Usage of "cancel" and "cancel out"

It seems that _cancel_ and _cancel out_ can be used in the same way. For example, _A cancels B_ or _A cancels out B_. In which context is one preferred over the other?


Usage of "However" instead of "while"

Can I rephrase the following sentence with "however" > While application development approaches abound in the software world, the > evaluation of the existing programming frameworks tend to focus on specific > application context. rephrase sentence : > The application development approaches abound in the software world. > However, the evaluation of the existing programming frameworks tend to focus > on specific application context.


How did the practice of identifying an object after using a pronoun evolve?

While watching Barclay's Premier League matches on the Fox Soccer Channel, the announcers often identify an object by name immediately after using a pronoun. For example, in a match occuring right now, I heard: >   * They are dangerous, Liverpool. >   * He was clever, Suarez. > Is there a term to describe this structure? Also, how did it evolve? I've gotten used to it and can appreciate the clarity it provides for a listener, but I wonder why they bother using the pronoun at all.


Is the expression "as an affirmation of its efficiency, we show that" correct and adequate for a scientific text? Or should it be "as a confirmation of its efficiency, we show that"?


Can 'Too+an adjective' be used to make a non-negative statement?

When one says the following type of sentences, they have a negative connotation.   * You are too nice.   * You are too fast.    * You are too intense. I am curious if there are any instances when we could use 'too' but in a positive way? According to http://blog.myhappyenglish.com/2011/05/26/english-lesson-so-too- very/ **Too + Adjective** Too + adjective is used to show something is excessive or problematic. Too is used with negative adjectives like expensive, tired, difficult, etc. Too implies a negative feeling and perhaps an unstated negative consequence. Look at the following example: Justin: Do you want to come to the party tonight, Mike? Mike: Sorry, Justin. I’m too tired. My old car is too unreliable. Economics is too difficult for many students. **When we want to show that because something is excessive or problematic and there is a consequence, we use too + adjective** , as in the above examples. When we simply want to emphasize an adjective, we use very.


is onomatopoeia itself onomatopoeic?

As I note, is the word onomatopoeia itself onomatopoeic? Or does the use of the word not quite follow the rules? I recall being engaged in a spirited debate about this in my high school days—I cannot recall which side I was on, mind. Nor can I recall who won, or if it was merely settled by accusations of slander at the respective parties' parenthood.


What is the meaning of “you bet!”?

I often hear the term "you bet!". What does it mean?


More accurate synonyms than "Mayan apocalypse"

When describing this announcement by Australia's Prime Minister on an language learning website, the best term I could come up with was "Mayan apocalypse". It felt a little inaccurate, as it's neither an apocalypse happening to Mayans, nor an apocalypse predicted by Mayans. Wikipedia uses the term 2012 phenomenon, which is a little vague, and one blog used the term "Mayan moment", which confused one person enough to ask a question about it. Are there any more accurate synonyms for "Mayan apocalypse" that are still reasonably concise?


correct sentence with or without usage of "which"

In my technical report, I am bit confused that which of the following two sentences is correct or proper. > An important challenge remains to be addressed in the IoT is the ease of > application development for the stakeholders **involved in the application > development**. OR > An important challenge remains to be addressed in the IoT is the ease of > application development for the stakeholders, **which are involved in the > application development**.


Is there a word for people who revel in freebies?

By which I mean, people who strategically position themselves so as to acquire money/service/free stuff at the expense of another? I don't mean _extortion_ (that's too strong a word for what I need). Basically, someone who is a sucker for free/paid for things and capitalises on the opportunity. Is there a word for it?


Which pronoun should I use when writing about a generic activity in a thesis?

I'm writing my Bachelor's thesis where I describe students' activities in a dormitory. > A student produces with a valid ID or passport here and hands in an ID card > photo. In case he/she has a reserved room, there is prepared a printed > dormitory agreement. Should I use only plural in the whole document or is singular form also applicable?


What is the better form to ask with 'when'?

There are a few options here:   * When is the end of the world?    * When the end of the world happens?   * When is the end of the world going?    * When does the end of the world happen? Any wrong options here? Maybe you have had some other variant?


adjective from business

I am looking for a word like industrial but with the root of business. Something that fits in here: > the [industrial(your word here)] applications of mathematics I looked for adjectives from _business_ but found nothing. How would you express what I am looking for?


"Me too invited" Is this correct?

A friend of mine recently got invited to a speech given by Barack Obama on his trip to Brussels. She wrote "Me too invited" on her Facebook profile. I told her it sounded pidgin. She didn't seem to agree. As I am not a native English speaker, I couldn't really explain why I thought it was shaky, only saying that I felt that way. I suggested "I'm invited too" or the use of a coma "Me too, invited." Did I, as she suggested, sound like a complete fool?


Synonyms of quality in the technical context

I am writing a technical specification for a product portfolio containing a series of related products, differentiated by quality, well, sort of. I am looking for a synonym of the term quality which best describes what I mean. In everyday talk people tend to assign the term quality to how good a product is. For instance, an expensive high-end restaurant is of a higher quality than a fast-food place. But formally in business, engineering and manufacturing, quality has a different meaning: it refers to the correspondence between the agreed and the delivered product. It's kind of related to the difference between the specifications (expectations) and the reality. In this sense, a better restaurant does not necessarily have a higher quality. In fact, a fast-food could have a higher quality if it meets the expectations of a client better. I am a bit confused, especially not being an English native speaker. How can I refer to as a better product? As much as quality is also an appropriate term here, I would like to avoid it because it's quite a technical and formal document conforming to the ISO 9000 terminology. Back to my series of products, saying that one product has lower quality would not be correct. All products have high quality, but one is better than the other. What is the collective term for this? An additional example: the iPad Air is a better product than the iPad 2 (screen, storage, etc.). But it is not of higher quality.


... is done in agreement with xxx?

Background: I'm writing a professional (technical) report in which I want to express the following in one simple sentence: The whole report is written based on a certain assumption, except one part that's based on a different assumption. (Let's say a battery has 10 Volts in parts of the report, and 12 Volts in another part). This means that one part of the report is "wrong". I want to express that the way I'm doing this has been "approved" by our client. In my native language I would write something along these lines: > The usage of a different voltage in chapter xxx only, _is done in agreement > with xxx._ However, the last part of that sentence doesn't seem good to me. I think it's grammatically correct, but not something a native English speaking person would write. Can I say / write: " _... is done in agreement with_ "?


"Troublesome" vs. "annoying"

What is the difference between "troublesome" and "annoying", especially when used to describe a person?


Using "as much as" at start of sentence

Is it correct to use "as much as" at the start of the sentence?   For example: > As much as I like cricket, I like football. Is it correct? I didn't find any reference which suggest to use it that way, but only as a conjunction as in this sentence: > I like football as much as I like cricket


Rephrase "Can I ask you?"

Is there a short phrase for "Can I ask you?" in the meaning that "I have a question. Do you have time now?". The motivation is that some people start answering "No, you can't" which is joke of course, but is making small spot in the relationship.


Is using "have" better than using "got" in the following sentence?

Take a gander at the following two versions of the same sentence: > "I got an mp4 video file" vs. > "I have an mp4 video file" Someone 'corrected' me by changing the first form to the second form. Is there a difference, other than the fact that the former can also be used in past tense? Maybe it's too informal?


Different ways to pronounce "augh"

In the word _laugh_ , it is pronounced "aff".   In the word _naught_ , it is pronounced "aw". Are there any other ways to pronounce "augh"?   Bonus points for etymology explaining from where these pronunciations come.


Surge in uses of the word "definitely" in 1930s

I was messing around on Google Books Ngram Viewer, and I saw a huge surge in uses of the word "definitely" around the 1930s. Google Books Ngram Viewer Does anyone know or have a guess on why this could be? (And also, does anyone know how accurate Google Ngram is as well?)


Way to describe entering old password out of habit?

Recently I changed my password on my computer but for the past few days I keep entering the old one when trying to log in or unlock it. Is there a word or phrase in to describe this? Another example would be writing 2013 for the year out of habit even though you know it's 2014.


What's the name for a place where powder is kept?

In French we have the word _poudrière_ which basically means a "powder house", although the military world seems to prefer the French equivalent of _powder magazine_. In English, _poudrière_ gets translated either to _"powder keg"_ (which I think is a barrel) or to _"magazine"_. My problem with the latter, besides the fact that it has several meanings (without context you'd never think I mean "a place where powder is kept"), is that it's a bit too generic for a weapon storage building, which prevents me from using it without appending _"powder"_. Is there a clear single word for such a building or is _powder magazine_ still my best choice?


Is there a synonym for 'fake' that has good connotations?

What's a good adjective to describe a smile which is not genuine, but still has a good connotation? I was thinking of using _fake_ smile, but _fake_ has a negative connotation, which I'm trying to avoid. In fact, I'm looking for something that says the exact opposite about the person... they aren't trying to be fake towards people, they are just so kind that they don't want the other person to feel bad, therefore they put on an _insincere_ smile to be kind towards them. _Insincere_ , too, has a negative connotation which I'm trying to avoid, since it makes the person sound like they have negative qualities as well. Perhaps a little background could help clarify: imagine a person that is annoyed by something that a friend does, but doesn't want the friend to feel bad about annoying her, so she puts on a smile just for show. The smile isn't meant to be [snarky, rude, disparaging, sarcastic, etc.], it is truly, genuinely meant to be so that the other person doesn't feel bad about annoying her. Therefore, as you can see, the person really is kind and using a word such as _fake_ doesn't do justice to describe the smile. Any suggestions?


What will "this country" refer to after mentioning a foreign state?

AFAIK it is typical to refer to the country where the speaker lives as _this country_. For example, if a person lives in Great Britain and he wants to mention weather in Great Britain, he might say "weather in this country is blahblahblah". Now we have a text written by a citizen of Great Britain saying something like "Patent law is quite complicated in the USA. In this country blahblahblah..." What will "this country" naturally refer to in the second sentence - to the USA or to Great Britain? How would the author change his text so that it is clear that the second sentence also refers specifically to the USA or to Great Britain?


