English, a complete sentence requires a subject and a predicate. In the above sentence, the subject would be “y1(t1)”, which I guess I don´t have a problem with. My query is regarding the simple predicate, which in this case would be “=”. All of the English words in this sentence amount to prepositional phrases. Is this standard use of language in scientific documents in English? Should I change the sentence to read something like, “The formula y1(t1)=y2(t1)=0 is satisfied at the moment…”?


What time is 12.00pm?

There is a sign outside a shop near us which says 'Parking for loading vehicles only from 7 to 12pm'. Does that mean between 7pm and midnight, or between 7am and noon? For me 12.00 is neither post-meridian nor ante-meridian, it is either noon or midnight. Equally when someone says from midnight on the 3rd, do they mean midnight which precedes the 3rd or midnight which ends the 3rd. The precise moment of midnight belongs neither to one day nor the other. These are crucially important matters as regards flight timetables, and insurance policies. If the policy expires at midnight on the 15th, when exactly is that? It is why many insurance companies now speak of 12.01am on the 22nd or 11.59pm on the 21st. Should it be insisted that all references to 12.00 state either noon or midnight and how can we express midnight with clarity?


Is "cattle herds" grammatical?

I know that "a herd of cattle" and "many herds of cattle" are correct, but what about "cattle herds"? For example, > We drove by cattle herds. Is that grammatical?


Can "retrospectively" be used in this manner?

The following is the paragraph which the word "retrospectively" is used. I meant to say something like " the government has learnt from the past events, and as a result, have implemented these measures. " Can the word "Retrospectively" be used to represent what I am trying to convey ? > This recent Avian Flu outbreak will definitely bring to mind a similar > scenario that occurred five years ago. In 2009, the Swine Flu outbreak > resulted in 120,000 people being infected and 648 deaths in our country. The > government has **retrospectively** implemented measures to further enhance > our readiness to combat such disease outbreaks occurring in the country.


Is it better to write "on the side" or "at the side"? I always thought that "on the side" was the correct form, but today I've seen the sentence: > The thorax is protected by the ribs at the sides. And, in the same book, > The cheeks are on both sides of the face.


Is the sentence "The police had evidence on him." grammatically correct?

Please cite some sources to show whether the above phrase is correct or not.


When/by whom was the computing use of "agnostic" to mean independent coined?

Agnostic, as a term to refer to a particular philosophy with respect to spirituality and mysticism, was coined by Thomas Huxley; Wikipedia gives the date as 1869 while Wiktionary says 1870, but the point is that it's from the the latter half of the nineteenth century. Wiktionary _also_ gives as a meaning > ( _computing_ ) A software component (or other entity) that is unaware or > noncommittal regarding the specific nature of the components with which it > interacts about which this site already has a couple of questions (Odd use of agnostic, Another word for agnostic when used to suggest independence through a lack of concern). However, neither this site nor Wiktionary, nor any other source I could find with a Google search, indicate when or by whom this usage was coined. The fact that this use has its origins in computing suggests a certain timeframe, to be sure, but I am curious about the specific origins.


Words with multiple uses

I was posed a question the other day:   "Can you think of a word that can be used as a Noun, Verb or an Adjective?" One such word would be "light". Is there a rule for identifying such words? (See also: What word can fulfill the most parts of speech?)    Along a similar line, is there any rule (or name) for words that could be a Noun, Verb and Adjective (and other parts of speech) depending on the interpretation of a single sentence? An example of the above that satisfies two out of three could be "This is a _rubbish_ pile." i.e. Is it a pile of rubbish, or a poorly constructed pile? * * * (Whether [a version of] this question is on topic is discussed on meta, please close/edit if appropriate.)


can you give me a synonym for " accumulated wisdom"?

who can explain for me what exactly the " accumulated wisdom" mean? I mean in this sentence from a play by Bruce Norris" KELLY : Right. I think the point is, I hope? that the accumulated wisdom of your nineteen years might not be all that comprehensive, Okay?"


How to avoid this repetition

I have the following sentence: > He grabbed the Duke's shoulder and turned him to face him. Without pronouns for disambiguation of the two occurrences of "him": > Vigil grabbed the Duke's shoulder and turned the Duke to face Vigil. Both of these contain very ugly repetition that I would prefer to avoid. I've tried all possible combinations of pronouns and proper names but I can't a solution that sounds right. How could I restructure this sentence to avoid both the ambiguity of the first and the clumsy over-usage of proper names in the second?


Are "nil" and "null" interchangeable?

Are _nil_ and _null_ interchangeable? For example, > My bank a/c has a **nil** balance. > > My bank a/c has a **null** balance.


Can I use the word "must" in subjunctive mood?

I'm a student in China. Our English exam has a grammar item. > 54．My boss ordered that the legal documents ___ _ to him before lunch． > >   * A．be sent >   * B．were sent >   * C．were to be sent >   * D．must be sent > The answer is A, but I think D is correct, too. Can I use "must" in subjunctive mood?


What word describes someone who offers unsolicited advice? For example I might write, "At the risk of being called a **___ __ ___ __**, I will offer you some unsolicited advice."


Résumé as summary vs document describing work experience

Because "résumé" or "resume" as a noun is a false cognate with the French equivalent, I tend to avoid using "résumé" to mean "summary", and only reserve it to mean "that document people bring to interviews." **Is the use of "résumé" to mean either "summary" or "document describing work experience" localized to certain areas of the world? Is it more British English, American English, Canadian English, other, or is is used widely (in all English around the world)?**


"Thinking you recognize everyone"

Is there a word for "thinking that you recognize everyone that you see"? I recently just transferred schools, and the first couple of weeks or so I thought that every stranger I saw was someone that I knew (until they got closer, of course). Googling seems to give me irrelevant results like "How to spot an idiot" and "how to recognize delusional disorders." Is this phenomenon common enough that someone bothered to create a word for it?


IMHO, I am great?

I am not a native English speaker. I was wondering if the phrase "in my humble opinion, my proposal is interesting because ..." is contradictory? I am trying to say that something I proposed/said is interesting/valid (basically I am trying to defend some of my arguments against a certain criticism), but on the other hand I say "my humble opinion". Should I just remove this phrase in order to avoid contradiction? I was just trying to soften my words since I am writing to a higher authority.


How do I politely say I have used my mouth while drinking water from a bottle?

Is there a one word substitute for the scenario below, and what is the politest way of saying it to another person or colleague? > I drink water from my bottle by touching my mouth When someone wants to drink water from my bottle, I need to inform him/her in a polite way that I drank it by touching it with my mouth. This is because some people are concerned about this thing, and I don't want to embarrass them.


What term means "a language one does not know and is not learning?"

In linguistics and foreign language teaching, there are various terms to describe languages one knows or is learning, e.g.:   * L1, first language, native language, mother tongue; a language one acquired from birth.   * L2, second language; a language one learned or is learning, it not their mother tongue.   * Target language, in the context of language learning, the language one is trying to learn. What term can be used to describe a language that a subject does not know, they are not currently learning, and it is not their "target" of study?   * The term should be fairly precise, such that readers can readily recognize that this term is neither a L1 nor a target language nor a partially learned language.   * A term used in academic writing in the fields of linguistics, foreign language teaching, or second language acquisition studies is preferred, but if none is available, a new term that is consistent enough to fit in a set along with the other examples will be fine.