What does 'after commencement' mean in the following sentence?

I have some trouble understanding legal terms. I'll be very grateful to you if you could clarify the meaning of 'after commencement' in the first sentence of the British Nationality Act 1981. > 1.-(1) A person born in the United Kingdom **after commencement** shall be a > >British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is - (a) a > >British citizen; or (b) settled in the United Kingdom.


Freedom fighters vs Freedom fighters

Freedom fighters fight **for** freedom. Fire fighters fight **against** fire. I want to write an article comparing people who fight for freedom versus people who fight **against** freedom. Would _"Freedom fighters vs Freedom fighters"_ be a wrong title ?


Origin of term "doublespeak"

I googled "doublespeak", and I got this: > A false Etemology? The word "doublespeak" wasn't "coined in the early > 1950's" (I'm on shaky ground here but I doubt if anyone can show me a cite > much before 1990) > > I guess this could be checked in LexusNexus or similar. Mememe 14:28, 26 Sep > 2005 (EDT) Interestingly, this apparently goes back to 1974: I also looked in the dictionary, but it gave the date of: > Origin: 1950–55; double + speak, by analogy with doublethink I looked further and came up with this: > Because of my erroneous memory, I thought that 'doublespeak' actually > appeared and hence was defined in 1984. But from the Wikipedia entry, I > learn that it "was coined in the early 1950s", and is "often incorrectly > attributed to George Orwell" (as was done by me). Which stated that George Orwell did not come up with this phrase. But then the following really confused me: > •"Doublespeak is not a term invented by George Orwell, but we surely nod to > him for its origin, since he did invent 'doublethink' and 'newspeak' for his > political novel 1984" (Paul Wasserman and Don Hausrath, Weasel Words: The > Dictionary of American Doublespeak. Capital Books, 2006) So what exactly is the origin of the term "doublespeak"?


Is an "informed guess" the same as an "educated guess"?

Do these phrases convey the same meaning? Is an _informed guess_ by definition, also, an educated guess?


What's the difference between something that it is "connected" and "interconnected?"

I always thought that inter means that the elements I'm talking about has a relation with another one. The word "connected" already has this meaning. So when I read "interconnected" I think about: "something attach-idly joined to another" I would appreciate if someone can explain this to me.


How to pronounce and orally spell <3?

It's now an entry in OED, I hear. Anybody know what the actual OED entry says?


Can "shrugging" only be done with shoulders?

Please compare > He shrugged. and > He shrugged his shoulders. Is there anything else that can be shrugged, besides shoulders? To me it sounds like duplication when used in this way. I'm aware of constructs like "He shrugged it off." but that's not what I'm interested in, and it also implies the use of shoulders, doesn't it? So why the need to specify the shoulders as an object? [edit: I also find "he shrugged his eyebrows" but that's rather rare.]


"will be able to" vs. "can"

Consider the following: > He will be able to do it. > > He can do it. They mean the same thing, right? Can "can" replace "will be able to" in any sentence? What is the difference, if anything? Why not just use the shorter version?


Indefinite article before country name

> We all wish for a Nigeria that provides and takes care of this countrymen. Is the indefinite article grammatical?


Placement of the word "also"

Earlier today on another site in the network, a user posted a question like this: > Is there a better way to use [x]? There was a lot more to it, but the very first comment addressed this question directly and explicitly: > Why do you want to use [x] and not [y]? Also have you considered using [z]? I took this latter sentence as: > You should consider using [z] instead of [x]. And proceeded to explain why [z] is not a valid alternative to [x]. The commenter vehemently insists that it should be clear and obvious that by starting the sentence with "also," I should know that they actually meant: > You should consider using [z] in addition to [x]. Can someone please explain from an English and grammar standpoint why having "also" at the beginning of the sentence - with or without a comma - does not associate with the thoughts in that sentence the way he/she thinks that it does?


Is a language which is your second but currently main "adopted" or "adoptive"?

If an ESL person who is mainly English-speaking now is referring to his relationship with the English language, is English their _adopted_ or _adoptive_ main language? (Or are neither of the words correct in this context in the first place?)


Difference between a "self-serving individual" and "self-centered individual"

Is being "self-serving" the same as being "self-centered"? While looking for an answer to this question, I saw this previous question on the difference between "selfish" and "self-centered". I generally agree with the top three answers in that question (i.e. the answers provided by @FeralOink @Bill and @mozen), but want to know if and how "self-serving" differs from "self- centered." Are the connotations or actual meanings different, or are the words essentially interchangeable? I think "self-serving" implies something about purpose, while "self-centered" implies something about focus, but I am not sure, and I have not been able to flesh out the difference in a satisfying way.


What is the difference between a "guess" and a "hunch"?

Can both "guess" and "hunch" be used interchangeably or is there a minute difference? I know it doesn't apply to the phrase 'I guess', but generally when do you use "hunch"?


What is the term for asking for a higher object than you really want to make the second request sound more reasonable? For example, if I ask "I want a 10,000 raise", but in reality I just want a 5,000. If the 10,000 is denied, asking for 5,000 is more reasonable.


Expression "enter [somebody]"

I would like to know what's the meaning and in which situations would one use the expression "Enter [somebody]", like "we were trying to find a solution. Enter John".


How do I spell the truncation 'Cas', as in 'Sports Casual/Sports Cas'? It may be UK only, and may have been spawned by Alan Partridge. Cash/Cas are not right. *As in a slang term, "he was acting all cas".


Where does "If I can do it, you can do it!" come from?

I first heard this in "Don King's Prizefighter for Wii", where he says, if I'm transcribing correctly: > If I can do it, you can do it! > > The heart would say, in America _anybody_ can do it! Trying to Google this first sentence I'm getting so many hits that I've no idea where to start looking. My native language is German, and the corresponding translation of this sentence is rarely used in German. And when I find it used in German, it might well have been translated from English. So I'm curious whether it might come from a single source?


Is phrase "wheeled his way somewhere" neutral?

To put the things into perspective, I am no native speaker. I've learnt English in a variety of places, school being one of them. My English tutor presented a phrase to descibe a movement of a person on a wheelchair: > to wheel her/his way somewhere The phrase struck me as ironic. To say for example _Bob wheeled his way into the shop_ seemed to accent the disability needlessly. Is it ironic or completely neutral?


Usage of "in contrast"

I want to explain something in the first sentence and then say some opposite thing in the second sentence. I thought, I could use the phrase **in contrast** to make the flow of a paragraph. For example: > The statistics illustrate a low overall result. _In contrast_ , the figure > shows a good completeness. I doubt whether I am using the phrase **in contrast** correctly because I found the usage of **in contrast to something** correct as well. So, my main concern is whether we should use **in contrast to something** or simply **in contrast** followed by a comma.


Can we use "Do your Button" for "Close your button"?

In an English movie, I saw one lady tell another > Your button is undone! meaning _Your button is unbuttoned_. So can we say "Do your button" to mean _Button your button_?


Comma use: "from the ground up" or "from the ground, up"?

Is it appropriate to use a comma in the expression: ... _"from the ground, up"_ or should there be no comma? Without a comma, the expression seems strange to me. I've been criticized by a non-native English speaker for writing the expression in this way. Since he's put a lot more effort into learning the "rules" of English, I have a shadow of self-doubt. However, I have a feeling that this is one of the many (many) cases where English proves that rules were meant to be broken - or at the very least, that there are more rules than one can easily learn.


When should I capitalize the word "principal"?

When using the word _Principal_ to describe the head or director of a school, under what situations should one capitalize it, and when should it be lower- cased?


Usage of "better prepare" in a headline

At work we use the headline "Better Prepare for a career in xyz" to mean something to the effect of "Help yourself better prepare for a career in xyz". I feel that the statement is way harsh and comes across as "better prepare for a career in xyz ... or else". Can someone give me a nerdy sounding reason why this is wrong? Or ... am I wrong for thinking it is wrong.


sanity of a plastic glass!

I recently microwaved a plastic glass to get rid of micro-organisms on it. I accidentally dropped the glass after taking it out. I said "Damn it! This glass is not sane anymore!" Am I right in saying that? Usually the word sanitary is used in contexts like that. But, is it still right if I use the word sane? Does American English allow me to use the word "sane" it that sentence?


Conjugations of Ancillary

**Ancillary** is already something of an uncommon word in conversation, but it came up recently in a StackOverflow chat room in the following example:               Person 1: "Are you talking about me?"     Person 2: "Ancillarily."      Now, obviously text editors are going to mark this as incorrect, but my question is, can we technically use this adverb form of **Ancillary**? Is it grammatically legal "to ancillarily talk" (mind my split infinitive) about someone? To give more context, _Person 1_ asked a question, and _Persons 3_ and _4_ (not appearing in the above story) discussed the answer to _Person 1_ 's question, and the merits of different methods for answering it.


What is the difference in meaning between 'nonchalant' and 'insouciant'?

OED defines them as: > **nonchalant** _adjective_ (of a person or manner) feeling or appearing > casually calm and relaxed; not displaying anxiety, interest, or enthusiasm > > **insouciant** _adjective_ showing a casual lack of concern; indifferent > > **blithe** _adjective_ showing a casual and cheerful indifference considered > to be callous or improper: _a blithe disregard for the rules of the road_ ; > happy or joyous: _a blithe seaside comedy_ So, what would be the difference between say, "a _nonchalant_ shrug" and "an _insouciant_ shrug"? Also, what context are these words used in the following sentence: > "I would live all my life in nonchalance and insouciance Were it not for > making a living, which is rather a nouciance." Ogden Nash, poet (Hard Lines, > 1931) Also, what does 'nouciance' mean? Is it simply a play on words? Last, but most important, what word would best fit the following situation: > He was (nonchalant/insouciant/blithe) about the poor living conditions of > the animals in his farm.


Meaning of the full title of Darwin's "On the origin of species"

The full title of Darwin's work "On the origin of species" is: > "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation > of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". My question is: Regarding the second part of the title (i.e. the subtitle), "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", is it parallel to "the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection", or, is it parallel to "Means of Natural Selection"? To put in another way, should we understand the title as > "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or on the > Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" or > "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or by Means of > Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"? ### EDIT: I forgot a third way of interpretation: > "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (the Preservation of > Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)" In this last case, "Natural Selection" = "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". It is somewhat similar to the second one. Note that my question is _not_ about the scientific meaning of the title, and I am not sure which way of interpretation is more scientifically sound.


Academic experience VS Research experience

What is the difference between _academic experience_ and _research experience_? In my opinion, _academic experience_ is a super set of _research experience_. Is that right? But, what other aspects should _academic experience_ contain?


what's the meaning of "live-code approach"?

> At the heart of the book is the Deitel signature “live-code approach.” > Concepts are presented in the context of complete working programs, rather > than in code snippets What's the meaning of "live-code approach" in the context?


What does “the rational you had probably taken a powder” mean?

I’m not very clear with the implication of the following sentence in the article titled “The Science of Romance: Why we love” that appeared in Time magazine (Jan.28, 2008): > “But if it was that kind of sex that’s the whole reason you took up having > sex **in the first place** – the out-of breath, out-of-body, can-you- > believe-this–is-actually-happening kind of sex – **the rational you had > probably taken a powder.”** My questions:   1. “in the first place” – Does it mean (sex you have) for the first time as a first experience or “as the primary reason (for having sex)?   2. What does “the rational you had probably taken a powder,” mean? Which does it mean between “the rational (for having sex) _you had_ , had taken a powder (here, 'the rational' is the subject),” or “You _had_ the rational _taken_ a power (here, 'you' is the subect).” FYI: Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘take a powder’ as ‘(North American informal) depart quickly, especially in order to avoid a difficult situation, with which I understand ‘take a powder’ is used only in intransitive form. As a non-native English speaker, this sentence looks somewhat winding to me. Can you put it in plainer way or in simpler structure?


"We are all just prisoners here, of our own device"

It is from the song "Hotel California" by the Eagles. I have a hard time interpreting the meaning of _device_ in this context.


What’s the difference between “shrimp” and “prawn”?

What is the difference between _shrimp_ and _prawn_? Does it refer to different species of creature, to usage (for example, one as the animal itself versus the other as the meat of that same animal), to language level or region or register, or to something else altogether?


Hypernym for "compassion", "malice", "hatred", "love", "inspiration", etc

It's not specifically an _emotion_ , a _feeling_ , or a _state of mind_ —it's something else. Anyone have an idea what is is I'm looking for? Maybe if someone could complete this sentence: > Anger, rage, jealousy, bitterness, malice, hatred, doubt, melancholy, fear, > apathy, ambivalence, dread, anxiety, greed, lust, desire, loss, emptiness, > corruption, sympathy, belief, conviction, faith, hope, love, compassion, > goodwill, trust, understanding, wisdom, empathy, honesty, and openness > collectively are **___ _**_s.


What's the difference between 'fowl' and 'poultry'?

As the title says, I'm interested in the semantic difference between these two words. OALD gives the definition of _fowl_ as "a bird that is kept for its meat and eggs, for example a chicken." _Poultry_ is defined by the same dictionary as "chickens, ducks and geese, kept for its meat and eggs." While the two definitions sound quite identical to me, my understanding of the difference between them is that _fowl_ is more narrowly focused on a bird being treated as a single object, but at the same time allows for the flexibility of the semantic content of the word, so that the word is not rigidly associated with and applied to any specific kind of birds. _Poultry_ in turn seems to treat the object in its plurality and also to have some minor constrictions on its semantics, thus limiting a wide notion to a number of particular cases. With all that said, I ask that you either confirm or deny the validity of my intuitive explanation for the question I'm seeking the answer to.


Spelling: "You +1'd this"

![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/tb9V2.jpg) Can you please elaborate in detail as to why there is an _apostrophe **d**_ after the _+1_?


Why are you a plonker?

The idiom, _plonk (something/someone) down_ means >   * to slap something down; to plop something down >   * to sit or lie down on something in a careless or noisy way >   * to leave someone somewhere to do this; _Dave plonked the kids in front > of the TV and disappeared upstairs._ >   * to put something down heavily and without taking care: _Just plonk the > shopping (down) on the table, and come and have a cup of tea_. _Come in and > plonk yourselves (down)_ (= sit down) _anywhere you like_. > From these various definitions I can surmise why cheap wine is often called _plonk_ , it's the sound of the bottle slapping down heavily on the table. But how did we get from that to " **a plonker** " which basically means a silly or stupid person. As in > "Why did you do that, you plonker?" ![Rodney from Fools and Horses](http://i.stack.imgur.com/AXDZp.jpg)               Nicholas Lyndhurst; Only Fools and Horses      EDIT: References; FD & plonker "Sir David Jason says an American remake of Only Fools And Horses won't work as there's no word over there for plonker" CDO & plonk


Non-rhotic dialects and intrusive r

I am from New England (northeastern US) and it's my understanding that we have a non-rhotic dialect in this region, which is unusual compared to the rest of the US. It is common to drop the final r in a word, and that is the most singular feature of the dialect, as Tom Bosley's character in _Murder, She Wrote_ famously abused. _Car_ turns into _cah_ ; _Bar Harbor_ becomes _Bah Hahbah_. One other feature of my native dialect is the intrusive r. This shows up in mysterious places, the examples that spring to mind are _idea(r)_ and _area(r)_ , seemingly after terminal "a" sounds. Similarly, it pops up where one would use non-r word endings like _saw_ , especially when followed by a vowel (perhaps to make it easier to glide from one vowel to another without a glottal stop): > I sore [saw] a black Chevy van parked in front of my house this morning. Does the intrusive r appear in _all_ non-rhotic dialects? Does it appear _only_ in non-rhotic dialects? I have been wondering if it is a kind of over-correction, where I hear it at the ends of these words because I am used to hearing a dropped r when a word ends with an a sound. For example, since I hear "cah" as _car_ , I also hear "idea" as _idear_.


Rule for when to use "thin" versus "narrow"

My 5-year-old asked this morning if you would say a road was "thin" or "narrow". We had no difficulty telling her she should use "narrow" in that case, but couldn't explain _why_. We found it impossible to come up with a definitive rule-of-thumb or set of rules-of-thumb that didn't have too many obvious exceptions. And yet it does seem like there is a reasonable general agreement on which adjectives are appropriate/best in which circumstances. Are people just learning every individual instance, or are there actual sensible correlations? There are some interesting theories in this discussion but nothing citing any references, and no real conclusion was drawn. So why might a thin person have a narrow waist? _(ngram)_ * Or why can pipes be either thin or narrow, but straws in general not? _(ngram)_ etc. * _I also wonder what happened circa 1980 that accounts for the huge increase in "narrow waist"!_


Wondering about using 'to'

I recently read a passage from a newspaper. > Therefore alcohol should be banned to enable people to have a long and happy > life. Q1) I'm confusing the part of 'people to have a long and happy life.'. Why 'to' is written between 'people' and 'have'? Because I think above sentence is made up of two part. One of them is 'Therefore alcohol should be banned.'. The other is 'Because it enables people have a long and happy life.'. So, I think this sentence have to remove 'to'. Am I wrong? Q2)The comma is not using between 'Therefore', 'alcohol'. Is it correct? Thanks in advance.


Please help me understand when to use -ing on a verb

There are two questions I'm struggling with. > (1) That I have little interest in art is not the fault of my parents, > **taking** me to art exhibits and galleries from the time I was ten years > old. Why is the "taking" wrong? I'm guessing it has to be "who have taken" because of "from the time I was ten years old" but I still don't understand why it's wrong to say "taking." The word "parents" comes right before the comma so it shouldn't be an ambiguous modifier. After all, wouldn't it be correct to say the following: > Taking me to art exhibits and galleries from the time I was ten years old, > my parents are not at fault for my having little interest in art. My next question: > (2A) Though she missed her old friend, Sharon was generally happy at her new > school, **having** much smaller classes than her previous school. > > (2B) Though she missed her old friend, Sharon was generally happy at her new > school: **it had** much smaller classes than her previous school. I know why (2B) is correct, but I don't understand why (2A) is incorrect. The modifier "having much smaller classes than her previous school" is correctly describing "her new school" so what exactly is the problem? Thanks in advance!


How should "deceptively" actually be used?

I'm not sure if this is a duplicate question, but I couldn't find anything on here on the topic. I can't seem to figure out what is actually meant when using the word "deceptive," or rather, what is the proper way to use it. Example: "The floor is deceptively flat." Do you mean that the floor is flatter than it looks, or it looks flatter than it is? I know that's not a really good example, but I'm struggling to think of a better one now, however I think it serves to illustrate what I mean. There are many cases that I've felt that the word deceptive is used... interchangeably, if you will. How about this: "He's deceptively strong." I think most would agree here that it means the person being referred to is stronger than he appears. But then what about this: "He looks deceptively strong." I realize also that I may be finicky or am talking here more about semantics than anything else, but I really would appreciate it if someone could set the record straight for me. It's something that's been bothering me for ages and I can never seem to find 100% clarity on the matter. I can't seem to find an official definition on the web either for which way around it should be. The common opinion seems to be that you should infer its meaning from the context it's being used in, which is fair most of the time, but there have been cases that I've come across where it is used and I find myself wondering which way around the person using it, meant it. Any help?


Shifting the discussion to personae

I wonder if there is any phrase or idiom to express a situation, where one of the discussion participants, lacking arguments to upkeep a constructive discussion, steers the direction to personae: > \-- ... So these are my arguments, proving that you are completely wrong. Do > you agree? > > \-- This is utter rubbish, only fools like you think that way!