Is "interesting" a negative or positive phrase?

When someone tells you something like: > It's interesting to have such a feature. > > It's interesting to look. Is it a negative or positive phrase? It sounds like a positive phrase but I think it may be a negative phrase because if we wanted to express a positive phrase then we wouldn't use "interesting". We would use a more appropriate phrase like "it's good", "it's nice", etc.


"Race" is to "racist" as "knowledge" and "disposition" are to what words?

* _race → racist_   * _freedom → fascist_ (for example)   * _knowledge_ → ?    * _disposition_ → ?  What's the word to describe a person who is disrespectful of your knowledge or disposition?


'[sic]' to indicate punctuation errors

Can _[sic]_ be used to highlight a punctuational error? In the sentence below, the bracketed _sic_ would obviously denote that the punctuation preceding it was an error -- that is, a semicolon should supplant the comma. Has anybody ever seen this usage, and would you support it? > The sun is high, [sic] put on some sunblock.


Why do we put "the" before "end"?

At the end of most movies I see the phrase "The end". Obviously the meaning of "end" here is clear, but I don't see a purpose for the "the" before it. Would you elaborate why it goes before "end"?


"I, for one, don't know "

I am curious about the precise meaning of _for one_ in the expression "I, _for one_ , don't know." This came up in a discussion about the amount of social efforts society should be willing to put in reducing CO2 emissions. In essence, my interlocutor said something like > " given the limited precision of complex climate models, the uncertainties > about future technological progress, and the doubts about the exact damages > that would be caused by climate change if it were to happen as predicted, > how much should we be willing to invest in reducing carbon emissions by say > 1 ton? I, for one, don't know." In this context, is the meaning "I, _for one_ , don't know." closer from "As far as I am concerned, I would no dare saying that I have an answer to that question" or "In this case, I cannot answer this question", with _for one_ indicating that the person has an answer to many other questions but not this one?


"Polarized" or "polarizing" opinions?

English is a foreign language to me, and one word that is particularly confusing is "polarize". In physics, it has contradictory definitions; when polarizing waves you remove inequality, but polarizing can also mean to cause something to acquire polarity, or in other word emphasize inequality. When applied to opinions, however, people usually seem to have the second definition in mind.   1. In a Huffington Post blog entry, I found the phrase "polarized opposite opinions". Is this an indication that "polarized opinions" on its own could be interpreted as "unified opinions" unless clarified? Otherwise, how should I understand the phrase?   2. I've compared the number of search results for "polarized opinions" and "polarizing opinions", and the latter seems to be more popular. Nevertheless, to me that one seems to imply that the opinions themselves bear the responsibility of dividing people into groups, instead of blaming the people who formulate the opinions. Is that correct, or is there another distinction between "polarized" and "polarizing"? Thanks!


Obsessed with a statement of Charles M. Schulz

_**Sometimes I lie awake at night, and ask, "where have I gone wrong?" then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."_** My friends and I have been discussing on the above statement of **_Charles M. Schulz_** and have come to different interpretation of it. Would someone please tell me what the owner of the statement is going to imply by saying that. Thank you so much in advance!


Compound verbs with infinitive and gerund

Which statements are grammatically correct and which meaning do they convey,   * This concept helps understand the problem.   * This concept helps to understand the problem.   * This concept helps understanding the problem.   * This concept helps in understanding the problem.


Words to help describe when you are using spaces and line breaks in text?

If you look at the difference between something like `quick brown fox` and `quickbrownfox`, you might reasonably describe the first as being **"spaced"**. While the second is, perhaps **"unspaced"** or **"spaceless"** ... doesn't sound too unreasonable... not great. You might think that had to do with spacing between the characters instead of the words (so more like "kerning"). But if you look at the difference between:               the     lazy     dog      ...and `the lazy dog`, then is there a word for distinguishing the first case? **"newlined"**? **"linebreaked"**? **"linebroken"**? Web programmers might say the second case comes from a distinction between the words being in "block-level elements" vs. "non block-level elements". So the first case would be **"
ved"** and the second **" ned"** (?). Maybe they'd get it, but I doubt most people would know what that meant. The fallback here is compounds like **words-separated-by-spaces** vs **words- without-spacing** vs **words-separated-by-newlines**. I'm just fishing for some possible terminology that could do it in fewer words, if it exists _(from typography, or elsewhere?)_


"Invidious" vs. "Insidious"

Can anyone give me a really short & sharp distinction between these two words? Are they notorious for often getting mixed up?


Where did the "art" in "Our Father who art in Heaven" go?

What happened to the _art_ in "Our Father who art in Heaven"? And why is it _art_ , and not _is_?


Difference between "architecture" and "structure" in the context of software

In the software industry, we call a step to building a software "architecture". I always take "architecture" as "structure". So for me, _software architecture = software structure_. Is that right?


Why “Many and many A year ago”, not “Many, many years ago? Are they same?

I was amused with the introductory part of the New York Times’ article（September 13) by Dick Cavett called “As comics say, ‘These kids today! I tell ya!’” that begins: > **“Many and many a year ago** , in the kingdom of ABC, Woody Allen was one > of my very first guests. And we consented to take questions from an eager > audience of mostly young people. Like ourselves. The questioner looked like > a high school girl and shouted to Woody from the balcony, > > “Do you think sex is dirty?” > > Allen: “It is if you do it right.” Besides Allen’s exquisite riposte, I was drawn to the beginning words, “Many and many a year ago”. Is it the same as “many many years ago”? Why is ‘year’ in a singular form when you are referring to multiple years' time span? Is “many and many a” an idiom, or a set pattern of phrase? Can I say 'I bought many and many a book this month" instead of 'I bought many books this month,' and 'I have many and many a question to post in EL&U' instead of 'I have a lot of questions ---'?


'Spick and span' /British phrase for a flawless person?

I was wondering if there exists a British expression to denote a flawless/good/spotless person. I'm thinking of using it in a context similar to 'he's no saint', which if I'm not wrong, is American. I would like to be able to use it with the following sentence construction: "He's a far cry from **__** himself." Would it be correct to use 'spick and span' in this instance? Are there any other (more appropriate) alternatives? Thanks very much.


Jealousy and hate

Is this grammatically correct? Why does "jealousy and hate" sound more natural or better than "hate and jealousy." Isn't "jealousy and hatred" more grammatically correct than either?


Usage of "not comparable"

Can the phrase "not comparable" be used in a negative context? For example, if someone says the latest pirates movie is not comparable to the previous versions, can it mean it is so bad?


The phrase "God willing."

Does "God willing" have a religious connotation to it? What are some other phrases that mean the same thing but don't have this connotation?


Verbs within a prepostional phrase

In the following two sentences I see verbs being used within prepositional phrases. Is this acceptable in casual conversation? The meanings in both cases are clear. > It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. > > I washed the dog with that soap you got. Also, in the first example, "is" is being used as an object noun, followed by a verb.


Equivalent for "optimizable"

Apparently optimizable is not a word. Why? This occurs semi-frequently when we have candidates for one or more optimization techniques. Note that I would argue that suboptimal has the undesirable connotation that the subject is inadequate, or a poor solution. related: Meaning of "suboptimal"


How do you explain usage of infinitive in "to hear all these large words, you would think..."?

I stumbled upon this quotation from Thomas Huxley: > You have all heard it repeated, I dare say, that men of science work by > means of induction and deduction, and that by the help of these operations, > they, in a sort of sense, wring from Nature certain other things, which are > called natural laws, ... To hear all these large words, you would think that > the mind of a man of science must be constituted differently from that of > his fellow men; but if you will not be frightened by terms, you will > discover that you are quite wrong, and that all these terrible apparatus are > being used by yourselves every day and every hour of your lives. (From On Our Knowledge of the Causes of the Phenomena of Organic Nature, 1863) Apparently, "to hear these large words" here means roughly the same as "upon hearing these large words". However, my intuitive is that when an infinitive is used adverbially it takes the meaning of either "in order to" or "so as to". In both cases the motion indicated by the infinitive happens _after_ the main clause. However, in this case the relationship seems to be reversed. I can scarcely recall similar usages of the infinitive elsewhere. I have also noted that this is pretty old text. My questions are:   * Is there an alternative, more apparent explanation of the usage of infinitive here?   * Is this usage common in modern English, or out-dated? I would also love to see other examples of this particular usage of infinitive, from both modern and relatively old sources.


Daycation vs overnight trip

Is a _daycation_ the same as _an overnight trip_? Do they refer to the same amount of time for a very short holiday?


Interjection said to a fisherman/angler for good luck

In some other languages, there are interjections said to a fisherman (especially to an angler) for good luck, **other than "good luck!" itself.** Is there any in English too? * * * I suppose, "good luck" is a common expression for this but I thought there might be a special expression for this occasion as well. I recently read about **"Tight lines!"** also but never heard it before. Do you know anything about this expression?


What's the deal with "thank you kindly"?

Other questions on this site have established that _kindly_ can be used as a sort of _please_. This usage was in my mind when someone said "Thank you kindly" to me, but "thank you please" doesn't make sense. However, characterizing one's own thanks as kind also sounds unlikely. The actual usage appears to be the sixth definition by Dictionary.com: > **kindly**   >  **6.** cordially or heartily: _We thank you kindly._ However, I still have questions. Is this usage of _kindly_ only used with _thank you_? How did this usage occur?


How to phrase a sentence with reference to "Least Superlative"?

For instance if I have two younger sisters, named Alice, and Becky, for example. How do I describe the sister who is not youngest, but the _other_ younger sister? Becky is my youngest sister. Alice is my next youngest sister? Least Young? Sister of penultimate youngness? It gets worse if I have a third sister (Carly), whose age is between mine and Alice's. Now I need to refer to not only the sister who is older than Becky and Alice, but younger than I am. Or is there no succinct way to express this? I tried to explain this concept to a French teacher once, but struggled to express it in English, and it's bothered me ever since. Edit, to clear things up. I'm male. There's 3 sisters, and one brother.


Difference between "drop on by" and "drop by"

I first learned _drop on by_ from this news. > Longhorn Aquatics was hosting its New Year's Classic, and Lance Armstrong > decided to **drop on by** and hop in the pool. What is the difference between _drop on by_ and _drop by_? What is the meaning of _on_ here?


What's the logical opposite to "onboarding"?

When you have a lengthy process after hiring someone, you call that the "onboarding" process. Is the term "offboarding" correct for a lengthy end-of- contract process? Or what would that be called?


What is a difference between "what if" and "if"

My English teacher asked me what's the difference between _what if_ and _if_ last week.   I can't search anything about that. What only I know is _what if_ is a question sentence. And _if_ is a general(?) sentence. Is it related with class word (a part of speech)?


History of the words "conservative" and "liberal"

I’m curious in the history of political parties of the USA. Initially in 1861 Abraham Lincoln was the first President to represent the Republican party which has always been stated as conservative yet, their parties policies seem very liberal in the modern usage of the word. Also the Democrats had mainly represented the south which today is considered quite conservative. This seems to have switched with the JFK vs Nixon election in 1960, where the Democrats represent the north while the Republicans tend to represent the south. While the Republicans still stay a conservative party and the Democrats still liberal. My question is, did these two definitions change, and if so how does something like this happen?


What's the origin of the phrase to "do one"?

The phrase to "do one" — essentially an insult meaning to "do a disappearing act" (if the Urban Dictionary's definitions* are anything to go by) — seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon. Where did it come from? Is there any particular usage of it (such as by a celebrity or on a TV show) that led to it gaining traction? *warning: some of the definitions contain expletives


"Feeling well" adverb ambiguity

Am I just crazy, or is there some ambiguity in the phrase "feeling well"? Example: Billy has a genetic defect that causes him to lose sensation in his fingertips every few days, or so. "How are you feeling today?" is a question that Billy might answer in such a way as to indicate the quality or degree to which he can feel.


Origin of "he's 6 feet tall if he's an inch"

I have heard this pattern used before in American English: > She's 6 feet tall if she's an inch. > > It was a gallon of blood if it was a drop. > > The baby was 10 pounds if it was an ounce. I understand that it means something like, "She is 6 feet tall, which is very tall." But this to me is such a bizarre and illogical way of conveying the message that it's distracting, and I cannot get myself to say it even if it comes to me. Anyone know the origin of this, or can breathe some reasoning into this phrase to justify its appreciation?


A perfect (honest) pangram that is understandable for a regular native user?

Pangrams were pure wordplays, that because of IT has become a nice tool to test keyboard and fonts, assuming they are easy to remember and short. Therefore perfect pangrams are so nice: you don't need to repeat any character (with the exception of the space). I've looked on the list of pangrams and I've noticed that most of them are either not perfect or are heavily using acronyms, initials, own names etc. (which I call not "honest", because it's a bit cheating). Those "honest" looked like a gibberish for me: > Jink cwm, zag veldt, fob qursh pyx However, those are real English words, only I doubt a bit, a regular native speaker would understand them. So 2 questions arise: 1) Are such pangrams as above understandable for a regular English native speaker? 2) If not, are there any others that would be perfect, honest (no acronyms, exotic own names etc.) and written with commonly known words? Just to give some context, the Polish perfect pangram > Mężny bądź, chroń pułk twój i sześć flag. would be understood by any native speaker, and it makes perfectly sense (be brave, protect your regiment and six flags). It's a poetry masterpiece, you can say.


"seem" or "seem to be"

I searched for similar questions within a website, but ended up with one without a solution. Which expression is correct or better? Both sound weird to me. >   * The solution **seems** missing. >   * The solution **seems to be** missing. >


Microsoft Word's "fragments"

Microsoft Word loves underlining things I am typing with a green squiggle. Now sometimes it gets it right, as just now it found a mistake > also know as which should be > also known as But one thing which I find rather annoying is its labelling of sentences as "fragments". Here are two which it catches: > Things of this sort. > > Bad timing though. I am rather puzzled where this strong objection to fragments arose from. They seem quite normal parts of English to me. What does anybody else think? (PS I don't need answers telling me how to switch off the grammar checker etc, I can do that already).


Slash in the years

Can we use slash in the phrase "over the two periods, 2000/01 and 2001/02"? If not, what is the appropriate punctuation in this case?