Conjoiners vs conjunctions vs articles

I've heard that conjoiners (in terms of grammar) are similar to articles. According to sources, **articles** can be words such as _the_ , _an_ , _a_ , _some_ (in unique cases). **Conjunctions** can be _and_ , _but_ , _as well as_. Are **conjoiners** the same as conjunctions? Or are they closer to articles instead? My question is: Is there a clear difference between each, or can the terms be used interchangeably with one or the other (articles or conjunctions)? > You're missing an article in this sentence. And: > You're missing a conjoiner in this sentence. Or: > You're missing an conjunction in this sentence. And: > You're missing a conjoiner in this sentence. Or is the term _conjoiner_ archaic and no longer is used, unless for very unique cases?


"Half" for unequal divisions

A topic came up today concerning the usage of the word "half". I was describing a separation of labour into two obviously unequal groups. A colleague corrected me, saying that the word "half" _necessitates_ an equal division into two parts. By my understanding, a half can, outside of the mathematical definition, mean any binary division regardless of ratio. A look into the etymology seems to support this. My question is:   * Is it acceptable to use "half" in this fashion?   * Is it more acceptable in certain situations?   * Is there a less ambiguous term that can be used here? * * * Edit: To be clear, the reason for my confusion is the origin of the word. A few sources show its original meaning to be `side` and even `part`, without necessarily being equal. The former term is reflected in the word `behalf: on one's side` and is related to the German `halbe` which is the preferred term for side, whereas `hälfte` is used for an equal half.


Difference between "Does she have the book?" and "Has she the book?"

What is the difference between "Does she have the book?" and "Has she the book?"


Proper usage of vote against and vote for

Case study: You are a part of a game, say 'Mafia', if you know how it is played. Here, a moderator selects a 'Mafia' and a 'God'. The Mafia can kill anyone, the God can save anyone. All happens under the strict moderation of the moderator and everyone is supposed to keep their eyes closed. At the end a voting is done by the participants to find out who might be the Mafia among them. Since the Mafia has the power to kill anyone, naturally the team wants to kill the Mafia. Question: When you cast votes to find out the Mafia, what's the correct usage - 'vote for the Mafia' or 'vote against the Mafia'? Key point here might be the fact that the Mafia is someone you are trying to find out and hold as the convict. It's the negative character here.


A similie / metaphor for the concept that an entity is formed from a wide range of factors

I would really appreciate any help with the following. I am trying to explain that health is not simply determined by biological factors. Instead it is shaped by a whole host of variables: lifestyle, education, culture, attitudes, socio-economic factors etc. I wanted to use a powerful simile or metaphor to elucidate the point and make for a more interesting read. So I would like a similie that succinctly demonstrates the idea that one entity is being shaped from a wide variety of factors. How could I write this sentence?


Can a plosive be pronounced without an audible release sound following it?

When a plosive is at the beginning of a word, the pronunciation naturally flows into the vowel which follows it. The extra vowel sound following the plosive seems to give the plosive a very obvious end. When the plosive is at the end of a word, I find myself releasing the stop with an extra bit of sound at the end which does not seem to be part of the plosive itself. Consider "cat" which is generally transcribed as [kæt]. I feel like I pronounce it more like [kætə]. Another example is [med]. I find that I cannot detect the difference between [med] and [men] unless I audibly release the [d] in [med]. (This also begs the question of how to pronounce a word which ends in a nasal followed by a plosive on the same articulation point like [lænd]). I'm looking for two pieces to the answer:   1. Is the extra sound an actual feature of the pronunciation of the plosive?   2. If yes, is this feature unique to English or is it common to all languages with plosives at the end of a word.


How do you read "tr"?

I've got this little doubt over the pronunciation of "tr" in words (trial, attraction, actress). I recognized two ways of reading it - either as ch (like CHoose) + r or as t (as in Ten) + r, which I use interchangeably. Is one of these pronunciations correct, or are there rules as to which one to use in which situations?


Single adjective for containing a lot of text (digital)

I was wondering if there is a word for a graphic, screen, picture, document, etc. that contains a lot of text. Specifically for digital media. The context is that I've noticed that the Walgreens pin pad display has a lot of text and words all over the screen and I was wondering if there is a word to describe it. e.g. sentence: "Wow that image is very ___ ". I thought maybe wordy, textual, or texty but those don't sound right. Maybe textful?


Name for words with same consonant sounds but different vowel sounds

Is there a name for words with the same consonant sounds, but different vowel sounds? For example:   * talk, take   * sit, site   * taught, tote   * bough, bow My son has been mixing up these sets of words. I'd like to find a list of them for him to practice (we homeschool him), but I don't know what to search for.


What does "purchasers of a new tablet won’t ‘end up with a doorstop’" mean?

Washington Post (June 17) reports Barnes & Noble’s offer of tablet software update at a surprisingly cheap price under the title, “It’s official: Nook Tablets are now ridiculously cheap." It says: > “(There are) rumors that the company might pull back on hardware in favor of > selling content for other companies’ gadgets, and therefore (lots of folks) > wonder if it’s holding a fire sale so it can exit the tablet market. Could > be. But it’s also possible that B&N is trying to clear out its stock because > it has new models in the works. > > In either case, I don’t think people who buy a Nook HD or Nook HD+ are going > to **end up with a doorstop**. Now that the tablets work with Google Play > services, they’ll be useful no matter what Barnes & Noble ends up doing.” I can’t pick the exact meaning of “ **end up with a doorstop**.” "Doorstop" must be a metonym of something. I first took it for “doorstep.” Does it mean a makeshift solution for sweeping out the company’s surplus inventory? Is this a set of phase? What does it mean?


What does "it doesn’t make much of a case for itself" mean?

I have found a phrase here: > ... it doesn't make much of a case for itself in ... Obviously, it is some negative remark. Probably, it is a combination of two expressions, but I can't divide them separately and for all my attempts I can't find their meanings. Could you please help me and tell me what phrases are combined here, and what they mean separately and all together? Also, is the phrase correct?


Origin of "[noun] enough" instead of "enough [noun]"?

Sometimes the word "enough" comes before a noun as in "I've got enough money to waste" and sometimes it comes after as in "I've got money enough to waste". Was "[noun] enough" more common in a particular place or time or with a certain group of people? Why is that the less common form? Searching for "[n*] enough" on the Corpus of Contemporary American English shows that it appears in all types of writings: fiction, newspapers, movie scripts, etc. "Reason enough", "time enough", and "sense enough" seem to the the most common phrases.


"Would" vs. "Will"

Which of the following sentences is correct and why?   1. Please note that I "will" be working on another script this month.   2. Please note that I "would" be working on another script this month. I should make this clear that the sentences above are not used in a text explaining past events. I know that "will" is used in the present tense. However, I am not sure if "would" can be used in some particular contexts in the present tense. Can "would" be used to show politeness in the present tense? I mean when the author does not want to disappoint the asker by mentioning his busy schedule. The context is that the speaker is not available for a new project. However, he does not want to be rude to the asker and tells him politely about his schedule


Is there a term to describe words missing in a document?

The words are supposed to be there but have been left due to any reason. Is there a succinct term to describe such words?


Is the term "local unit shipping fee" correct?

We have "unit price" is the price of 1 item only. And this price does not include shipping fee. I am using the term "local unit shipping fee" to express that is the shipping fee of 1 item only and that fee is just applied for local area. Is that a correct way to express that idea? What is the word that English people use to express that idea? do you use "unit local shipping fee" or "local shipping unit fee"?


"In the next ten minutes" vs. "for the next ten minutes"

>   1. I am planning to do it in the next ten minutes. >   2. I am planning to do it for the next ten minutes. > Do the two sentences mean the same thing? I am sure using _for_ is correct, but I want to know whether using _in_ changes the meaning.


What is the origin of the '.' (full stop/period)

What is the origin of the '.' (Full stop/period) in written English? Is it known when this sign appeared the first time in written English?


"hanging on the rope of"

I'm looking for two single words, a verb and a noun, with similar content, which could be best inserted in these sentences: > In some countries workers are entirely **___ __ ___ ___ _****1** of/to/on > their employers. No wage negotiations, no trade unions. This regularly > experienced **___ ___ __ ___ _** **2** gravely violates human rights. > > **1** A verb meaning ' _hanging on the rope of_ ', more then just 'depending > on'   >  **2** Something more than 'exposedness', 'defencelessness', 'exploitation', > but not as strong as 'slavery' For those who, perhaps, know Hungarian, I'd like to find words for ' _kiszolgaltatottak_ ' and ' _kiszolgaltatottsag_ ' both coming from the same root 'szolga' ( _servant_ ).


"New" is to "novelty" as "archaic" is to...?

Is there a noun form of the word "archaic"? The closest word I can think of is "old-fashionedness" but it seems rather clumsy.


Included in or included on

Which of the following serene is correct? Please note: the North stores are included in the report. We will update te report once the data is available( do I need a commas after "in the report"? ) Or Please note: the North stores are included on the report. We will update te report once the data is available


Synonyms for "doing one's best"

Is there a more formal synonym for "doing one's best"? For example, as a formal document title: "Is the government [doing its best] to..." Or is it suitable (i.e., sufficiently formal) as it is?


What is the term for young adult male/female (aged 18 to 25)?

When writing a book and referring to a female and male aged 18–25, what term would be most appropriate? _Boy_ and _girl_ seem too young, whereas _man_ and _woman_ seem too old. Example sentence: > A boy/man emerged from the shadows. Edit: I think the word I am looking for is similar to 'guy' but less American and colloquial. Any thoughts?


What does "This being...." mean here?

> **This being Silverlight** , you’d expect there to be some way to get the > XAML representation of the selected text—and you’d be right. What does the clause 'This being Silverlight', and especially the meaning of the word 'being' in the following sentence?


Does my sentence require a question mark?

Consider the brief passage below: > There are two questions to be asked. Firstly, whether John was willing and > able to do his job. Secondly, what tasks did John have to complete to > satisfy his duty. Does the last sentence (beginning with 'Secondly') require a question mark or does it correctly end with a period?


Is 0.1 million singular or plural?

Is 0.1 million singular or plural?   Since 0.1 is smaller than 1, shouldn't it be singular? E.g:   * This: 0.1 million people is above the age of 65.   * or: 0.1 million people are above the age of 65. <\--This sounds right, but is it singular?