Term for phonological elements of a dialect

A dialect encompasses various traits of a group, including vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation (phonology). Is there a common term specifically for the phonological elements of a dialect? I’d like to ask another question about those, and I’m wondering whether there is a more succinct way to refer to them. The specific context I’m thinking of is the way people typically have a different “dialect” when they sing, but generally only pronunciation-wise. I’d like a way to refer to that kind of “dialect” without using scare quotes and then explaining at length exactly what I’m talking about. For a related example, people often change their vocabulary to suit the occasion, and we call that kind of “dialect” a _register._ I’m wondering whether there’s an analogous term for phonology.


"Any" vs. "anything" — are these answers the same?

Could you please tell me if these sentences are correct and the same? > How much luggage do you have? > >   1. I don't have any. >   2. I don't have any luggage. >   3. I don't have anything. >


Can a question "ask" or "request," or is this an action that only humans can do?

Is it appropriate to say, for instance:   1. _This question asks for advice._   2. _This question asks about dogs._   3. _These questions request help._ Or are the acts of _asking_ & _requesting_ actions that only humans can do?


Usage of "rather than to"

I don't know if "rather than to" is correct or if there is a better turn of phrase: > Note that our aim is to show [...] rather than to run [...]


Alternative to "In real time"

Is there a better alternative to "in real time"? For example: > People tweet in real time. > > People tweet _live_. [seems kind of unnatural to me]


"One way would be" vs "One way will be"?

What is the difference between "One way would be" and "One way will be"? Can both of them be used for future actions?


What's the difference between "It won't be soon" and "It won't be soon enough"?

I have heard this expression "It won't be soon enough" quite often, in fact more often than simply "It won't be soon". I wonder if the word "enough" in the first one adds some additional meaning to the phrase. I haven't been able to detect any difference in meaning between the two. Perhaps I am wrong, but according to my observations, "enough" seems to go along well with "be", while dropping "enough" seems to be more common for other verbs, for example, "It won't happen soon", "It won't arrive soon" and so on.


Is “There was not a problem” ok?

Is “There was not a problem” in common use? Example: > I tried to test the device and there was no problem with it.


Is there a tense issue in this sentence?

The garbage bags slipped from her hands, crashing to the ground.


Back flap of an envelope

I am wiring a letter for a company and it said it should be signed at the back flap. Can anyone tell me what the back flap of an envelope is?


What does “load the case” mean?

New Yorker December 15 issue carries the review on the recently released comedy, “Young Adult,” written by Diablo Cody, directed by Jason Reitman, and starring Charlize Theron as a heroine. It reads: > “The movie was shot not in Minnesota but in White Plains and central Long > Island, which only reinforces the point that so much of the country looks > the same, feels the same. But are Cody and Reitman too clever by half? _Have > they loaded the case_? They don’t produce anyone (besides Buddy holding his > child) who gives a damn about anything.” As I didn’t get the exact idea of “Have they loaded the case?” I tried to find its definition online. Neither of Cambridge nor M-W online dictionaries registers ‘load the case.’ OED registers ‘load the base’ as baseball terminology meaning ‘fill the bases,’ but not ‘load the case.’ Google Ngram shows an undulant usage pattern of ‘load the case’ peaking in circa 1940. What does ‘ _load the case’_ mean in the above sentence?


Original Meaning and Derivation of "Ever and Anon"

A question posted today asks about the Use of “ever” in non-negated sentence, and one answer happens to mention the phrase "ever and anon." That phrase, with the meaning "occasionally or repeatedly," goes back at least as far as Shakespeare, who writes in _Henry IV_ (act 1, scene 3): > And 'twixt his finger and his thumb he held/A pouncet-box, which ever and > anon/He gave his nose, and took't away again. But did "ever and anon" always carry this meaning? The meaning isn't intuitively obvious to me from its components because, in this setting, I think of _ever_ as meaning "always" (though in other situations it can mean "at least once") and _anon_ as meaning "soon" or "later." If not, what was the original meaning of the phrase? If so, how did it emerge from the separate meanings of _ever_ and _anon_?


Referring to two sections

What is the proper way to refer to two sections in a single sentence (in a scientific text)? In particular, should I use the word _section_ twice, or should I use _sections_. If I use _sections_ should I capitalize it? For example: > We discuss this issue in **Section 4 and Section 9**. > > We discuss this issue in **Section 4 and in Section 9**. > > We discuss this issue in **Sections 4 and 9**. > > We discuss this issue in **sections 4 and 9**.


If trinity means 3 in one, what's the word for one in one, 2 in one, 4 in one, 5 in one?

Just curious. Christians have this trinity doctrine. What if, after extensive research, Pope discovers that we have 5 "monotheistic" Gods rather than 3, for example. What would the doctrine name be?


'Evening' and 'morning' in use as greetings

This is more a historical question than one on the usages themselves. I'm interested in the history of the truncated forms of "Good morning" and "Good evening..." specifically, when people started greeting one other simply with 'morning', 'afternoon, and 'evening', why they did so, and even where they were first used. I would presume it was due to laziness, but details are always helpful... and, of course, I would appreciate some citation, as confirmation is never a bad thing.


Is "So far as concerns something" the same as "So far as something is concerned"?

The following excerpt is from an article of Harry Frankfurt who is a professor from Princeton University: > Especially by pretentious word or deed: There are two points to notice here. > First, Black identifies humbug not only as a category of speech but as a > category of action as well; it may be accomplished either by words or by > deeds. Second, his use of the qualifier “especially” indicates that Black > does not regardpretentiousness as an essential or wholly indispensable > characteristic of humbug. Undoubtedly, much humbug is pretentious. **So far > as concerns bullshit** , moreover, "pretentious bullshit” is close to being > a stock phrase. But I am inclined to think that when bullshit is > pretentious, **this** happens because pretentiousness is its motive rather > than a constitutive element of its essence.   * I know that "so far as something is concerned" is an idiom which means " in considering something". But what does "so far as concerns bullshit" mean? Is it the same as "so far as bullshit is concerned" which means "in considering bullshit"?   * I am not sure what "this" in bold refers to. Is it "when bullshit is pretentious"?


How do you pronounce 'news'?

My coworker and I have been having this discussion for a day or two... What is the most correct way to pronounce 'new' or 'news' ? Does it rhyme with 'few' ? or 'snooze' ? Does 'new crew' rhyme? I know both 'noo' and 'nyoo' are correct, but what are the origins of the two different pronunciations? Asking around the office, it seems that 'nyoo' might have a British English origin, but I would like to know if anyone is more knowledgeable on this topic.


Is there a specialized term for intellectual people who do not care about their own physical comfort?

Someone told me that there is a medical/psychological term describing people who are mostly centered on their intellect and who do not care much about their physical comfort. That person could not remember the term though. I thought about autism, but it is not this word. Are you aware of such a word?


Are uncountable nouns singular?

Is the following correct ( _those_ referring to the uncountable noun _information_ )? > If SO reports on that information, what are the metrics on those? Or should it be the following? > If SO reports on that information, what are the metrics on that? Or perhaps simply > If SO reports on that information, what are the metrics? Context.


Opposite of anthropomorphise

To anthropomorphise is to ascribe human features to something, such as an animal. Is there a word that means the opposite, namely to deny a feature exists in an animal because it is assumed to be uniquely human? For example, some would see it as anthropomorphising to say a dog misses its owner. How would you describe it when it is said a dog can not miss its owner as animals do not feel emotions?


What does "go figure" mean?