"So many fewer people"?

How do I say this correctly? I can't figure it out. Do I have it correct already? I am trying to say that there are a lot less people. The opposite would be "so many more people".


Is the usage of "will" proper in "Usually on Saturday, I will go to the store"?

Is the following usage of "will" grammatical? > Usually on Saturday, I will go to the store.


Word for "a sudden death"

A neighbour of mine died last week a moment after reaching his climax during the sexual intercourse with his young partner. He was 79 years old. Is there any available English word to describe his sudden death?


The Meaning And The Difference Between We Gotta Do Verses We Get To Do

I want to know the meaning and the difference between :- > We Gotta Do V/S We Get To Do **FYI** :- Someone said to me we believe :- > We gotta do whereas we get to do Please explain the meaning of each phrase and the difference between them in a easy to understand manner.


Negative into Affirmative

What is the affirmative sentence of this negative sentence? > He left no stone unturned. I was thinking... > Every stone was turned by him. It doesn't seem to be the possible answer.


Analyzing rhetorical strategies used

This essay question prompts: > Read the letter carefully. Then write an essay in which you analyze the > rhetorical strategies Lewes uses to establish her position about the > development of a writer. (Question 1) I am unsure what is meant by "development of a writer", much less what strategies are used to "establish her position". Any advice on where to begin would be helpful.


Term for "[Idiom], [Rhyme]"

Browsing the web, I came across this image of the cast of the television show _Community_ using a type of structure familiar to me, and I wondered if there's a name for it. The most familiar instance is likely "See you later, alligator." And because it brings to memory the similar "In a while, crocodile," I found a phrase that loosely encapsulated these with the Wikipage for Parting Phrases. Then I remembered other examples from the musical number _Telephone Hour_ in the 1963 film Bye Bye Birdie, in which teenyboppers _greet_ each other on the phone with phrases like               What's the story, morning glory?     What's [the] tale, nightingale?     ...     What's the word, humming bird?      And I've found several pages of lesser-known but valid examples of what I wish to describe, some examples being "So long, King [Donkey?] Kong" and "Mañana, iguana." So I was tempted to label this question "Term for '[ _Salutation_ ], [ _Rhyming Organism_ ]'." Now I wanted the term also to include the quotes from _Community,_ most of which (an example being "You're on your own, Al Capone") are preceded by a phrase that is not a salutation. But growing up we had a book called "See You Later, Alligator"; it contained the _alligator_ and _crocodile_ phrases, but it also had ones that were something like "See you on the veranda, panda" and "See you in pajamas, llamas." Because these opening phrases are not idioms or figures-of-speech, my ideal term does **not** include them. And even _organism_ may not quite capture the terminal phrase, as shown in Jeebs' example using a title in 2002's Men in Black II: "Let's make it happen, cap'n." So I have generalized it to _rhyme_. The _idiom_ restriction aside, I suspect there may be a term like _iambic pentameter_ or _Oom-Pah-Pah_ to describe the rhythm these phrases make when spoken. I am open to suggestions like these but my preference lies with terms more like antimetabole, a word I recently learned from ELU which focuses more on the structure or composition of the phrase than on its sound. Is there a word or phrase that precisely describes expressions of the form "[Idiom], [Rhyming Phrase]"?


Is there a name for uncertain memories?

I only know of confabulation, which is a related but distinct process of bringing together fact with misremembered things. Is there an accepted name for memories of which, for example, the person cannot tell if they happened in a dream or in reality?


Meaning of "Mr Right's first name is Always"

What does this quote mean? > When I eventually met Mr. Right I had no idea that his first name was > Always. > > -- Rita Rudner


Usage of "wish" in a sentence

I want to make a sentence with "wish". If someone is leaving tomorrow and I want him not to leave. What sentence should be correct using "wish": I wish you were not leaving tomorrow OR I wish you would not leave tomorrow.


Morally speaking, 1+1=2

I asked a question over on math.SE and as part of an exchange someone said: > **Morally** the function is _csc φ_ in the limit for the reason you mention. ...a pretty funny thing to say. I asked them about it and they said that, > It is a figure of speech sometimes used in mathematics and physics and that one interpretation might be > What follows may be wrong in detail, or not contain enough detail, but it > gives the right intuition. Does anyone know about how this started, or have any other understanding of what it means? Are there any parallels elsewhere? Even if used figuratively it betrays something quite strong about one's philosophical attitude, or that of one's community. For this reason I am quite interested in this turn of phrase. Does it reflect a lack of seriousness or respect for moral questions, or does it simply acknowledge that mathematical and social realities are different? Anything that can help me understand would be appreciated. **Edit:** To be clear, I would **like to know** if it has an implication regarding the value of moral reasoning. _If_ it has the implication that moral reasoning is less rigorous, then it is certainly a _possibility_. Please do not take my question as an assertion of what it does mean. Although some might find asking this outside the community in which it is used a little strange, there is one reason, and one excuse for this:   1. The word is probably used elsewhere in a similar way.   2. There's probably some mathematicians here. **Edit:** A coincidental discovery: There is such a thing as a moral graph, which seemingly has a rather esoteric etymology.


Which abbreviation for the world wars is more correct; WWI or WW1?

At my daughter's school, there is an exercise in general knowledge; this term's is about " The World Wars". The question posed is which abbreviation is correct, the first with Roman numerals or the second with Arabic numerals. Later, all questions use the second. I suspect the teacher is laying a trap so I want to be prepared. While studying history. I was taught the former was correct;checking the Chicago Manual of Style, both are correct but only one choice should be used in a text. Have you all any guidance to offer? Oh, one other thing: I'm American trained but we live in Australia and the school reckons it is quite posh, in a British way. Thanks.


"It is" or "it was" in this scenario?

Is the following sentence correct? > I still remembered that the school manager in the seminar talked really > sweetly about how bright future _it is_ if a student could finish their > courses. Clearly, the school manager talked in the past. Do I need to change to _it was_? > I still remembered that the school manager in the seminar talked really > sweetly about how bright future _it was_ if a student could finish their > courses.


When are facts implied in questions?

I was answering a question the other day **"How do I send an e-mail from SQL?"**. I supplied an answer dealing with the techniques necessary to perform an action in SQL, assuming that the questioner already knew how to send an email from within a program, and just needed help with the SQL. But I wondered later: is that right? Does the question imply he knows how to send an email (from inside a program), and only needs help with the SQL part? Perhaps you could help. Edited to clarify the meaning of 'send an email'.


Subject with multiple verbs

I wrote this sentence: > In both cases, execution is asynchronous, and results in the execution of > the command or event handler on the program’s one thread at the next > opportunity. I was told that I need to change it to "and it results", because the lack of subject makes the sentence hard to understand. I thought it should be obvious that the subject of "results" is the first "execution", but is that correct? I should probably replace the first "execution" with "invocation" to avoid the repetition, but do I need an "it" before "results"?


Is there an adjective to express a quality of being risky and dangerous but highly rewarding?


"Broadcast" or "broadcasted"

I'm not a native English speaker, so sorry if this is a very basic question. Is _broadcast_ a verb? If it is, what is the simple past and past participle: _broadcasted_?


Collective word for food and drink

Is there a word that best describes food and drink taken at the same time? I've thought of _refreshments_ and _consumables_ but neither seem right to me.


A function of "that" in "who are you that you are afraid of man"

> I, I am he who comforts you; who are you that you are afraid of man who > dies, of the son of man who is made like grass, (Isaiah 51:12 , English > Standard Version ©2001) How to express the function of "that" in the sentence in grammatical terms? A coordinating conjunction?


"Go ahead and head on over to ..."

Although I don't really have evidence for this, it seems to me that the phrase "go ahead and head on over to [...]" prevails more and more over simply "go to [...]". This phenomenon is particularly noticeable on the Internet; not only in articles, blogs, etc. but also in videos and podcasts. The phrase returns close to 1.8 million hits on Google at the time of writing this question. Example: > Go ahead and head on over to my website, for more details. Am I right in thinking that "Go ahead and head on over to..." is becoming more and more common? Is some nuance of "Go ahead and head on over to" lost on me?


Is ”what there is a reason to do” a valid construct?

From page 76 of Frederick Schauer’s _Thinking Like a Lawyer_ : > **What there is a reason to do** is different from what should be done, all > things considered, just as **what there is a right to do** is different from > what the right-holder actually gets to do, all things considered. Is this subject correct? If so, would someone please explain and gloss it? I can’t pinpoint why, but it sounds wrong. I guess its meaning is “What should be done due to a reason. . . .” **Supplementary** : Thanks to the answer below, I now apprehend the meaning of my sentence, but I still find the construction confusing. Would you please explain, in more detail, why this is 'essentially not (very) different from these examples'?


What's the right word for "unclearity"?

My dictionary tells me that there is no such word in English. So, what word would you substitute for **_unclearity_** below (please, don't change anything else): > — There is still something not clear to me in this business. How do they get > their profits back if they themselves never come back?   >  — Well, this **_unclearity_** was in fact the very reason why I decided to > call this meeting tonight.


"Bad weather doesn't exist" vs. "The bad weather doesn't exist"

Should it be: > Bad weather doesn't exist. or > _The_ bad weather doesn't exist.


Is "putting out an honest product" a valid phrase?

I don't know where I picked up the phrase seeing as Google has very few literal hits, but I want to use               "I'm looking for an employer who [....] is putting out an honest product"      in a job search ad. Apart from having a bit of a colloquial touch (which is understood and intended), is this a valid phrase to use? Is it free from problematic connotations?


Why is "bloody hell" offensive or shocking?

It seems to me that if one describes hell as 'bloody', that is simply describing one of the properties you'd expect of it. So, why is 'bloody hell' used as an offensive or shocking phrase?


Are there any pairs of words like "beloved"/"belovèd", "learned"/"learnèd" that maintain a semantic difference to the present day?

When I first read _Romeo and Juliet_ in high school, I remember being intrigued by pairs of words such as, > beloved/belovèd and > learned/learnèd where there's an _accent grave_ on the 'e' of the last syllable of one of each pair of word. One thing I've always thought is that, strictly interpreted, _beloved_ can really only be used as an adjective; if one wants to refer to the noun, as in _my beloved_ , it should properly spelt as _belovèd_. Similarly, I've always thought that _learned_ is, strictly speaking, only acceptable as the past tense of the verb _to learn_ , and that if one wanted to refer to the adjective form meaning "educated", as in _learned scholar_ , it would properly be spelt as _learnèd_. I don't remember where exactly I got these impressions from, and I don't know if they are correct. So my question is: Were there or is there any semantic difference between such pairs of words, or is it just a spelling idiosyncrasy? If there were such differences, do any persist to the present day? **Addendum** : These aren't the only such pairs; there are others, I distinctly remember seeing many in lots of Shakespeare's plays...


Difference between "jargon" and "technical terms"

Each subject matter has its own set of terms called _jargon_ which is expressed in its particular grammatical rules. Technical terminology or _Term of Art_ is the specialized vocabulary of any specialized field of knowledge, not just technical fields. So what is the difference between _jargon_ and _technical terms_?


What's "NAmE" abbreviated from in "Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary"?

The "N" in "NAmE" confuses me very much.


Words for "a bit sad" and "a bit happy"?

Are there words or other phrases for "a bit sad" and "a bit happy"? Thank you! Edit: I'm sorry for the confusion. I wanted at least two words: one for "a bit sad" and one for "a bit happy". Thanks anyway for the answers for mixed happy and mixed sad. I hope there will be other answers for the two distinct phrases. Thanks!


What is adjective form of "initiative"?

Merriam-Webster says "initiative" can be also an adjective, however, it is adjectival from "to initiate", meaning "introductory" or "preliminary". What is then the correct adjective of "initiative" as in "this guys shows great initiative"? This guy is...? Edit: I am afraid I did not phrase my question clearly: I am not interested in the meanings derived from "to initiate", actually I was quite surprised to find out this other meaning of the word. My question relates to -- what I believe is today's prime meaning of the word -- initiative as a positive quality in people who come up with their own solutions, need not to be told exactly what to do, etc. These people are ...?


is the phrase "please clarify" a command?

I wrote an e-mail: > Attached is the Report, received a short while ago, submitted by Peter > Pringle: > >   1. What did his colleague tell you should be entered under section titled: > Total Project Expenditure for the month? No total Project expenditure or > Labor expenditure has been indicated at any time on the Peter Pringle > report. >   2. Why does Peter's report have permanent staff shown under the labor > force [as opposed to my instruction to include only casual labor]? > > > Please clarify. to my line manager regarding what I saw as a conflict between the instruction I had been given by him and the example that had been submitted to me by the client (Peter Pringle) as a template for my submission. My manager responded by e-mailing me > Let’s get one thing straight, you do not delegate to me(CLARIFY). Was his response justifiable?


Hyphenation rules for product shelf life

Given this sentence: > Studies confirm the longest product shelf life of 3 years. How do I make it correct and clear? The product has a set of shelf lives (it is a pharmaceutical product). Studies confirm the longest self life, and therefore all the others as well. The longest shelf life is 3 years. Is some sort of hyphenation needed, like "longest product-shelf-life"?


The meaning of the phrase I'll wait you out

I heard this phrase in the TV show Grimm. Does it mean that I'll wait until you come out of the house?


The etymology оf "handkerchief"

I've heard that the origin of the word "handkerchief" is:   * hand (in the modern meaning),   * ker (old "cover"),   * chief (old "head"). In old French is couvrechief. Why these changes were take place? Can you tell more about this?


What's the difference between 'working in/from' and 'working at' a coffee shop?

1. Does _working at a coffee shop_ necessarily imply being employed there?   2. Is _working at a coffee shop_ never synonymous to _working in/from the coffee shop_?


"See it important" or "See it as important"?

I have encountered both. Which is (more) correct? Examples of use: > I see it important to stay fit. > > I see it as important to have education. I tried searching google for it, but the results are inconclusive...


Is this about future or past?

there is this table titled(Project Results Framework). In one of its columns it says " Indicators" and in the row below it says this: "By the middle of 2011, analysis is finalized and up to date comprehensive information about the potentials and deficiencies of the biosafety policy is available" ofcourse there are lots of other things with the same grammar in that column. All I want to know is the tense of this short paragraph. thanks in advance


Formal word for "gotten made"

Is there a formal term for " _gotten made_ " or " _gotten synthesized_ "? To be more clear lets assume that I have a design for a special chair; I ask the carpenter to fix it for me because I don't have the tools. It won't be appropriate to say that the carpenter made/fabricated/manufactured the chair. I want to emphasize my importance in this process. **Edit:** I need a term that can be used in passive voice. Something like: > This chair was _gotten-made_ from xyz carpentry services Any suggestions?


What do you call who writes comments? Commenter or commentator?

What should I call a person **writing/adding comments (by pressing "add comment" link** )? Commenter or commentator? From a deleted answer, I understand that there are commentators (like those unilaterally commentating or closing questions) and commenters (those entering in discussion with others). Is it correct? Isn't commenting by answering/questioning another commenter/answerer/questioner a live event? And what is the difference in these definitions between a commentator and an answerer?


What's the difference between "a year", "per year" and "out of a year"?

Suppose I want to say that I'm at sea seven months out of twelve. (Just an example.) I think I can say > "I'm at sea 7 months _a year_ " or > "I'm at sea 7 months _per year_ " or > "I'm at sea 7 months _out of a year_ " and in all three cases I would be correct. (Again, I _think_ , feel free to correct me!) But what's the difference? And which one would be the more appropriate?


Meaning of "it turned his brain"

What does this uncommon phrase mean? Does it mean "it made his head spin"? Or maybe it means "it went to his head"?


Would someone please explain this: "C++, pronounced "C plus plus," is a programming language that was **built off** the C language". What is meaning of "off" in this statement?


He nearly drowned

Imagine two similar, but technically different scenarios:   1. While swimming he was caught by the torrent. It put him under water, he breathed in some water, got unconscious. Some passers-by pulled him out of water, started CPR, and succeeded in saving his life.   2. He had planned to go swimming after work to his usual everyday place in the local river, but as he was busy at work he couldn't manage it. On the very same day the nearby dam failed, causing catastrophic flood on the very place he intended to swim. Thus he has been saved from drowning. Can you distinguish the two situations by a _single adverb_ (or a single-word- like phrase)? > He _nearly_ drowned. > > He _almost_ drowned. > > He was _close to_ drowning. etc. There is a related question Nearly or Almost, but not helpful for this case. * * * EDIT (in reaction to @JanusBahsJacquet's comment below one of the answers): You may also think of a **third scenario** somewhere in between the first two:  3\. While swimming he was caught by the torrent. Fortunately, thanks to his good physical form and a bit of luck, after a long and fierce fight with the elements, he overpowered the vortex and escaped from the water on his own. Would you also use > He nearly/almost drowned. for _this_ scenario?


Why is it called an “Indian file”?

I recently came across a US phrase, _Indian file_. This is utterly unheard of in the UK, and probably outside North America; at least I’ve certainly never heard of it. The phrase would be expressed in British English as _single file_. Why is it called _Indian file_ in the US? I’m guessing the phrase has something to do with the prevalence of Amerindians, but I can’t see any obvious etymology.


What is the difference between a catch and a handle? Ain't they the same thing? But here it said they got no handle but a catch: > It was very dark and dusty and draughty and they stepped from rafter to > rafter without a word except when they whispered to one another, "We're > opposite your attic now" or "this must be halfway through our house". And > neither of them stumbled and the candles didn't go out, and at last they > came where they could see a little door in the brick wall on their right. > There was no bolt or handle on this side of it, of course, for the door had > been made for getting in, not for getting out; but there was a catch (as > there often is on the inside of a cupboard door) which they felt sure they > would be able to turn.


What does "all rot" mean in here?

> I expect someone lives there in secret, only coming in and out at night, > with a dark lantern. We shall probably discover a gang of desperate > criminals and get a reward. **It's all rot to say** a house would be empty > all those years unless there was some mystery. **rot** verb /rɒt//rɑːt/ [I or T] (-tt-) Definition: to (cause to) decay     _The fruit had been left to rot on the trees._     _Rain has got in and rotted (away) the woodwork._     _the smell of rotting fruit_   Doesn't make sense.


"title" vs "appellation" vs "designation" vs "denomination"

I encountered these words and was trying to understand the subtle difference between them. From my understanding: _Designation_ is used when anything 'official' is being referred to, e.g. > He was designated as a professor in the computer science department. Also, _title_ is an identifying name given to something, e.g. > The River XYZ has been given the title ABC. However, _title_ , _appellation_ and _denomination_ are hard to differentiate from each other. Can someone point out specific usages which highlight the exact meaning of these words?


"can hardly" vs. "there's no way"

Does "can hardly" mean the same thing as "there's no way?" > I can hardly **___ __ ___ __ ___ __ ___ __** > > There's no way I can **___ __ ___ ___** Do these two mean the same thing? What's the difference, if any?


What is the difference between 'Muslim" and 'Islamic'?

I have seen 'Muslim' and 'Islamic' both used as adjectives to describe things relating to Islam. Is there a nuanced difference between the two words? I know that 'Muslim' can also be used as a noun, as in: > Muslims as the people who practice Islam. But, are the following sentences both correct? Are they equivalent? > The Quran is the Muslim holy book. > > The Quran is the Islamic holy book. Now that I have written this question, and tried to think of examples, perhaps Islamic is only an adverb? Would both of these sentences be correct? > Islamic people practice Islam. > > Muslim people practice Islam.


When did "y'all" become improper?

It is my understanding that the contraction `y'all` was considered correct American English in times past. At what point was this word removed from valid American English?


What is the correct pronunciation of the word "Islam"?

Some people pronounce the **S** in _Islam_ as **Z** , and others pronounce it as **S**. Which is correct?


What does he mean by iron country?