Sometimes, people use a colloquial phrase of "it figures" or "go figure", which is kind of an acknowledgement of the correctness of a fact, or something like that. It's also sometimes abbreviated even further to just "Figures" or "Go fig", depending on the speaker. Examples of the phrase in context: > **It figures** , this site doesn't have a question about this phrase yet. > > **Go figure** , the answer was right under my nose the entire time. What is the origin of this phrase, and what exactly does it mean? What is being figured, and into what?


Post Question To

If Craig wrote a question on an online forum and the question was intended for Larry: >   1. Craig posted a question to Larry. > Should the part "to Larry" modify "a question", or "posted"? In another word, should sentence 1 be interpreted with "a question to Larry" acting as a single unit: > Craig posted [a question to Larry]. or should sentence 1 be interpreted like this: > Craig posted to Larry a question. ?


Meanings of “take it easy”

The phrase “take it easy” has several different meanings, and it's not always easy to tell between them from context. I'm referring specifically to the standalone phrase (grammatically, an imperative), not to the use of the verbal expression in general.   * — I'm going on a holiday. — Take it easy for a week, you deserved it. _(the usual verbal meaning)_   * — I'm leaving, bye. — Take it easy. _(≈ “have a nice time”)_   * — I'm going to hit someone. — Hey, take it easy, man! _(≈ “keep your cool”)_ What clues can distinguish the friendly use (have a nice time) from the reproachful use (keep calm)? Are there other meanings to consider? Are there regional variations?


How is the sentence "The symbol % is used to represent percent" read?

I have three sentences in my math textbook that use the symbol _%_. >   * The symbol % is used to represent percent. >   * Usually denoted by the symbol %. >   * Most calculators have a key with the % symbol that will help you solve > or check percent problems. > Am I supposed to replace "%" with the word "percent" in all three?


Word that means "able to be prioritized" suitable for scientific publication?

I'm looking for a single word that means "able to be prioritized" that is suitable for use in a scientific paper. "Prioritizable" is essentially what I want, but in my searching this does not appear to be an actual word. (Definitions are from crowd sourced, not authoritative sources.) Since it is my understanding that it is generally bad practice to use such non-words in scientific literature, I'm looking for a suitable alternative.


What is correct: still to be/continue to be/should be/must be?

I want to build a sentence referring to the past, present and future:   1. The Bible was, and continues to be, instrumental in spreading God's message to mankind.   2. The Bible was, and should still be, instrumental in spreading God's message to mankind.   3. The Bible was, and must still be, instrumental in spreading God's message to mankind.   4. The Bible was, and still to be, instrumental in spreading God's message to mankind.   5. The Bible was, and is still to be, instrumental in spreading God's message to mankind. which one is more correct? Please don't hesitate to come up with a totally different sentence but with a similar meaning. Thank you in advance.


in minds or in mind

Is it correct to say "What do you (more than 1 person) have in **minds**?" or we should say "What do you have in mind?". If both of the sentences are correct, which one is more idiomatic?


Word for someone who engages in transgression because it is transgressive

I'm trying to communicate the difference between an iconoclast (someone opposed to and intent on destroying established icons) and someone who engages in transgression because it is transgressive. Forbidden fruit, etc. For the first, destroying the icon is a victory, for the second, a disaster. Is there a single word for the second person?


Is there a word for answering a question with a question?

I am aware that answering student questions with further, leading questions is sometimes dubbed “Socratic,” but I am asking more broadly about all occasions where someone asks a question and, instead of an answer, receives another question in response. Has a word ever been coined to name this phenomenon?


Parsing of a compound noun with many words

How should I understand this phrase: "threat analysis model", which means:   * An analysis model of threat, or put in parentheses: (threat(analysis model)   * A model of threat analysis: (threat analysis (model)) If it has 4 words: "threat analysis modeling tool", then:   * Is it: (threat (analysis (modeling (tool)))   * Or: (threat analysis) + (modeling tool)   * Or: (threat) + (analysis modeling) + (tool)


Grammar: "I know right"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What does “I know, right?” mean? Is the expression "I know right" grammatically correct? I hear it a lot and I think I understand what it means, but it just sounds wrong to me.


Symphonic vs. symphony

Is there any clear line between a _symphony_ and _symphonic_? For long, I thought that a symphony was simply a "song" played by a symphonic orchestra. Then I realized that more often than not, the ensemble is actually also called _symphony_ orchestra. As a lot of this terminology is used on pages from all around the world (often translated by non-native speakers), I'd like to get some final clarification from an educated native speaker. Will you? And to make the question complete, speaking of an ensemble, is there any difference in meaning in the following (and are they all equally correct): _symphonic, symphonic orchestra, symphony, symphony orchestra, philharmonic, philharmonic orchestra_ (I know that most orchestras will have their "standardized" English names but speaking of a general classical orchestra, are all the terms identical?)


The "only...but" problem

In an effort to clarify my quandary, is it appropriate to use this statement to give condolence: > I know you were only trying to help. Or, does _only_ imply that _you did more harm than good_? It feels like it does. My confusion is that the statement, > I was only trying to help. does not imply that _I was only trying to help, but I admit that I caused harm_.


Origin and scope of "cruft"

I just had to look up "cruft" (jargon for software or hardware that is of poor quality), as used in a comment to an earlier question. But I can't find any details of etymology, and I don't know how often it's used outside the superfluous source code that has yet to be removed context. Can anyone help?


Does "quite sorry" sound common to you?

Phrases like " _so sorry_ ", " _very sorry_ " are commonly seen, but " _quite sorry_ " sounds odd to me. At first I thought it might be because " _quite_ " doesn't usually go with words representing negative meanings. for example, " _quite good_ " sounds common to me, yet " _quite bad_ " somehow sounds off (maybe I would say " _not quite good_ " instead). I know there's nothing grammatically wrong with " _quite sorry_ ", so I'ld like to know how others feel about the word " ** _quite_** " going with words representing negative meanings. Thank you!


The word "was" to not use in writing, dont use the word was

My english teacher told me to get rid of all "was"s in my essay and to replace them. I did it even though it seemed a bit difficult to re-write all my sentences. When writing essays is the word "was" bad? Or it's just him? To be honest, some of the sentences did sound better without the words. He gave us a list of words to refrain from like "was, is, are, were, be , been and being."


Batman vs. Maxwell Smart. Who said, "Good thinking, ...!" first?

Recently, I've come across the catchphrase, " _Good thinking, [name/noun]!"_ three times on ELU. The first was in a question referring to Terry Pratchett's catchphrase " **Good thinking, that man!** " 1 The second was FumbleFinger's answer where he affirms that the former is a homage to the popular American catchphrase, **Good thinking, Batman!** Made famous in the American TV cult series, _Batman_. The third, I happily stumbled upon myself and posted in “Definite ninety-nine” - UK English meaning. The catchphrase is taken from an American spy sitcom, called _Get Smart_ about two secret agents; Maxwell Smart, Agent 86, and his beautiful and intelligent female partner, Agent 99. The series, devised by Mel Brooks and Buck Henry, was responsible for coining a multitude of catchphrases, one of which was: **Good thinking, 99!** ## Data _**Get Smart**_ was broadcast between 1965–1970 but despite my cursory attempts, I couldn't pinpoint the year the catchphrase was actually launched. _**Batman**_ appeared on television screens a year later and ended its run in 1968. According to Wikiquote the phrase **Good thinking, Robin!** was used in season two, episode 27. (At least that's my understanding) Established the fact the catchphrase, " **Good thinking!** " originated in the US, and its popularity became worldwide thanks to the exportation of American TV shows in the 60s and 70s. I would like to know:   * Who said it first, _Batman_ or _Maxwell Smart_?   * Was there an earlier TV or radio show with the formulaic catchphrase: Good thinking, + (name)+! anytime in the mid/late 50s?   * Finally, what about Australia? Were either of the catchphrases popular during the 60s? I also recall reading on the Internet that _Good thinking, 99!_ is still being used there. Is that true?