From The Haunted House of Dickens. He is travelling by train from north towards London when he says this: > It was a cold, dead morning (the sun not being up yet), and when I had > outwatched the paling light of the fires of the iron country, and the > curtain of heavy smoke that hung at once between me and the stars and > between me and the day, I turned to my fellow traveler and said:


"home to" or "home for"?

Which of the following is correct? > Himalaya is home to diverse flora. > > Himalaya is home for diverse flora. Or is there a better third possibility?


"which a life of Patriotism eminently entitles and quallifies, to enjoy." - Letter from March 6th 1797 by Oliver Ellsworth

> With the same ardour that I have sought the felicity and glory of your > Administration, do I now implore for you in repose, those sublime pleasures > from a review of the past and perspective of the future, **which a life of > Patriotism eminently entitles and quallifies** , _to enjoy_.   >  Source: 1797 Letter from Oliver Ellsworth (3rd Chief Justice of the US) to > George Washington First, why did Ellsworth precede the verb ("to enjoy") with the predicate ("those sublime pleasurse ... entitles and quallifies") ? I register that this is a letter from 1797 but would like a deeper explanation. I then moved "to enjoy" to a modern position : >   1. With the same ardour that I have sought the felicity and glory of your > Administration, do I now implore for you in repose _to enjoy_ , those > sublime pleasures from a review of the past and perspective of the future, > **which a life of Patriotism eminently entitles and quallifies**. > Second, I'm still muddled by the bolded phrase. Shouldn't the verbs be "entitle TO" and "quallify (ie qualify) FOR" ? The verbs with no prepositions afterwards sound deficient : >   1. With the same ardour that I have sought the felicity and glory of your > Administration, do I now implore for you in repose _to enjoy_ those sublime > pleasures **which a life of Patriotism eminently entitles YOU TO and > quallifies YOU FOR**. from a review of the past and perspective of the > future. > * * * **Supplement to Andrew Leach's Answer:**   1. Could you please demystify how and why " _to enjoy_ " should succeed   "those sublime pleasures ... **which a life of ... entitles and qualifies** ",   and NOT precede it?   2. How and why did Ellsworth omit "YOU" as the direct object of **entitles and quallifies**?    3. How can I make sense of #1 in my second box, if I wanted to position "to enjoy" before "those sublime pleasures ... **which a life of ... entitles and qualifies** " ?  In other words, is it possible to construe Ellsworth's writing with " _to enjoy_ " before "those sublime pleasures ..." ? I don't apprehend why, but possibly due to bias towards my first impression, I still think this conceivable.


"I came to do" vs. "I did"

What do we exactly mean when we say that we _came_ to do something? Consider these two sentences: >   1. I authored a book on peace. >   2. I came to author a book on peace. > Does the second sentence mean that I didn't know that I would author a book, but it turned out that I did?


Word for 'Teeth Chattering'

Is there any word or phrase for teeth chattering due to cold?


Etymology of "German" and "germane"

"German" is an adjective referring to anything from Germany. However, I recently stepped across this word "germane". "Germane" means to be "closely related".   Being interested, I looked up its history, and it apparently came from the same root as "German": Latin _`germanus`_. Can someone trace the etymology of these two words and show why they mean two different things?


Why The New York Times no longer capitalizes "E-mail"

Why isn't _E-mail_ capitalized like it used to be in The New York Times?


Why isn’t “lutherie” spelled “luthery”?

It seems to me that most English words similar to _lutherie_ (crafting stringed instruments) end in _‑y_. That is, nouns for professions or activities that are used instead of gerunds with objects. (That is, _lutherie_ is a noun, _crafting_ is a gerund, _stringed instruments_ is the object.) For example, _forestry_ (managing forests) or _archery_ (shooting arrows). Why does _lutherie_ end with _‑ie_?


What is the meaning of "six ways from Sunday"?

This is a line from the book Test Driven Development by Kent Beck: > Fortunately, we are well rested and relaxed and unlikely to make mistakes, > which is why we will go in teeny-tiny steps, verifying every- thing six ways > from Sunday. What does _six ways from Sunday_ mean? Also, has the meaning changed over time? And are there any variant forms of the expression?


Are there “X -scolds” formula words that go current other than “deficit scolds”?

I was interested to find the word, “deficit scolds” in Paul Krugman’s article titled “Hawks and Hypocrites” in New York Times (November 11). It appears in the following sentence: > Back in 2010, self-styled deficit hawks — better described as **_deficit > scolds_** — took over much of our political discourse. At a time of mass > unemployment and record-low borrowing costs, a time when economic theory > said we needed more, not less, deficit spending, the scolds convinced most > of our political class that deficits rather than jobs should be our top > economic priority. It’s not just the fact that the **_deficit scolds_** have > been wrong about everything so far.-- The **_deficit-scold movement_** was > never really about the deficit. Instead, it was about using deficit fears to > shred the social safety net.” Oxford online English Dictionary defines “scold” as “noun, archaic or U.S. meaning a woman who nags or grumble constantly. Cambridge online dictionary doesn’t show the usage of “scold” as a noun. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “scold” as a noun meaning 1. One who scolds habitually and persistently. 2. A woman who disturb the public peace by noisy and quarrelsome behavior. From Merriam-Webster I interpret “deficit-scolds” are those who are critical of the government’s financial policy and growing deficit. I wonder how new and how popular this word is in the U.S. Are there “X-scolds” formula words that run current, say “Communism scolds” “Abortion scolds,” “Gay-marriage scolds,” “SN and NC-17 movies scolds,” other than “deficit scolds”?


“ benefits of ” vs. “ benefits to”

I encountered an expression: > key **benefits _to_** using [something] To my mind the version below would sound more natural: > key **benefits _of_** using [something] Are both versions correct? Is there any difference in meaning?


correct usage of 'in spite of' instead of 'although'

It is difficult to figure out how to alter the word _although_ for a case like below as in my report there are many _although_.. so I am looking for an alternative like _in spite of_ > _Although_ the merging step increased the incorrect growth of the water over > the grasslands, the merging didn't affect the classified tree clusters > because the algorithm didn't lose any candidates. I have altered it as; > _In spite of_ the incorrect growth of the water over the grasslands by the > merging step, the merging didn't affect the classified tree clusters because > the algorithm didn't lose any candidates. I am not very sure whether my 2nd sentence is correct. would it be ok?


What's the difference between "really" and "for real"?

For example:   * I don't know who Tiger Woods is.   * For real?  and   * I don't know who Tiger Woods is.   * Really?  I don't see any difference in this case, but are there some specific cases when these exclamations are different?


Definite article or none in "...at Taipei Zoo" or "... at the Taipei Zoo"?

>   1. "Come see the baby panda, Yuan Zai, at Taipei Zoo" >   2. "Come see the baby panda, Yuan Zai, at the Taipei Zoo." > In my opinion it should be the second choice. It belongs to a specific location and also follows what I would classify as an enclosed garden like environment, which are typically fronted by an article: e.g. "the botanical gardens". I can find examples of websites using both structures. In America there are also a number of examples of zoos following both patterns: Brookfield Zoo, also known as the Chicago Zoological Park. Is there a pattern to follow here?


Etymology of "div"

Acting like a _div_ yesterday:- > a stupid or foolish person I started to wonder how this term of abuse came about. Urban Dictionary has a quaint tale:- > Actually originates from prison slang in the UK. A job often given to the > lowest inmates was to put cardboard dividers into boxes. Someone given this > job was a 'divider' or a 'div'. Now used as an insult to those who display > stupidity. which sounds somewhat contrived to me. Collins has it:- > C20: probably shortened and changed from deviant Inky Fool, a website new to me, offers two other explanations:- > Div is a scouse word for idiot. It is short for divvy which in turn is a > corruption of Deva. The Deva Hospital was a well known mental hospital > (since renamed the West Cheshire Hospital) on the outskirts of Chester. > Chester was founded by the Romans who named it Deva. and > Derived from "individual needs child", a cruel schoolyard insult. Not at all > politically correct. Someone who's "not quite normal", an idiot, spaz, etc. Green's _Dictionary of Slang_ suggests:- > perhaps related to DUH! It seems to me that at least four of these explanations are wrong. Does anyone know the correct etymology of this term?


Is there anything wrong with the word “denigrate”?

A few years ago there was a controversy over the word _niggardly_ — a perfectly innocent word that unfortunately sounds like a racial slur. Given that controversy, is it safe to use _denigrate_ , which is actually derived from the Latin _niger_? Can whole families of words become tainted purely by association?


Writing “the class of 2014”  in a résumé?

Is _“class of 2014”_ correct? Is _“class of ’14”_ correct? Assuming the reader is aware of the context, is simply using _“’14”_ correct?


Plural of "document"

I thought the plural of _document_ is _document_ itself. Which one is valid, _document_ or _documents_?


Cut the lights on

This expression is commonly used in the southern United States from Oklahoma to Virginia, and is patently illogical, and yet fails to inspire any consternation or lack of semantic connection. On a very basic level, I can understand how it probably grew from the slang request to "cut the power", to "cut the lights off", to the corollory request to "cut the lights on". What tickles me is how remarkably bizarre the expression is, and how totally unremarkable it seems to be to everyone who uses it or hears it. You would never ask someone to "cut the piece back on the cake ", so why is it that no one seems to notice the same impossibility with regards to electricity and lights?


Why was Zormpa changed to Zorba?

In the original Greek text, Alexis Zorba's surname was Ζορμπά [Zormpa]. Does anyone know why the name came to be transliterated, in the English translation, as Zorba?


What does “One can easily give it a miss” mean?

I read this in a movie review: > One can easily give it a miss. What does it mean? And what is this type of construction called? (I'd like to investigate it on Google.)


simple past vs past perfect

I'm studying English and I want to ask about a sentence from my book: > For myself I kept a solitary piece of china, one of the few remaining plates > from the set my grandfather bought my mother for her wedding. I think it should be like this: > For myself I kept a solitary piece of china, one of the few remaining plates > from the set my grandfather **had bought** my mother for her wedding. It's because -- clearly -- grandfather had bought the china before I took them. I think grammatically _had bought_ is more accurate. However, is _bought_ grammatically acceptable? Or is the book wrong?


What does "Small-ball crap" mean?

I heard it on _House of Cards_ , the American TV series. The Congressman says it during a political discussion: > I hate this small-ball crap! What is its meaning and etymology?


Question tags: Does "must" and "mustn't" in the same sentence sound right?

I know I have posted this question before, but it has been closed down due to some issues. > You mustn't watch too much TV, must you? Is the sentence above correct? It was printed out in my English activity book. It doesn't sound right to me. Also, is it okay to write 'TV' in a formal sentence such as during an exam? I really hope someone can help clarify these doubts.


Is “unseductive” an established English word, or just coined?

In the article of Time magazine (May 17) dealing with the arrest of IMF Chief, Dominique Strauss-Kahn on alleged charges of assaulting a hotel housekeeper, under the title of “The Seduction myth: What the French still don't get about sex,’ I found the word, _‘Unseductive behavior.”_ The meaning of this word is easily imaginable, and it’s no wonder to have “Unseductive” as the derivative from “Seductive.”. But strangely enough, I couldn’t find entry of the word, “Unseductive” in any of Japanese English dictionaries at hand, nor in other dictionaries including Oxford Advanced Leaner’s Dictionary, Merriam Webster Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary online and other online dictionaries. Is the word “Unseductive” well-received English word or just coined by the author. The word appeared in the following sentence: “The arrest of the "great seducer," as Strauss-Kahn is commonly known in France — on shocking charges of _notably unseductive behavior_ toward an immigrant single mother working as a hotel housekeeper — didn't come entirely out of the blue for those who have closely observed his behavior toward women over the years.”


What does it mean "reject it who will"?

The following passage is from _Les Misérables_ by Victor Hugo translated by Charles E. Wilbour. > This materialism is an excellent thing, and truly marvellous; reject it who > will. Ah! when one has it, he is a dupe no more; he does not stupidly allow > himself to be exiled like Cato, or stoned like Stephen, or burnt alive like > Joan of Arc. Those who have succeeded in procuring this admirable > materialism have the happiness of feeling that they are irresponsible, and > of thinking that they can devour everything in quietness — places, > sinecures, honours, power rightly or wrongly acquired, lucrative > recantations, useful treasons, savoury capitulations of conscience, and that > they will enter their graves with their digestion completed. I wonder what the grammatical structure of the sentence "reject it who will" is and what it means.


What's the difference between "blond" and "blonde"?

I hear all the time that one word is for males and the other is for females but I'm skeptical...


Should individual letters of the Latin alphabet be italicized?

Dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Dotting the _i_ 's and crossing the _t_ 's. Should individual letters of the Latin alphabet be italicized in the above example? EDIT (AFTER Neil Coffey's ANSWER): According to "The Chicago Manual of Style" (7.59) we should prefer the latter.


Swearing: “bollixed”

> The House Ethics Committee has now hired an outside counsel to investigate > its own **bollixed** investigation into the conduct of Representative Maxine > Waters.   >   >  (“The House’s Farcical Self-Investigation”, _The New York Times_ , July 24, > 2011.) Is _bollixed_ less innocent than it seems? Is it reasonable to assume that neither writer is aware that _bollix_ is a direct adaption of _bollocks_ (or _ballocks_ ), meaning “testicles”? Finally, can we use it in formal English?


The difference between "require digit", "requires a digit" and "requires digits"

For example, we have few addresses like:   * "Box 111"   * "Some Rd Suite 1" And we also have addresses that without any number:   * "Some Rd" So to communicate that we prefer the address with numbers, what should we say? "A valid mailing address requires":   1. digit   2. a digit   3. digits **Update:** Will there be any difference if we change "digit" to "number"? "A valid mailing address requires":   1. number   2. a number   3. numbers **Update:** "contain digit/number" is a literal translate from Chinese. In Chinese, "digit/number" is used as an abstract concept here so no need to specify the quantity. Are there the same thing for English, or we have to specify the quantity and modifiers to concrete it?


What is the difference between the nouns start and beginning?

I'm curious about the general difference between the two, but I have to be more specific. I'd like to know the difference in the context of the noun _period_ — should I use "the start of the period" or "the beginning of the period"?


Does "uncanny" have a negative connotation to it?

Uncanny seems to be the word I'm looking for to describe something, but I'm worried that it might have a negative connotation to it. Does it? What are some words that are very close to having the same meaning and don't have a negative connotation?


Is this a valid sentence? "Should there be any issues need to be clarified, please contact me"

Is this a valid sentence? > Should there be any issues need to be clarified, please contact me.


Difference between "glass" and "shot"

I heard this line in a song: > It wasn't a shot of cognac, it was a glass of cognac. Then the crowd listening to the singer started laughing. What is the difference in meaning between these two words in this context? Maybe I don't get it because I am a little far from the culture of drinking. Here is the spotify link to the song, unfortunately that's a live version and I couldn't find it on YouTube. He sings that between 4:18 and 4:20.


Is "bone-off" normal english term or a new term established on the TV show?

On the canadian TV show Kenny vs Spenny, season 4 episode 1, they use the term "bone-off" - it was the intensive finals of the competition where first guy to get boner loses. I considered this word a new term they just created for fun, since they also used the term "stand-off" for the finals of their competition "who can stand the longest". How big was my surprise when I saw the definition in the Urban dictionary: > The act of two or more males keeping trying to keep an erection down for the > longest time. The first one with an erection loses. Now I am confused - was it an actual english word _before_ this show was broadcasted? Or was this term created on the show and added to the dictionary afterwards? I know for certain that TV has this power - in my native language there were some new terms introduced by one movie and now whole nation uses these new terms, so it became part of the (coloquial) language! PS: all terms like _bone-off_ , _stand-off_ etc. could possibly be funny playful analogies of _play-off_ ... (?) > an additional match played to decide the outcome of a contest _(definition > by Google)_


How to say "Go ahead, I will follow you later" in other ways?

My friends are going out for lunch and ask me to go with them. I haven't finished my work. I will follow them 10 minutes later. Normally, what will you say? beside "I will follow you later."


Origin of "If I've told you once I've told you a thousand times"

I've searched the web and found only definitions and paltry speculation as to the origin of this scolding phrase. How did it get put together this illogical way? Are there tacet words in the phrase that, if said, would make it seem more logical, such as > If I've told you once, I [might as well] have told you a thousand times [for > all the good it did]. Where does this phrase originate, and how did it end up getting phrased that way?


What is the word whose definition is 'the background laugh on tv shows'?

Tv shows (especially comedy shows) have a background audience laughter and I remember there's a word whose synonym is the background laughter on tv shows. But, I'm not able to identify the word. Any of you know the word? It is not laugh track or any other word given here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laugh_track. I distinctly remember that the word doesn't have 'laugh' in it.


What two words best describe these features?

I am in the middle of developing an app. I'm having some trouble trying to decide the best usage for two features in particular. I know what both of these words mean, but I am becoming increasingly confused and irritated the more I try to find a good-fitting word for both features that is not only easily understood by your average Joe, but also doesn't sound _too weird_ or out of place. `Expense` and `Purchase`. The reason I am becoming confused is because I was originally using the word Expense to allow you to enter things like Grocery Shopping items, utility bills, petrol, lunch, dinners, etc. But then I wanted to make things a little easier. I wanted to separate necessities, or things that we really need from things that we want - or just simply one-off purchases. So then I introduced the word Purchase. So now I have a menu that looks like this: `File ---New ------Purchase ------Expense ... ` You click on New Purchase if you've just bought something and want to record it (this is a budgeting app). You click on New Expense if you have things to pay for like bills, petrol etc on a regular basis. I'm not sure anymore. I've confused the heck out of myself and now I need some help. Which word would best describe the feature: "I just _purchased_ something and need a record the details of this transaction" (Please don't suggest using the actual word Transaction. That word is literally everywhere else.)? And which word would best describe this feature: "I have some bills and/or items that I buy on a regular basis, and I want to record the details of these future transactions."? Remember: I'm trying to keep them separate. I know I could just use one word for both features, but due to many minor differences in each feature it could be confusing to others and I like a nice and clean interface.


Usage of "brook" to mean "burp"?

Has anyone ever come across ? _brook_ (not too sure about spelling) used instead of _burp_? > I brooked/I burped. > > Was that you brooking/burping? It may be derived from Scottish Gaelic.


Are there other words with the same weird spelling / pronunciation combo as "victual"?

I've always thought that "victual" was a funny word because its spelling and pronunciation are so alien to anything else I know of in the English language. The free dictionary explains the origin of the spelling and pronunciation here: > **Usage Note:** The modern pronunciation of victual, (vtl), represents an > Anglicized pronunciation of the Old French form vitaille, which was borrowed > into English in the early 14th century. The modern English spelling reflects > the fact that in both French and English the word was sometimes spelled with > a c, and later also with a u, under the influence of its Late Latin ancestor > victulia, meaning "provisions." The word is now occasionally spelled vittle > rather than victual, but in either case the pronunciation is (vtl). I was curious if there are any other words that have similar "ct", "ctu", or "tu" letter combinations that are pronounced like "tt"?


Meaning of ' as long as you fed him, he would be cooperative'

About the meaning of the sentence 'as long as you fed him, he would be cooperative': (1) The clause 'as long as you fed him' is about past or present one? (2) Depending on the above, the 'would' at the last clause is of conditional mood or past of 'will'? Could you kind of explain the meaning of the sentence as clarifying?


What is the word pronounced at 0:48 in this video?

In this video, there is a word that I try manage to guess (I'm french), but in vain. At 0:47, he says:   "there is this **X** that all software developers are the same." What is **X**? I understand that the meaning would be "rumor" but I'm curious about what it is. Anybody knows?


Intellectual who supports a political party in return for benefits

What is the right single word for an intellectual (often a journalist) who is not a member of a political party, but justifies the party's causes to the general public and secretly takes benefit from them in return?