Can I replace the following verbs with more appropriate ones?

> A creaking metalic sound came from the door, awakening Erin. She raised her > eyes and looked to the front. Someone was opening the elevator. Erin waited > expectantly for a moment, and after a few **pulls** , the door **clanked** > open. I pretty sure I should be using different verbs instead of _pull_ and _clank_. But I can't think of any. The first should refer to "applying force with a lever" and the second to "opening a door with a loud sound".


"Large amount of calories" vs. "high amount of calories"

Is it more typical to say that there are a _large amount_ of calories or a _high amount_ of calories? For example: > Chocolate cake contains a high/large amount of calories.


"I saw him crossing" vs. "I saw him cross"

> I saw him crossing the road.   >  I saw him cross the road. Which one is correct and why?


In the armpit or under the armpit?

Which is the right thing to say? >   1. Put the thermometer **in** the armpit. >   2. Put the thermometer **under** the armpit. >   3. Put the thermometer **under the arm**. >


"You gotta love xyz": What is the formal version?

"You gotta love xyz" is an often a sarcastic (and colloquial) way of pointing out a preference/like for something. Is there a more formal way to express similar sarcasm when describing a preference/like?


Is this correct English? What should one do when you're supposed to have *two* punctuations at *one* position?

> This is the first sentence of which ground-breaking document: > > "The importance of a Web page is an inherently subjective matter, which > depends on the readers interests, knowledge and attitudes." In the paragraph above, is "This is... document" correct English? Also, _theoretically_ , shouldn't there be _two_ punctuations after "document", a colon, and a question mark, since it's a question. What do you do in such a case? Possibly related question: A colon after "following"


How do you pronounce "mayor"?

I have been split between two pronunciations of "mayor". Most of the people I talk to pronounce it "mair" (like the horse). But if you look on Dictionary.com the main pronunciation is "mey-er". I wanted some clarification on which is the correct way and why there are two different versions of the word.


Can we call 'ever' as a specifier?

> He does **not** like planes.   >  She **never** eats meal. (English Syntax and Argumentation, Bas Aarts) Aarts calls the negatives, not and never, as specifiers. ‘Ever’ in the example below seems to take the same position and role; can we call it as a specifier or not? > “Good evening, madam; I sent to you for a charitable purpose. I have > forbidden Adèle to talk to me about her presents, and she is bursting with > repletion; have the goodness to serve her as auditress and interlocutrice; > it will be one of the most benevolent acts you **ever** performed.” (Jane > Eyre)


"unless stated otherwise" or "unless otherwise stated"?

1. **Convention:** R^n is always assumed to carry the Euclidean topology, unless stated otherwise.   2. **Convention:** R^n is always assumed to carry the Euclidean topology, unless otherwise stated. Which sentence is (more) correct?


"Talk to you then then"

I am talking to a friend on the phone and the conversation is somewhat incomplete but we decide to hang up. Before hanging up, he says "I'll see you tomorrow". Would it be grammatical to reply, > OK, talk to you then then! The two _then_ s are not a typo, in fact that's my whole question.


Is there a single word meaning "very funny book"?

Sometimes you read a book that has you convulsing with laughter from the moment you pick it up. For me, one of those books was _Catch-22_ by Joseph Heller. What do you call this? Perhaps there isn't a single word or standard phrase for it but I'm convinced there is and I just can't remember it. It would be much like _potboiler_ means a poor quality book, the kind of pulp rubbish people buy in airports.


‘Sought’ or ‘sought-after’?

In the context of a computation, I would like to refer to “the sought value”. I think this is the most precise and terse formulation. However, I have noticed that people often use “sought-after” rather than “sought” in some similar situations. I could certainly say “the sought-after value”, but it’s a bit clumsier, especially if it isn’t necessary. Dictionary entries for ‘seek’ don’t seem to indicate that a preposition should be necessary. Of course, “the value sought” or “the value sought after” (again, which is best?) could do the trick, and perhaps that’s better English in general, but in my mathematical context, I think the precise meaning gets through more clearly when I use ‘sought’ in an adjective-like manner. So, is my preferred formulation “the sought value” kosher, or should I modify it with a preposition or otherwise?


Does capitalization change the meaning of the word coke?

Does capitalization change the meaning of the word _coke_? Does _Coke_ mean the soda and _coke_ mean the drug? Is there a grammar term that denotes this behavior? Or is there no rule and it's simply the context that defines the definition?


Programming concision: "To replace the use of deprecated methods, for more up-do-date methods"

I was refactoring some old code and a lot of it used deprecated methods which had to be re-written to use more appropriate non-deprecated methods. When writing a changelog, it felt awkward writing such a long sentence. Is there a word or a less verbose phrase for this?


Proper Punctuation for "Over" in Radio Communication

Given the statement "Vickery to Crann, Over" as radio communication, and knowing that _over_ , as a radio procedure, is used to request a response from the person/group in which the radio procedure had targeted, would the use of _Over_ be recognized as a question               Vickery to Crann, Over?      or a statement               Vickery to Crann, Over.      I searched both the Stack Exchange English site, as well as other areas but I'm unable to find a definitive use for this.


Do I say: "Hook me up to this nice party!" or "Hook me up on this nice party!"

Do I say: > Hook me up to this nice party! OR > Hook me up on this nice party! I am trying to give a connotation that the party sounds good and I want my friend to give me an invitation to go there. Should I say in some other better way?


Can we use "commiseration" and "condolence" interchangeably?

On what occasions can we use these terms and are they perfect synonym for each other to use interchangeably? Can we say to someone who has lost a friend "our commiseration to ..."?


Industry Term for "Intentional production halt" department

Is there a name for when production is stopped intentionally in order to allow the factory to perform repairs and maintenance?


"You get what you deserve nothing more nothing less"

In this world we reside, what we acquire depends on what we _can_ acquire. In other words, if we have the money to, we can buy a house; if we have the necessary educational qualifications to, we can get a high-paying profession. I guess the idiom/phrase I'm trying to look for deals more with romantic relationship partners. From what I have observed, it's common that people choose their partners in relationship based on their own quality, by this I mean for example, someone who's wealthy tends to prefer a partner who's also wealthy as well. Someone who's very good-looking tends to have higher standards and aim for a partner who's also good-looking as well although there are exceptions but that's generally the case from what I've observed. Unattractive individuals are more likely to have lower standards appearance-wise and favour relationship partners who are similar and not quite that good-looking, for reasons either maybe because they feel insecure that their partner might cheat on them or that they feel they're not worthy of them. So is there an idiom/phrase that describes this idea, that describes something along the lines of: > _(it is meant to be that) what you get depends on your own quality nothing > more and nothing less_ , (if you attempt to be with someone who's way above > your standards the relationship will ultimately fail).


What's the difference between "lad" and "mate" in British English?

Can "lad" only be used to address a male, while "mate" both male and female?


"Somehow" or "In somehow"?

So far I had never found "somehow" used with "in". Is still this the normal adverb? Could I use "somehow" alone? > Ex: I'll fit you in somehow.


Uniformly at random vs. randomly uniformly

In their paper "Handling Churn in a DHT", the authors use the following sentence: > For each event we select a node to die uniformly at random[...] Do you think this sentence is unprecise? Or is it even grammatically wrong? I argued with a friend wether someone could misinterpret this sentence (e.g. that nodes are dying uniformly) or if the sentence is as precise as needed. An alternate form could be > For each event we randomly uniformly select a node to die [...] We believe the syntax of this sentence to be correct and that it is more precise than the first version, but IMHO it lacks readability. Is one of the forms above to be preferred over the other, or would you say that both aren't optimal and that there are better ways?


What is this type of argument called?

There is a kind of argument that goes like this: > x is good because if x were not there, y would be bad. What is this kind of argument called? I learned about this in school but forget the name of it. Basically you argue not directly about the positive features of having whichever element you're arguing for, but you argue that without the element, there would be negative effects.


How did "used" get its meaning?

If one is accustomed to doing something, it's often said in English that they are "used" to doing it. However, why do we use "used" in this way? It doesn't seem to bear much relation to the simple past tense of "use"; does it nevertheless originate from the word "use" or a different word which has come to be spelt the same as the past tense of "use"?


Use of 'enjoy' with respect to a status or position without pleasure?

I've seen a sentence construct in several places where something or someone is said to "enjoy" a status or position, but said status doesn't imply any pleasure or joy. > Due to her visa conditions, our cleaner enjoys temporary residency status. I doubt the cleaner actually derives any pleasure from the temporary nature of her situation, so why do we describe her as 'enjoying' it? Some real-world examples: > The data is for your general information and enjoys indicative status only. > (BBC News market data) > > [...] the film enjoys temporary status as a new release. (British Film > Institute) > > My organization enjoys consultative status with ECOSOC. (United Nations) > > [...] they are recognized as a "refugee" and enjoy refugee status. (Amnesty > International) I could understand the use of _enjoy_ in cases where the status is clearly something to be enjoyed, e.g. > Our high-rollers enjoy VIP status for the duration of their visit but in the examples above there is arguably no pleasure or benefit to be 'enjoyed' in the usual sense, and in some cases the subject is not capable of enjoyment. So what is the definition of 'enjoy' when used in this context?


Word for "parents with children who have moved out"?

How do you call someone, or someone's point in life when their children moved out and they have more time, or are willing to make riskier career choices?


What's the difference between "active" and "busy"?

What's the difference in meaning between saying "I'm an active person." and "I'm a busy person."?


two prepositional phrases

> The lighted dial of Dudley's watch, which was dangling **over the edge of > the sofa on his fat wrist** , told Harry he'd be eleven in ten minutes' > time. (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) Are the highlighted two prepositional phrases one element, or is ‘over the edge of the sofa’ a parenthetical phrase?


"How do you do"--what does it mean and when did most of society opt to no longer say it?

What exactly does how do you do mean? I'm ashamed to admit I say it and I don't quite know what it means. I'm also very curious to know, and I suppose this is a question of opinion, when did folks stop saying it? When did "how do you do" meet it's demise within society? I suppose whenever it was it must have had a precipitious decline of usage on account of I personally don't know anyone, besides myself, who says it today; however, I know there must be folks who still say it. Any thoughts?


Gender neutral term for "maiden name"?

The term "maiden name" is only used to describe the name that a woman had before marriage, and as such, is not gender neutral. However, it occasionally occurs that a man will take his partner's last name, or they will choose a different last name altogether, so this doesn't work in all cases. What is a gender-neutral way to refer to a last name that you had before you were married, in fewer words?


Should I use "me" or "mine"?

I have the tendency to equate "mine" as something like "hers" and "his". But I am not sure if this is correct. I know I could say: > This pencil belongs to _his_. But which of the following is correct if I say this: > This pencil belongs to _me_. or > This pencil belongs to _mine_? Which is correct? Should I use " _me_ " or use " _mine_ "?


Use of "concur" in a formal context

I am wondering if using "I concur" in a formal context is OK. I am writing a formal email; I want to use I concur, at the same time don't want to sound ghetto. Maybe I shouldn't bother and use _I wholeheartedly agree_ instead. I still want to learn if it is OK to use "concur" in a professional email.


Bracket vs brace

I found the terms _bracket_ and _brace_ used interchangeably. Is there a difference, and what is it?


If you're "balled up" why are you confused?

I believe the expression ' ** _balled up_** ' dates back to the first decade of the twentieth century and I believe it means 'confused' but I'm all balled up as to why it means 'confused'. The only explanation I may offer, and I may be all wet, is that if documents or papers are rounded into a ball or "balled up" they cannot be read. Anything with writing or displaying pictures on it that are "balled up" aren't plainly visible and may likely confuse a person. That's my only guess and I'm sure I'm mistaken. Any thoughts and ideas as to why _balled up_ means confused?


Position of 'also'

What is the correct position of the word 'also'? > I would like to **also** talk about ... > > I would **also** like to talk about ...


Dignitary vs VIP(Very Important Person)

Incidentally I have heard the CBS news about the Bulgarian president visit in US. The exact sentence was something like: > We can't be too specific about the president's schedule due to security > concerns which are an issue for all visiting dignitaries. What took me by surprise was that they used the word _dignitary_ while in Bulgarian recently we tend to use the foreign word _VIP_ for that no matter if it is a man with a specific (official) rank in the society or a famous singer. It pretty much sum up all these occasions, so my question is: what is the difference in meaning between _dignitary_ and _VIP_ and when and why should we use each?


Can you explain a grammar of this sentence please

> Yeah, yeah. Microsoft would have been willing to buy it, too. . . . I don't > know for $19 billion, but the company's extremely valuable. Full Article is here. From the context I can understand that Microsoft wanted to buy WhatsApp before Facebook did, but I can't understand the grammar. Can someone explain to me please?


Is it correct to use "uppercased"?

Is **uppercase** a valid verb?   Could I say for example "you should use your password uppercased"?


Proper representation of "vice versa"?

How should I properly use the word _vice versa_ in writing? Is that even the correct spelling?


When do I use -i for expressing the plural of a word?

I've never been certain of the rules surrounding the use of the -i suffix for pluralizing a word. I had thought that it was used for any word whose singular ended in an 's', but that doesn't appear to always be true. For example, the plural of _octopus_ can be written _octopi_. But the plural of _chorus_ seems to always be _choruses_ , never _chori_. When is it proper to use an -i for pluralization?


"Hot cakes" or "flapjacks" in 1890s American South?

Which term is more likely to have been used by my main character, a young man from a wealthy Macon, Georgia family, in 1893?


What does "data-lite" mean as an advantage of an application?

What does "data-lite" mean in the following context? > This application is: > > ... > >   * data-lite and saves you money > > > ... I couldn't find it online or in the dictionary (OAAD). For more context, I read it in the description of this application.


Difference between "technically possible" and "physically possible"?

Do you think these expressions can be used interchangeably? I find little or no differene between the two meanings. Does this question need more context?


What does "hard sums" mean?

I have heard British people speak about "hard sums," but I can't find a definition anywhere. Is it just a generic way of referring to any arithmetic that the speaker believes is difficult? Or does it have a more specific definition or nuance? If someone says "I can do hard sums," what does that mean exactly?


What's the sentence pattern of passive voice?

> We **saw** him enter the room. He **was seen** to enter the room. When the sentence that has the pattern of “S+V+O+OC” is changed into passive form, do we call ‘to enter the room’ as a _subjective complement_ or an _object_?


Can or should "ask" ever be used as a noun?

"The ask is that you provide me with..." I started hearing "ask" being used as a noun a few years ago. Is this a recent trend? Is it an East Coast thing, unique to North America, or just unique to the in-house vocabulary of telecommunications companies?


When and why is "flied" used as the past tense of "fly"?

Why is the form "flied" used in baseball instead of "flew"?


Origins of English Double-C Pronunciations

Looking into Pronunciation of double consonants, turned up an apparent rule for pronouncing a double-C in English that seems to parallel the Italian rule for pronouncing a single C. If the "cc" is followed by a bright vowel ("i" or "e"), it is pronounced /ks/: > accent, occipital, eccentric Otherwise it is pronounced /k/: > account, occasion, occupy A dictionary search throws up a few exceptions to this, which mostly appear to be musical loan words from Italian which are still pronounced as the in original ("acciaccatura" for example). The question is this: how did this rule come about? The parallel with Italian is close enough to make me very suspicious, but I haven't been able to prove a connection between the two.


What does "on the spoke" mean?

The following line is from a Halo 2 teaser (female voice at around 1:11, the link is to 1:05): > Admiral, tell your men to hold their positions. Reinforcements are **on the > spoke**. The only definition I know of and the only one Google is turning up is the typical tire/wheel spokes, but I don't see how that fits in the sentence. What does "on the spoke" mean?


What punctuation is this sentence missing?

> One big ass mistake America. I'm thinking it should be: > One big ass mistake, America.


What does "cynical confidence" mean?

I know that cynical means something along the lines of believing the worst in people, but how does this word coincide with confidence? For instance, what would this line mean? > The witness had a cynical confidence. I'm lost on how to interpret this phrase.


Use of Like/Unlike (Double negative)

What is the correct way?               Birds are not mammals like cats.     Birds are not mammals, like cats.     Birds are not mammals, unlike cats.      *Just in case, reminder: Cats are mammals. Birds are not mammals.


Is "curious of" acceptable or even better than "curious about"?

Many speakers and internet writers seem to use "curious of" in place of "curious about". For example: > I am curious of what he thinks. This is in spite of what seems to be, by the rules of grammar I can find, less correct than saying: > I am curious about what he thinks. I have heard both forms uttered so much that there seems in fact a subtle difference in meaning between the two, but I may be imagining things. Two questions--   1. Is "curious of" really any less correct than "curious about"?   2. Is "curious of" actually more appropriate for certain subjects or certain relationships, due to different connotations perhaps?


Are general questions formed in plural or in singular?

When asking a general question about something in English, should they be formed in plural or in singular? Or rather what is a good way of forming it? > How _are articles_ used in English? Or > How _is an article_ used in English?


Can adverbs of high/increasing speed be applied to not doing something?

There was some chat earlier about adverbs. We were trying to demonstrate that _maybe_ is an adverb. Reg did this deftly by replacing _maybe_ with other adverbs and then a noun, to show that the noun doesn't make sense. The original sentence is: > The detective maybe does not solve the crime. In my head I replaced _maybe_ with _hastily_. It passed my grammar check, but my semantic alarm went off. > ? The detective hastily does not solve the crime. I am happy that > The detective hastily solves the crime. makes sense. I have the same issue with _quickly_ , but not _slowly_ or _lackadaisically_. Can I say "I quickly didn't do something"? Why is it ringing semantic alarm bells?


What do you call the process of combining two words to create a new one?

Two very well established examples I can think of are:   * Guesstimate (i.e. Guess + Estimate)   * Chillax (i.e. Chill + Relax) I guess I am meaning the process where two words are artificially combined into one, rather than when two words are combined to describe a new concept or item (e.g. Hatstand or lamppost). I suppose the distinction is blurry, but is there a word nonetheless?


How to punctuate a quoted rhetorical interrogative sentence that ends a declarative sentence?

Below is the sentence I am writing. I am not sure whether I should just end it with an interrogation mark within the quotes, with a period within the quotes, no in-quote punctuation except interrogation mark, or a period outside the quotation marks. > Those of you without any experience with drug or alcohol addiction are > probably reading this scratching your heads thinking, “WTF is this guy > talking about, if their problem is not drugs or alcohol how can they be > classified as an addict or an alcoholic and why do they consistently abuse > drugs or alcohol. How is that not their problem when they can't hold down a > job or take their kids to school because they're always under the ...   >  ... influence?”.   >  ... influence?”   >  ... influence”.   >  ... influence.”   >  ... influence”? Which alternative should I use?


"Will be waiting" — verb?

I have been trying to understand how to detect subject and predicate in a sentence. So, I stumbled on this page. The following example was given: > Jim will be waiting for you at the mall. In the answers, "will be waiting" is identified as a verb. I was surprised because to me, "will be" could have been replaced by "is" but here it's used to correct that the "is" in "is waiting" is on the progress. On a second thought, I couldn't really identify which one is the verb again, since "will be" seems to serve as an adverb. My questions:   1. Can "will be waiting' considered a verb in this case?   2. What is the function of "will be"? and what is the function of "will" in "will be"?


What's wrong in this question?

Is it better to say "what's wrong **with** _something_ " or "what's wrong **in** _something_ "?


A word for "something you want to know only to regret knowing it once you do"

Is there a word to describe "a piece of information that you only want to know until you know it, then you regret you ever asked about it"?


Relationship between Juxtaposition, Oxymoron, and Paradox

Explain the definition and relationship between "juxtaposition", "oxymoron", and "paradox". I'm supposed to apply this to Romeo and Juliet too, so any examples including them would be appreciated. I tried to understand them. Oxymorons are like a phrase that consists of words that have an opposite meaning. Like Jumbo Shrimp. Paradoxes are like things are don't really make sense, but have a somewhat true deeper underlying meaning. And juxtaposition was to broad and confusing for me to learn.


How to call the mean between Buy price and Sell price?

In currency exchange (for example when you have US dollars and want to buy euros, or the opposite), how to call the mean between Buy price and Sell price? In Japanese we call it "TTM":               TTM = (TTB + TTS) /2      Where "TTB" is the price at which you can buy cash, and "TTS" the price at which you can sell cash. Is there a similar word or abbreviation in English?


Examples of "ATM Machine" silly repeats?

Swedes often say _CD Skiva_ as in _Compact disk disk_. In English you sometimes say _ATM machine_ as in _Automated teller machine machine_. What are other examples of such redundant endings?


yet another application of "them"

Could anyone explain the use of **_them_** in the following song (Deep River Blues): > Let it rain, let it pour,   >  Let it rain a whole lot more,   >  'Cause I got them deep river blues.